First, is this a "misconception" or does it just does not matter? An agreement is an agreement. Would Delta let us slide on recall items if I stated, "yeah, but you added that three years ago...." ?

It is bothersome that three plus years ago dozens of pilots knew that it was unlikely the revisions would be abided. These concerns reached such a level that the architect of the agreement made himself available ( very responsibly and professionally I might add) to answer questions and calm these concerns.

Yes, the agreement was an improvement. Unfortunately, as has been the case with nearly all of our scope; Company noncompliance will be fixed with an insignificant pecuniary solution.

I would like to see some research into the question of whether provisions can be added to scope which, by agreement, permits self help should the Company be found out of compliance. In other contracts noncompliance can result in withdrawal of services. Would an agreement to do so pass NMB muster as a agreed end run around the RLA?

Second, the AF/KLM/AZ agreement has nothing to do with the Virgin agreement. The structures, measures and equities are nothing the same. We only agree that tying them together clouds the water and reduces transparency on a very serious scope violation.

We need to apply for a permit to protest at the next investor day ... want to see the benefit of $2 billion in ill advised stock purchases vanish in an instant for a $40 investment at the local sign company? Who would want to own the stock of an airline with labor problems?

Just because we have the permit, does not mean we have to use it. Giving Mr. Anderson a copy of the permit might just earn our contract a bit more respect than it has been getting lately.

Or wa(r)sh machine & dryer. :confused:

We can look at the marketing schedule loads. Noncompliance is a certainty.

Lets get a permit. I could use the exercise.

The Chairman's letter would indicate that we are still following the recovery compact. Touting the benefits of working together. The selective application of which the company has mastered and our union has yet to comprehend. We'll see. It probably will be financial remuneration rolled into C2015 with an adjusted scope arrangement.

When the agreement was signed Europe was expanding. Shortly after almost overnight it melted down. The company I understand is now in compliance on a ongoing basis but has no intent to make up the shortfall. It was easy to predict non compliance after Europe started crashing. Those touting non compliance however based that on repeated statements that the cuts over the Atlantic were one sided. That was not the case.
The number of flights involved on a daily basis was not high however I would expect the company to provide an amount equal to the lost seats in direct or indirect compensation.

Yes. I'm on board. I've long advocated the leverage some old-fashioned labor unrest (or threat of it) would bring to the fight. RA abhors the thought of being another run-of-the mill airline with all the inherent labor problems. Why don't we exploit that??

I would be incredibly impressed if MD was able to propitiate that kind of statement.

But we both know our MEC doesn't have the stones to do it.

More excuses for the company's bad faith.

Are you a spokesman for the company or for DALPA? No difference, I guess.

https://crewroom.alpa.org/ual/imageview.aspx?id=5896

As for our Chairman, he seems to enjoy it.

Norfork? How do ya get THAT?

Oh, and while we are at it, ISO is KINston, not KINGston.

... and Sailing, that is not unreasonable.

But, if you are like me and enjoy flying Delta jets (I think we're the same in that regard) then how do we encourage Delta to use Delta pilots to perform Delta flying?

You are a very reasonable man. But aren't you the least bit frustrated personally with yet another scope violation?

The stove pipe effect of enough seats to fly 11 widebodies across the Atlantic a day would be at least equivalent to those 10 A330's we are ordering. Lets see how much down stream pin action is generated by those hitting the line.