Old 07-30-2025 | 10:54 AM
  #9186  
Planetrain
Line Holder
10 Years
 
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 1,979
Likes: 107
Default

Originally Posted by AirCoxswain
The terms of the LOA precluded international from the VB. The company immediately posted int'l rotations to MCO and the MEC pulled it down because they weren't willing to suborn the company's contract violation.
This absolutely did not happen.^^^

The MCO VB pilots were awarded the VB and the MEC pulled it down before bid packages were made. [side note, IIRC there was only 1 trip from MCO with an ocean crossings back then- GRU. It was staffed by ATL DH pilots.] The MEC pulled it down for (sadly) unrelated retaliatory reasons. Back then the MEC was split on even having VBs, and members most against it were not even part of the ATL (PTC) LEC. The anti-VB MEC group tolerated the provision in TA2 because it was able to be pulled down later, not because they liked it. We squandered the trial basis too- never to be seen again in a TA. The company will never agree to it.

The VB provision specifically prohibited ocean crossings starting from a VB, one of many modifications to placate the original anti-VB MEC members.

Not to worry everyone! It’s been 10 years since VB was shot down and look at how many real bases have been created! 1! A whole 200? pilots out of 17,500. /sarc

We’ve got to do something better on bases. This is ridiculous…..

The best part of VB was the V part. It was voluntary. It could not be assigned by the company, no MDs. If it was a bad deal for pilots, they simply wouldn’t bid it and the whole thing would fall apart on its own. As far as it sucking the good flying out of the real bases, who knows? We never even tried.
Reply