Old 05-06-2013, 01:05 PM
  #16  
2cylinderdriver
Gets Weekends Off
 
2cylinderdriver's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Posts: 732
Default

Originally Posted by TonyC View Post
Posting 13-04 was not legal as a separate, stand-alone bid. It did not meet the requirements of a bid, as the prerequisite information was not (and is still not) available for pilots to consider in making their bidding choices. The Posting 13-03 Training Letter is still not published.

The Posting was not legal as a separate bid, and the VP of Flight Ops communicated his intention to conduct the vacancy and excess functions at the same time. Since it is not legal as a separate bid, and it was intended to be combined with the excesses of Posting 13-03, the two postings should be treated as a single posting and processed accordingly.


The combined lost earnings of the affected pilots should make this well worth pursuing to the end.


FDXLAG makes a good point about training order as well, and the violation is the foundation of another equally valid grievance. (He didn't mean to make the point, but he drew attention to it.) All of the pilots who were excessed involuntarily from their seats should train after the pilots who bid to relieve or bid to fill vacancies.






.
I am not sure I see any "prerequisite" information as being required, no where does it state in the CBA that I can see that you need a training letter published before another bid closes. You know the seat you are bidding from and other than that what else is required (per the CBA)?
2cylinderdriver is offline