Notices

BOS Rumors

Old 03-28-2017, 03:37 AM
  #41  
Gets Weekends Off
 
RonRicco's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: Captain
Posts: 818
Default

Originally Posted by gloopy View Post
Because any VB departure would have most likely been an overnight and/or DH into or back out from another base. The only purpose of a VB is to reduce credit and therefore block hours and therefore pilot jobs. That is why they pushed for it. We were able to limit it, and the pull down feature is a great (IMO we should exercise it ASAP) but they will dangle it over the commuters with promises of local trips as well as making it as painless as possible for the transition/trial period in the hopes we make it permanent and expend it to international.
I am not arguing the politics of it, or whether it is good or bad.
You said it would reduce per diem and I am trying to understand how.

The way I see it, the start up a VB is not free and only can be justified in a city where there is a lot of departures that is also performed by a majority of one category, or at least that could be converted to one category like the 75/76.

Now say you stick a 75/76 VB in MCO seasonally, just because you reduce credit time on a 4 day trip because you are flying more block (less credit) since it originates in MCO , you still have the same TAFB but the base happens to be MCO instead of ATL or wherever, which equals the same per diem.

Again, look at the PS passes, hotels etc that are provided to pilots bidding a VB and you realize it ain't free.

Again, I could care less whether we see them as I live in base.
RonRicco is offline  
Old 03-28-2017, 04:40 AM
  #42  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,498
Default

Originally Posted by Abouttime2fish View Post
Just curious about those who think VB's are such a bad idea.....commuter or live in domicile?

I understand the DH argument, but say they opened RDU as a VB. Almost zero DH in and out of there that I've seen. And the convience to VB there would be wonderful. I'd still have 2.45 drive to work, but I live where I want...I could at least stand long call from home. And BOS, I wouldn't mind spending a month based out of there over the summer.

How do you put a dollar amount on a QOL issue? And one that will only affect some. And may keep changing. I don't know, but don't get angry at the few that get a good deal. You ready to give back all LCA buys? That only affects a few and we could sell it for an across the board raise.

No anger here, but if they open a VB I can use, I'm gonna bid it.


It could be a good deal for a month, maybe more. They can change the fleets and bases on a whim. One month there could be a 320 rdu vb and then it could be gone for good. It sounds good in theory but in practice it could be the complete opposite.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
tunes is offline  
Old 03-28-2017, 05:13 AM
  #43  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: A330 First Officer
Posts: 1,465
Default

Ok I had to go and look because people keep talking about PS passes to a VB, if I'm reading the MOU correctly you only get PS passes to a TDY location not a VB.
DALMD88FO is offline  
Old 03-28-2017, 05:13 AM
  #44  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Mar 2015
Posts: 105
Default

>>The only purpose of a VB is to reduce credit and therefore block hours and therefore pilot jobs.<<

I absolutely agree that a VB has the ability to reduce pilot jobs.

Not trying to pick on the user who posted this (or others), but would also like to point out that most/all of the discussion on this topic centers on trying to understand how the VB concept will reduce CASM...lower cost with less per diem, lodging, block hours, fewer overall pilots, etc.

What if management's desire for VB language is about something entirely different? Without opining on BOS specifically as a new base, but using it as an example for discussion:

Opening BOS as a "real" crew base obligates DAL to an (otherwise avoidable) training/re-positioning "waterfall" that is hard to model. This occurs at a time when a few hundred pilots are ALREADY getting displaced, the retirement curve starts to break upward, and there is already a significant burden on their training capacity (new hires, aircraft deliveries, etc).

The normal bean-counting managerial dogma of "maximize revenue, minimize cost" must be subordinated when encountering a LIMFAC that affects the operation of the underlying entity.

What other evidence might be present to confirm a management concern over a training LIMFAC?

--Adding extra middle of the night sim periods
--Eliminating 20 minute MX break between sims to increase throughput.
--Add your own observations here. I have some but they are subjective.

-------------------------------------

<edit..removed text from here after reading MD88FOs post, pending re-reading contract language when I get some time>
...............

Also, I believe PWA 6A makes a pilot going into a new base eligible for a paid move. There are conditions I won't review here as this is already getting to be a long post, but I don't see a limit on retiring after moving to a new base. Hmmm.



(btw--->>LIMFAC=Limiting Factor)

Regards,

CCN
ClimbClimbNow is offline  
Old 03-28-2017, 09:11 AM
  #45  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: window seat
Posts: 12,522
Default

Originally Posted by RonRicco View Post
I am not arguing the politics of it, or whether it is good or bad.
You said it would reduce per diem and I am trying to understand how.

The way I see it, the start up a VB is not free and only can be justified in a city where there is a lot of departures that is also performed by a majority of one category, or at least that could be converted to one category like the 75/76.

Now say you stick a 75/76 VB in MCO seasonally, just because you reduce credit time on a 4 day trip because you are flying more block (less credit) since it originates in MCO , you still have the same TAFB but the base happens to be MCO instead of ATL or wherever, which equals the same per diem.

