This is mostly incorrect. You are stating this as fact, when it is your opinion.

1. The company is trending towards noncompliance
2. They can't be out of compliance until the end of the 3 yr measurement period
3. If they are out of compliance (which it looks like they might be) at that time, we will go from there

Everything else you posted is your opinion, and bordering on paranoia. The "fair share" buzzword is being overhyped and taken out of context. Nobody is selling you anything. This issue is receiving the proper amount of attention from your union. Check with your rep if you don't believe me.

There-in lies the problem (bolded part).

Are we going to effectively "sell" scope (jobs) in exchange for some type of monetary/contractual gain as compensation for the violation, or are we going to try and enforce our scope as it is written and tell the company to comply....

Seems from history that some sort of relief for the company is the likely case.

Leine,

Respectfully, I disagree with you.

Paranoia would maybe be correct if Republic did not receive (scope noncompliance) language in section 1 of c2012 after we were told for 2-3 years that they were in compliance and we just couldn't read.

The proof will be in the pudding. What the union does when we are at the end of the measurement window will be the determiner of whether anyone is justifiably distrustful or pessimistic, or whether they were correct on their assessment of past practice being a predictor of future actions.

I'll agree with that, and don't fault anyone for being cautious wrt out scope enforcement. Paranoia may have been too strong a word, and I didn't mean it as an insult to hockey (even though it came across that way.) I just don't see us "caving" and feel like guys are already resigned to "DALPA is just gonna sell scope" as if its inevitable. None of the reps I've spoken with indicate anything other than an expectation of compliance with section 1. If the company is not in compliance they have said they will pursue a remedy via the grievance process. Not a single one has said they are willing to trade for $.

disregard.

Same thing I have been told when discussing it with the Reps around the system.

I read a letter from my union implying that even if we are out of scope compliance and under our contractually required share of flying, we are still doing our fair share. That is my union's opinion. My opinion is the the same as just about every other pilot here. Our fair share is what we negotiated. It is a worthless section if it is not enforced.

I like the idea, but I do see two downsides.

1) Someone junior swaps out with someone senior. Result is pilots in between the two move down a number in the category.

2) A pilot who sees someone junior to him get a swap to a category he wants feels like his seniority has been abrogated.

Solution: Have a base swap board. All requested swaps must stay up for 30 days to give all pilots a chance to bid. After a swap, for bidding purposes a pilot must use the junior of either his seniority or of the pilot's seniority he is swapping with until he can hold that category through the normal AE process.

This way, no other pilot is "harmed" and two pilots are happier. Although one problem would be the IT programming for bidding using a different seniority number.

Would the swap incur a seat lock? Could a Capt and FO swap?

I don't understand why bidding preferences in everyone's bid couldn't protect them from being "harmed". In my real world scenario there is a guy 4 people below me that was MD'd to LAX. I would have VD'd if I had known that I was going to lose 17% in the last bid, and perhaps that MD would want to come back to SLC.

I just don't understand why the system isn't sophisticated enough to reshuffle everyone's preferences when they do it every month with line bidding. At least on same equipment where there is no training event.