a300fr8dog

Because they can. Nice of you to point out how it changed, though.

MX727

If you look at why it was disuputed, it looks like they fixed that portion. IOW, the SIG and the crews won on this one. What more could you want?

Lucky7

Don't get me wrong I'm glad they changed it but someone ended up flying the disputed part of the trip probably without knowing that it was disputed. I know it is hard to keep up on bait and switches but someone flew a disputed pairing without knowing it and someone else flew a "fixed" disputed pairing. The message line just out today lists 457 as disputed without saying anything that 190 is a crap trip.

FlybyKnite

The Message Line also still shows all the Boeing pairings that were fixed and noted back in post#8. It merely mimics the listing in the original SIG Notes.

The SIG has no real way of knowing how the company is modifying pairings if we don't tell them. We can all help give them a heads-up by either using the Web Critique Form (ALPA login required) OR send them an email to [email protected], just click the link and start writing.

Boom Boom

WOW... Every Bus DP flown in January by somebody other than a Reserve.. And that my friends is one more reason, Management owns us and our Union for that matter! Idiots...

Purpledriver

What ever happened to the flagging of disputed pairings in open time? I thought that was in the new contract. At least that way the "I didn't know" thing would go away.

MX727

But there is no crappy part of trip 190. In fact, there probably quite a few guys that like the relatively short legs and long layovers. The IND-SAN-IND portion is the exact construction that it has been historically. That portion of the trip is no different than any of our MEM trips that fly toward the west coast and return that night. The dispute wasn't for going IND-SAN-IND, it was for the mulitple time shifts, which are gone in the new pairings. So, those 4 guys didn't fly a DP and the company actually fixed it.

Actually, they have a way. They can talk to their counterparts or they can check VIPS. I think they should be more in tune with what is happening with these pairings. In fact, it is incumbent upon them to monitor these pairings and see what the company does with them. If they don't, then the dispute process is meaningless..The SIG or whoever puts out the message line does need to monitor these changes before they throw someone under the bus by listing that pairing as having been flown.

FlybyKnite

The company actually did a brief test of marking DPs back in August. They placed (Disp) in the Comments column of the OpenTime display for a couple of the airframes. I don't know why they discontinued it; it worked for me and probably for others. Must be why they pulled the plug.

Everyone agrees that the quality of pairings and lines is sliding down the tubes. When that is coupled with more pairings are being disputed, it would seem to me that flagging DPs would be a small issue the union could pursue that could produce a significant and effective unity of action to benefit ALL our pilots. And after all, it is in the automation appendix attached to the contract so we know the subject was discussed and some type of understanding was reached.

Lucky7

MX727,

Honestly when I saw 457 had been changed I just went looking for the SAN portion and found it on 190. The SAN IND portion was what the SIG had pointed out seeing the am launches to the west coast put the trip into my undesireable column (crap may have been a strong adjective). The whole problem relates to your second point of having two trips broken up and fixed with the disputed label not being removed.

Chainsaw

I was told that the wording the contract was written loosely enough that the company only had to demonstrate the capability to mark pairings as "disputed", which they did. Unfortunately, it doesn't say they have to continue notifiying the crewforce with this "demonstrated capability". Guess they out lawyered us again.