What in hell does that even mean Mr DPA screecher guy?

Simply not true.

I saw section 1 only minutes before everyone else did. Before doing anything else I started modelling jobs and the results of the changes. The litmus test has always been the effect on jobs. Section 1 protected (and added) more jobs than the status quo. You know I posted the data on the BHR change, in jobs, here.

C20's incorrect publication was based on a guy using data he had squirrelled away from his work on C2012. His data was at least 3 years out of date and because he started with the wrong figures his conclusions were wrong. I tracked the source of his errors and spoke with him about it. He acknowledged the errors.

The official data comes from our negotiators and experts (last time, this time, every time). It will be triple checked and correct.

You are smarter than to follow the Dannn model of just shouting "liar" whenever confronted with data that does not align with your confirmational bias - or at least you had been some years ago.

That's because their scope was hit hard in BK. Doesn't matter what happened last TA, but where it stands in its totality. Don't they have 88 seat RJ's, not to mention USAirways glut of big RJ's??? And cherrypicking individual sections of a contract doesn't tell the whole story. Can't you just wait for a TA to come out before you spew these deceptions?

Who wouldn't? What's your/their plan to get it? Just say it really LOUD like AA did a few years ago?

If the company is in compliance then there is no need for a concession to get into compliance during negotiations.

The precise reason I resigned is encapsulated in the administrative changes adopted unanimously by our MEC in June. The exact reason for those changes is to make the Scope Compliance and Analysis Committee a functional committee which can collaboratively and proactively seek compliance with our contract.

A guy in the administration owes a duty of loyalty to his boss, the Chairman. It was a rough year which in addition to the time involved, cost about $45,000 in uncompensated travel & office days (which are still travel). The return for all of that work was the enmity of guys like you. So why bother trying to help? My heart will always be in serving the Delta pilots but it was time to move on and enjoy the much greater political flexibility of being a non-volunteer member in good standing. Besides the current SC&A Chairman is a very smart guy with a much better personality than mine who isn't on social media - trifecta!

Maybe, maybe not.

There are always plans A, B, C, ... .

Like socialism, it will work this time because our guys are smarter than those guys.

Network can get 50 more 76-seaters tomorrow... At mainline.

Nothing is preventing the Delta pilots from flying them.

Nothing

Oh, and I love how you gloat how your profit sharing check will be better if we outsource 50 more 76-seaters. You do realize that direct increase in Profit Sharing is directly due to a pilot making sub-par wages to fly newly outsourced 76-seat jets. How nice of you to be excited about that.

And those plans involve mainline pilots flying 76-130 seat jets if no more are allowed to be outsourced. Outsourcing more 76-seaters just allows them to implement their plan to outsource more jets, longer.

That is absurd.

Like they wont buy the 190s.

We are done falling for that old line.

Exactly.

He has his, pull up the ladder.

So many of these selfish pilots don't know what a union is nor do they care about our profession.