Viewing page 10 of 130

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

June 30, 1950

Judge Robert G. Simmons -2

an understandable desire to select pilots of their own choosing for the more desirable runs, have attempted to dispute this contention of the pilots.  Therefore, your summary determination of an issue long and bitterly debated is naturally of serious concern to pilots generally.

The situation is aggravated by the fact that the question of pilot-qualification was not a part of the Issue in the Gitt Case.

A number of inquiries has also been directed to that portion of page 2, paragraph 2, which concerns itself with the one-hour differential in the time-limitations of the two Bulletins.  It has been pointed out that the importance attached by the Decision to this time interval is unwarranted, inasmuch as pilots whose bids were not successful under the earlier Bulletin would not have had time to file new bids under the later deadline.  This would be true whether interested pilots were based at New York or elsewhere.

I personally feel a certain doubt as to the correctness of the following statement from page 3, paragraph 1 of the Decision:

"While posted as an Amendment to the original Bulletin of 5/19/49, it had the same effect as a cancellation of the original and the issuance of a new Bulletin.  We found no rules that prohibited the carrier doing that."

It is firmly established in this industry that the Company may not extend a deadline for bids unless such extension is necessitated by a change in the circumstances which give rise to the existent vacancy, and then only where such circumstances were beyond the control of the Company.  The reason for such a principle is obvious.  Moreover, in this case, Section 27 (a) of the Colonial Agreement specifically provided for:

"a reasonable deadline date after which bids will not be considered."

Neither the Company nor the pilots contended that the original deadline was not reasonable.  Therefore, the Company's extension of the deadline was a flagrant violation not only of the express provision of Section 27 (a) but of the principle long recognized in the air line industry.

You will recall that Captain Janas testified that he extended the deadline in order to have either Captain Uttenweiler or Captain Murray file a bid.  This testimony substantiated the pilot's argument that the deadline was extended by the