Originally Posted by 2cylinderdriver

While I like your way..this is the facts from the CBA:

1. The SIG may use the pairing dispute procedure described
in this paragraph only to dispute new pairings. A “new”
pairing is one which is materially different from the way the
pairing was constructed in the three previous bid periods.
A pairing is not new if it has been built and flown materially
the same way without challenge for three consecutive bid
periods after 5/31/1999. A change in a deadhead carrier or
service provider (e.g., change from Delta to United or from
Super Shuttle to Argenbright) shall not, by itself, constitute a
material change unless such deadhead change eliminates
a layover or occurs mid-pairing.

The basic point is, if a pairing has flown 3 months prior to being disputed by the SIG, it is no longer allowed to be disputed. What hurts the argument is when they argue the dispute with the company, the Company uses the data on who flew/picked up he pairing Voluntarily as a stick to beat us. Flying one voluntarily does not make it un-disputable, but doing so has the same effect by taking away a significant part of our power to affect change.
"It can't be that bad, 24/25 pairings were picked up under a code other than RSV !" Hard to argue that one. Generally the guys picking up disputes are JUNIOR, trying to make their lives better, well someday all the pairings will look like this crap if you do not get on board and do it fast.