Why would the union want to stop a bid? They're the ones responsible for this anyway....

I called the MEC office last week, and asked a few questions. Here is what I was told.

If you turned 60 before December 13, regardless of whether or not you attended back seat training, you are considered a back seater. It does not matter what VIPS says. It does not matter if you did "special projects". There will have to be some kind of bid for you to come back up front.

An "active crewmember" is someone on our seniority list. That does not mean current in a seat. Just like we didn't dump guys on medical/military/personal leave before the law changed, we won't be dumping them now.

One thing to consider, however.... if we have a bid to relieve an excess, like the excess we now have in the back of the Boeing, any pilot bidding out to "relieve excess" or any pilot "excessed" (can no longer hold it) will be able to bid any seat that their seniority allows them to hold.

In theory, this could cause an excess in other seats, like widebody captain seats. It will be up to the company to decide what kind of bid they post, and what vacancies and excesses they post.

Again, a theory, all those awaiting to come back up front would have a windfall with an excess bid from the SO 727 seat. I suppose that those that did not go to back seat school could then requal in the front seat without having to endure Switch Flipping 101.

I know it is rough for some of you out there. But please call the office or your reps when questions and rumors fly. Posting here, what I call FI Part 2, won't get your questions answered, and can do more damage to a weakening crew force.

Well, you aren't the only one who talked to their representative. And you shouldn't be surprised (is anyone?) to hear that I received a somewhat different response. Suffice to say, sounds like some grey areas for some that are undecided.

Is there a two year seat lock for down bidding?

"Does anyone have any evidence of DW doing anything for junior folks ever?" Posted by Tuck.

Interesting that no one has come forward with a reply, pro or con to Tucks question.

Ooops, there's that word again, "con".