I am pretty amazed at some of the responses in this thread. I mean, some of you are actively bashing the guy for being an entrepreneur and doing something good for the pilot group.

As for the status quo comments, I mean for me it changed the status qua because it has fundamentally made my job harder, less financially rewarding and far more of a hassle. I understand what you are saying dera but I can see why people would get it confused.

Sabre and Decs are antiquated systems and QT simply did what AA has done to all the gate computers, put an easy to use graphical interface over top the ancient sabre. I get it, you can learn it, but there are certainly better things I would rather do in my free time.

Thanks to MH, I for one greatly miss your product and really appreciate not only your hard work but also your drive to better yourself, your family and our lives. Good on you.

Im just trying to point out the union doesn't have an official leg to stand on with this. Calling the reps names or saying it's a BS line won't change that fact.
No. The NMB wont let you strike over QT. Thats what status quo violation would mean. And since it operated outside the scope of our CBA, it is not a past practice violation either.
Would I like to see QT back? Yes. Can I live without it? Absolutely. Do I like getting crap for it's removal? Couldn't really give a damn.

Actually if you go back through DTS, there’s quite a few past practice disputes won in the pilot group favor that don’t appear in the CBA.

This issue is like a hacker suing Microsoft when they patch a bug, claiming in the past they allowed unauthorized access.
You can't arbitrate unauthorized access and claim it must be allowed.
Like I said earlier, the first official opportunity to discuss this is during the limited reopener.
It does not seem to be very high priority for our pilots.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. There’s enough company material pushing the use of QT the last few years to make a case.

Point out to some, I can't find anything official.
Only things I can find are the exact opposite.

You’re not looking hard enough.

Probably harder than most.

Ask anyone hired within the last 12 months. The schoolhouse answer in our 10 minutes DECS class was “don’t worry about all of this, you’ll use QT anyway”. Maybe that doesn’t meet the threshold of status quo in your opinion, but that was being taught in the schoolhouse...and there were only a couple of instructors “teaching DECS”. Teaching in the schoolhouse, at least to a new hire, gives the impression of company approved

Status quo violations mean major disputes serious enough that the NMB would authorize a strike over it.
It is not my opinion. It is a fact.
There is also a Supreme Court case saying effectively that status quo does not apply to things that weren't there when the CBA was negotiated.
QT wasn't there when CBA was negotiated.
But this is just a BS line while you know, sucking up.