BOS Rumors
03-30-2017, 08:45 AM
#53
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: window seat
Posts: 12,522
Originally Posted by sailingfun
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.
Maybe the specific setup we have at the moment isn't sufficient for them to do that to the extent they want. I don't think its anywhere near that point yet. But its a path they're on, and yes they are very much playing chess to our checkers as we salivate over a tiny fraction of pilots getting a couple months off a year from their commute, etc. As a bonus they can use this to create divide and conquer factions that have us fight amongst ourselves, just as they do with the ridiculous EWR "co terminal".
I agree that the simulations under the current setup likely only produced modest savings in a few cases. But that's like looking at the potential effects of "only 20" large RJ's, which was the first order they placed for them. Almost overnight it turned into hundreds once they got the taste of how delicious the damage truly was.
What I'd do if I was on the other side would be to custom craft the most benign and beneficial little bubble example of super positive pilot friendly boutique VB's, maybe even in such a way as to add to staffing (but any least take away from it minimally or not at all) and then offer something to further expand it, thus getting us to negotiate with ourselves for something they want anyway. Always seeking more but using less than you can in order to mask the future effects of growing the concept. Then once the rules are permissive enough, the other shoe drops and lots of pilot positions are permanently removed.
The savings from allowing a zillion fleet type, peaks and trough airline to sharpshoot staffing where and when they want outside of our current domicile/AE structure is substantial. Just look at the ER fleet alone, and then apply it to everything. Absolutely devastating.
The current "just the tip" (of the camel's nose...) playbook strategy they use continues to outflank us in the long run. VB's need to be pulled down ASAP. If they want to staff flying with the "armada" they have, they can already do so through the existing base, bidding, deadhead and hotel system they have. No further relief is warranted.
03-30-2017, 09:27 AM
#54
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,273
Originally Posted by gloopy
Of course. No one thinks that suddenly every city will become a VB and we'll morph into a Ryan-style no overnight airline. But VB's are at the company's discretion, and they want them to reduce credit and pilot jobs.
Maybe the specific setup we have at the moment isn't sufficient for them to do that to the extent they want. I don't think its anywhere near that point yet. But its a path they're on, and yes they are very much playing chess to our checkers as we salivate over a tiny fraction of pilots getting a couple months off a year from their commute, etc. As a bonus they can use this to create divide and conquer factions that have us fight amongst ourselves, just as they do with the ridiculous EWR "co terminal".
I agree that the simulations under the current setup likely only produced modest savings in a few cases. But that's like looking at the potential effects of "only 20" large RJ's, which was the first order they placed for them. Almost overnight it turned into hundreds once they got the taste of how delicious the damage truly was.
What I'd do if I was on the other side would be to custom craft the most benign and beneficial little bubble example of super positive pilot friendly boutique VB's, maybe even in such a way as to add to staffing (but any least take away from it minimally or not at all) and then offer something to further expand it, thus getting us to negotiate with ourselves for something they want anyway. Always seeking more but using less than you can in order to mask the future effects of growing the concept. Then once the rules are permissive enough, the other shoe drops and lots of pilot positions are permanently removed.
The savings from allowing a zillion fleet type, peaks and trough airline to sharpshoot staffing where and when they want outside of our current domicile/AE structure is substantial. Just look at the ER fleet alone, and then apply it to everything. Absolutely devastating.
The current "just the tip" (of the camel's nose...) playbook strategy they use continues to outflank us in the long run. VB's need to be pulled down ASAP. If they want to staff flying with the "armada" they have, they can already do so through the existing base, bidding, deadhead and hotel system they have. No further relief is warranted.
Maybe the specific setup we have at the moment isn't sufficient for them to do that to the extent they want. I don't think its anywhere near that point yet. But its a path they're on, and yes they are very much playing chess to our checkers as we salivate over a tiny fraction of pilots getting a couple months off a year from their commute, etc. As a bonus they can use this to create divide and conquer factions that have us fight amongst ourselves, just as they do with the ridiculous EWR "co terminal".
