Tony,

In the short time I've been with the company, each bid generates it's own training letter, listing class start dates and individuals assigned to each class. Following bids generate their own training letters and begin where the preceding training letter stops.

So in Jake Speed's example of Pilot A & B, how does Pilot A (bid 2/training letter 2) start training before Pilot B (bid 1/training letter 1)? Pilots on training letter 1 should be complete or have entered training before pilots assigned to training letter 2 enter the picture. Remember, in Jake's example both pilots had not entered any training as a result of bid 1 and both originally had slots on training letter 1. Pilot A re-bid on Bid 2 and was assigned a class on training letter 2 earlier than Pilot B's training letter 1 class date. Seems unusual to me. In Jake's case, how do the facts of the situation stack up to the intent of passover pay?

As for Contract Enforcement stating "we" had no case, anybody who has ever been to an arbitration knows it's not always who has the tightest case who wins. If the client has the backbone, lawyers are trained, good ones anyway, to argue their client's case to the best of their ability, regardless of case's strengths or weakness. I have personally witnessed arbitrators question the substance of a lawyers position. The lawyers response: "It is an argument." In the end, this lawyer saved his client a large sum of money with his "argument."

As I understand our MEC's position on the issue, they didn't want to waste the $$ necessary to grieve the issue. Yet, our Chairman proposes a position on retro which he hopes/doesn't think will pass. His support/position on retro may not have a direct $$ cost, but then how do you put a price on unity??

I