Viewing page 116 of 130

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

-2-
for the reason that a pilot could be presented from successfully bidding a run by the mere expedient of refusing to qualify that pilot on advanced equipment. The Companies likewise, for reasons of economy and an understandable desire to select pilots of its own choosing for the more desirable runs, have from time to time taken a position on this point in opposition to that of the pilots. Your summary determination of a point so long and so bitterly disputed is a matter of serious concern to pilots generally.
The situation is somewhat aggravated by the fact that the question of pilot-qualification was to a part of the Issue in this case.
A number of inquiries have 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 to me that the importance attached to this time interval is unwarranted, inasmuch as pilots whose bids were not successful under the earlier bulletins would not have had time to file new bulletins 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 efficacy of the following statement which appears on 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 was not contended by either part that the second Bulletin "had the same effect as a cancellation of the original". The