I agree that the simulations under the current setup likely only produced modest savings in a few cases. But that's like looking at the potential effects of "only 20" large RJ's, which was the first order they placed for them. Almost overnight it turned into hundreds once they got the taste of how delicious the damage truly was.
What I'd do if I was on the other side would be to custom craft the most benign and beneficial little bubble example of super positive pilot friendly boutique VB's, maybe even in such a way as to add to staffing (but any least take away from it minimally or not at all) and then offer something to further expand it, thus getting us to negotiate with ourselves for something they want anyway. Always seeking more but using less than you can in order to mask the future effects of growing the concept. Then once the rules are permissive enough, the other shoe drops and lots of pilot positions are permanently removed.
The savings from allowing a zillion fleet type, peaks and trough airline to sharpshoot staffing where and when they want outside of our current domicile/AE structure is substantial. Just look at the ER fleet alone, and then apply it to everything. Absolutely devastating.
The current "just the tip" (of the camel's nose...) playbook strategy they use continues to outflank us in the long run. VB's need to be pulled down ASAP. If they want to staff flying with the "armada" they have, they can already do so through the existing base, bidding, deadhead and hotel system they have. No further relief is warranted.
03-30-2017, 09:55 AM
#55
Bent over by buybacks
Joined APC: Feb 2017
Posts: 522
Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp
I voted yes for the contract because virtual basing, lca trip pulls, and sick changes had no teeth in them.
Put teeth in them, and I'll have zero reservations on voting no again.
Put teeth in them, and I'll have zero reservations on voting no again.
Originally Posted by Scoop
Why the angst over VBs? I thought DALPA could unilaterally pull it down?
I would be very,very leery of eliminating this unilateral pull down option in the future. For example we have VBs for a year and then the company wants to make it permanent.
Here are a few ways I would characterize that:
Danger! Danger Will Robinson!
Wouldn't be prudent.
DALPA declines to acquiesce to the companies request.
A union has got to know its limitations
What we would have there would be a failure to communicate - wisely.
I've got a bad feeling about this.
DALPA has chosen poorly.
And finally - What could possibly go wrong?
Basically I don't think the VB will be a big deal - unless we are stupid and agree to making it permanent without the unilateral pulldown feature.
Scoop
I would be very,very leery of eliminating this unilateral pull down option in the future. For example we have VBs for a year and then the company wants to make it permanent.
Here are a few ways I would characterize that:
Danger! Danger Will Robinson!
Wouldn't be prudent.
DALPA declines to acquiesce to the companies request.
A union has got to know its limitations
What we would have there would be a failure to communicate - wisely.
I've got a bad feeling about this.
DALPA has chosen poorly.
And finally - What could possibly go wrong?
Basically I don't think the VB will be a big deal - unless we are stupid and agree to making it permanent without the unilateral pulldown feature.
Scoop
Taking any bets on how long ALPA allows the "test" phase to be extended?
03-30-2017, 10:01 AM
#56
Bent over by buybacks
Joined APC: Feb 2017
Posts: 522
Originally Posted by RonRicco
Again, I could care less whether we see them as I live in base.
On a related note, are pilots who "live in a base" magically unaffected by reducing the number of pilot jobs here?
03-30-2017, 10:04 AM
#58
Bent over by buybacks
Joined APC: Feb 2017
Posts: 522
Originally Posted by sailingfun
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.
GMAB.
03-30-2017, 10:41 AM
#59
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,273
Originally Posted by StoneQOLdCrazy
So we should expect to see the company pull VBs any day now, right?
GMAB.
GMAB.
03-30-2017, 10:43 AM
#60
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,273
Originally Posted by Hank Kingsley
Big question is why did they want it to begin with, if it's so limited. My guess next contract they'll be asking for international VBs. And making it a must in mediation.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
