Originally Posted by
bluejuice
Guys,
My fault and I apologize to BC, but I find it absolutely ridiculous that the CDG-STN-MEM is disputed some months but not others. Can you have it BOTH ways???????? If so, you can fire away at me all night long, but the SIG is wrong about this.
Don't bother explaining the process to me, as I know why they do it. But it is plain and simple stupid to say it's OK one month yet be called a non-member next. Maybe non member Bob is right after all.
F'in stupid.
Different issue now: It is a duty issue, when a pairing consistently breaks scheduled duty limits, it is also a valid reason for dispute and being fixed.
#4, 11, 48, 103, 108, 118, 124, 126, 186, 239, 273, 279, 337, 475, 482, 672, 673, 2003, 2007, 2009, 2015, 2016, 2018, 2023, 2025, 2027, 2054, and 2073 (2-leg sequence of CDG-MAN-MEM in the same duty period or a 2-leg sequence of CDG-STN-MEM in the same duty period) In September 2007, the sequence of CDG-MAN-MEM was disputed and the disputable issues have not been addressed. The CDG-STN-MEM sequence, while not disputable previously, is now being disputed based upon new times which put the scheduled duty period very close to the 13:30 limit. Based on operational history the STN-MEM has to date blocked in late in 43% of the time it’s flown.