Actually, don't call your rep.; call the negotiations chair- that's what I did. He gave a great explanation of where that definition came from during negotiations and why. He also gave a great explanation for why the MEC allows the company to build some of these pairings that are technically in violation of 25.A.1.a...and why others have been discontinued (like your aforementioned 4-leg pairings that end in a Carib/Latin turn...show me one in the December bid package).

Or, one step further, how about picking up the phone and contacting your scheduling committee chair? You did that right? I mean, before you got on an internet forum and cried your eyes out?

That's right, I almost forgot...I did...and he said he hadn't heard from you. In fact, he hadn't heard from any of the guys that were at last month's LEC meeting griping about them. You see, without smoke there was no fire. But guess what? After he was made aware of the potential problems with those pairings, he invoked that "exception" rule you snicker at and guess what? THEY WENT AWAY! I mean, look in the December bid package...GONE! It's amazing! Now we'll just have to turn our attention to those LAS turns out of ORD on the backside...

Man, if you'd spend half the energy you use *****ing on this board towards positive action steps then we'd all be better off...