Originally Posted by
Tee1Up
Maybe VB's would have been a good thing. Maybe not. But the company had a year to implement them and couldn't/didn't do it. We let them extend. They led everyone down the BOS 320 path. Then out of the blue, MCO 757. It was the same with the A220 launch....NYC/LAX, then out of the blue, SLC! No warning, no head's up to the pilots that bid these things, no talking to the MEC. How do pilots plan anything with this lack of communication? I respect your opinion, but based on the conversations I have with pilots I fly with, you might be in the minority with the opinion that the MEC looked like buffoons pulling the plug. Almost all I talk to are relieved that the MEC called it off. While your post is supposed to be about the VB's, it reads more of a "Curly-esk" distaste for the current MEC reps. That, for me anyway, took away from any seriousness in your discussion directly related to the VB's. I'm not slamming on you at all. Just pointing out my observation on your post and a couple of points that I thought were pertinent to the topic.
Any time you use words like "Curly-esk" you take away from any seriousness in your discussion. This whole concept of name calling when someone disagrees with you is distasteful and too common. It reads more of "he makes a good point, but I don't like it so I'm going to equate him to someone else and call it a day."
I don't think virtual bases are a good idea, but I think the withdrawal was poorly handled. Waiting until pilots themselves started planning based on it hurt the pilots as well as the company. Letting it go so far after announcement and then canceling it was not just vindictive to the company but hurt our own and caused angst among the pilot group. After letting it go so far they should have said "this is the only month we will allow it, we are canceling the agreement."