That answer's pretty simple. Go to the ALPA forum. Look for the names of the guys who were there. Then look on the forum for ACL65, Johnso29, CLMP or slowplay....

It's not quite as easy to claim hearsay when the source is presented and you can ask them directly.

Well, they re-ran the NYC MD88 FO bid for April. Again it has a high threshold of 89:30. Because they awarded annual training to a few at the bottom, they were able to increase the number of line holders to 40 instead of 38 as it was posted before. There are 78 people available in category right now.

What can we do (call the union and complain) that the AVLs are too high for the available number of hours?

It was in a meeting before the meeting.

I've got it! Who now equals "it!"

A meeting before the meeting where some scope authority uttered something contrary to what was said by the MEC Chair in public...yup, we're narrowing the hearsay window!

So far only a FNW pilot who wasn't at either meeting has posted on the ALPA boards about a pre-meeting meeting....since he wasn't at either one would that make it double hearsay?

Snowplay,
I was not at the meeting and did not talk directly to anyone who was there. But why, I ask, are you so quick to disbelieve the above? Did we not just give the company relief on a scope related issue? I don't think DAL pilots would make this up unless there was something to it. I personally am very disapointed on our unions history dealing with scope issues. I guess being furloughed while our connection carriers were hiring like crazy and mainline pilots where greenslipping has left me a little skeptical.
Although I was not in attendance at the above mentioned meeting I was, however at a road show in LAX where I heard with my own ears "70 seats was a line in the sand" just prior to us yielding to 76 seat scope. I guess my definiton of "line in the sand" differs from that of others.

Scoop

I think you telling us what someone else heard is double hearsay.

Nope, no relief given. In the grievance settlement management agreed to ALPA's interpretation of the disputed language. I'm sure you read the letter explaining the likelihood and potential outcomes of litigating the grievance, whether win, lose or draw.

I've relaxed on my view of the grievance as relief, however the communication of such was absolutely, 100% **** poor.

I agree with 80KTS. I would have preferred not to do what we did, but the 76 seat scope grievance is behind us.

Actually, it's just as easy. Using one's real name guarantees no more accuracy then using a screen name. So I ask again. What makes their hearsay any MORE accurate then ACL65's or 80KTSCLAMPS? You have yet to prove that.