Again, look at the PS passes, hotels etc that are provided to pilots bidding a VB and you realize it ain't free.

Again, I could care less whether we see them as I live in base.
Of course you can come up with individual pairing examples where credit could be the same. In those cases, only hotel/transportation costs would be reduced. While a win for the company and not a loss for the group in and of itself, this type of scenario would only be a fraction of the VB trips.

We would then get other trips that would absolutely cut down on DH and overnight length (credit/rig money, etc) and that does reduce pilot jobs. That the company can pick and choose the city, month, plane and base to do it from lets them sharpshoot credit and reduce pilot headcount. There really is no other purpose for it. Its not to slightly reduce hotel costs (most of the cities even mentioned already have pretty low hotel costs anyway).

VB exists as a concept to reduce pilot jobs. I'm very pro-commuter, but we need to eliminate VB's from our CBA ASAP. The carrot of a few guys on a few fleets in a few cities a few moths a year not having to commute isn't worth the stick of even slightly fewer pilot jobs.

The company already has the ability to cover 100% of the flights they need to cover in any market even seasonal. They just have to provide hotels, per diem, transportation and keep us on the clock. If that's not good enough, they are free to open a real base anywhere they want whenever they want for as long as they want.

We've given up enough in "productivity".
gloopy is offline  
Old 03-28-2017, 11:36 AM
  #46  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Mar 2012
Position: 320B
Posts: 454
Default

VB is lost jobs for pilots. Get rid of VB. This shouldn't even be a discussion!
TurbineDriver is offline  
Old 03-28-2017, 05:45 PM
  #47  
Gets Weekends Off
 
RonRicco's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: Captain
Posts: 818
Default

Originally Posted by gloopy View Post
Of course you can come up with individual pairing examples where credit could be the same. In those cases, only hotel/transportation costs would be reduced. While a win for the company and not a loss for the group in and of itself, this type of scenario would only be a fraction of the VB trips.

We would then get other trips that would absolutely cut down on DH and overnight length (credit/rig money, etc) and that does reduce pilot jobs. That the company can pick and choose the city, month, plane and base to do it from lets them sharpshoot credit and reduce pilot headcount. There really is no other purpose for it. Its not to slightly reduce hotel costs (most of the cities even mentioned already have pretty low hotel costs anyway).

VB exists as a concept to reduce pilot jobs. I'm very pro-commuter, but we need to eliminate VB's from our CBA ASAP. The carrot of a few guys on a few fleets in a few cities a few moths a year not having to commute isn't worth the stick of even slightly fewer pilot jobs.

The company already has the ability to cover 100% of the flights they need to cover in any market even seasonal. They just have to provide hotels, per diem, transportation and keep us on the clock. If that's not good enough, they are free to open a real base anywhere they want whenever they want for as long as they want.

We've given up enough in "productivity".
Gloopy,

I am only talking about per diem. If you want to get rid of VB, I have zero issue with that.

Credit has nothing to do with per diem. TAFB does. How does having VB save the company per diem? (Or at least enough to overcome the other costs involved with VB)
RonRicco is offline  
Old 03-28-2017, 07:49 PM
  #48  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: window seat
Posts: 12,522
Default

Originally Posted by RonRicco View Post
Gloopy,

I am only talking about per diem. If you want to get rid of VB, I have zero issue with that.

Credit has nothing to do with per diem. TAFB does. How does having VB save the company per diem? (Or at least enough to overcome the other costs involved with VB)
VB's still most likely reduce per diem, but that's a very minor ancillary effect and likely doesn't even make it into the calculations for a VB IMO. But in any case, having a VB means they will have more "organic" crews in position (because they're fake-based there that month) as opposed to having to bring them in the night before/after. Plus when they land they're off the clock instead of going to the hotel for the night etc. That won't effect every pairing, or even very many, but it will reduce per diem on some. And less credit time in any case equals less per diem. Again, its a very minor point and not a reason to oppose VB's.
gloopy is offline  
Old 03-28-2017, 07:50 PM
  #49  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: window seat
Posts: 12,522
Default

Originally Posted by TurbineDriver View Post
VB is lost jobs for pilots. Get rid of VB. This shouldn't even be a discussion!
Motion seconded.
gloopy is offline  
Old 03-29-2017, 04:24 AM
  #50  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,224
Default

Originally Posted by RonRicco View Post
Gloopy,

I am only talking about per diem. If you want to get rid of VB, I have zero issue with that.

Credit has nothing to do with per diem. TAFB does. How does having VB save the company per diem? (Or at least enough to overcome the other costs involved with VB)
Some of the posters should make a effort to talk with people who ran simulations on the use of VB's. You might find it interesting. I have posted some of it in the past. The reserve staffing issue alone kills most VB's. You have to balance any saved credit hours against increased reserve requirements.
sailingfun is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Sunvox
United
83
12-18-2016 07:52 PM
map76
FedEx
3
01-13-2016 01:43 PM
ORDCRJ
Charter
3
04-26-2013 05:38 AM
Prancinghorse
Hiring News
25
01-30-2012 12:41 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Your Privacy Choices