Denny Crane

ACL,

Are you talking about new rules to be proposed by the FAA or a bill before Congress? If there is something in either one that severely limits the commuter, this will become a huge issue. It certainly would be a boon to the company to have more pilots living in base and a boon to the pilots who would now live in base without moving!

Denny

iaflyer

I'm heard it's around 66% - (2/3s is what I heard)

sailingfun

The company has looked at virtual basing in the past. It is very difficult if not impossible to make it work without a large increase in costs. The biggest single reason is that you still have the same number of aircraft transiting the hubs and when the weather knocks a hub out you need every reserve you can get right there. With virtual basing you would have far fewer reserves available at the hubs. The other issue is the minimum size categories to not require extra manning. The company generally considers a category to need about 100 pilots per seat and aircraft type to be efficient under the current contract. There are very few cities that could support 100 pilot categories outside the hubs.

acl65pilot

I agree, and I do not think that it will make it out of the sub committee version. There was some lame point of pilots having to live within 150 miles of their base. I do not see much change of that happening but it was put there, so there is a chance it will survive. (I do not see it happening, but it may be the reason they are looking at it. Good to be prepared I guess)

sailingfun

I can't see the FAA able to put a provision forcing pilots to live in base. I do know however that the FAA is going to take a hard look at fatigue and commuting habits. Next time you have a fed on your jumpseat don't discuss where you live or your commute to work. They intend to use the careless and reckless provision in the FAR's to punish pilots they feel have not reported to work well rested. If you think you can fly a all nighter from the west coast to start a 12 hour duty day you might ponder going the day prior.

acl65pilot

I beleive you are correct, but with the government you never know what might get past the sub committee......

acl65pilot

My point was that on the limited chance that a clause like this would survive and make it to bill signing, it would be far cheaper for all airlines to do a bunch of small bases (virtual) than to pay the moving costs for 60% of their pilots. Ergo, why this is probably being discussed.

sailingfun

THe company would be under no requirement to pay moving expenses for pilots contractually in that situation. Pilots would be forced to move or commute in well in advance of a trip. I would simply sell my house and move to near Atlanta. I would have no choice. Moving is a fact of life in the business world. Friends I have working real jobs that pay 6 figures or more are forced to move every few years it seems like. If the whine or turn down a new assignment requiring a move they are then regarded as not a team player and get pushed to the second team and phased out in the next rift.

buzzpat

True, but most firms who require their employees to move every few years step up and pay for the move. Just had a neighbor relocated from LA to Charlotte. Not only did Bank of America pay for his move, they paid him $25K in dislocation bonus.

Denny Crane

Sailingfun,

I think you are right, the company would be under no obligation to pay for moving expenses outside of what's in the current contract. That being said, I don't think we (pilots) are the typical businessmen/women. Someone you describe above knows in advance exactly what you say about moving every 3 years or so. Whether or not they are under contract, most companies that do this take care of the employees they are doing this to by making sure there is not a financial loss associated with the move. If this means buying a house or such, then they do it. They value their employees. For the last 15 to 20 years I have not felt that our company does the same thing.

Denny