COMMUTER FO REFUSED TO FLY A TRIP BECAUSE OF FATIGUE... CHIEF PLT CALLED TO INQUIRE.

Narrative

DUE TO THE SHORTENED SLEEP PERIOD THE PREVIOUS NIGHT; I WAS CLRLY IN VIOLATION OF MY MEDICAL CERTIFICATE AND ILLEGAL UNDER FAR 61.53 AS NOW DEFINED NOT ONLY BY FAA DOCUMENTATION; BUT SUBSTANTIATED BY SCIENTIFIC DATA. ON 11/91; I ADVISED CREW SCHEDULING THAT I WOULD BE ILLEGAL TO CONTINUE THE TRIP AND TOOK MYSELF OFF LINE. LESS THAN 1 HR AFTER I ARRIVED HOME; I RECEIVED A TELEPHONE MESSAGE FROM DOMICILE CHIEF PLT OF SAN JOSE; REQUESTING DETAILS AND SPECIFICS ON MY SO RECENT FATIGUE CALL. IN RETURNING HIS CALL; I INQUIRED AS TO WHAT APPEARED TO BE A NEW; UNWRITTEN POLICY OF A DOMICILE CHIEF PLT CALLING A PLT AT HOME; WITH AN URGENCY TO INVESTIGATE REASONS FOR THE PLT TAKING HIM OR HERSELF OFF LINE. IT WAS AT THIS TIME THAT THE CHIEF PLT ENLIGHTENED ME TO A CHAIN OF EVENTS THAT TOOK PLACE AT CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS EARLIER THAT MORNING. THIS CONCERNED THE CLOSURE OF THE DECEMBER BIDS PORTRAYING MY HUSBAND AND I FLYING TOGETHER. 'THINGS HIT THE FAN;' HE STATED. FIRST; THE COMPANY DECIDED THAT UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES COULD THEY (THE COMPANY) POSSIBLY ALLOW US TO FLY TOGETHER; BECAUSE OF NEPOTISM THE CLAUSE.