C100 VBs
06-04-2017, 10:22 AM
#102
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Posts: 794
Originally Posted by Denny Crane
Reread my point number two if you think the company would not be committing time and resources in this instance. They would be over staffing a category (costing lots of money in training/moving expenses for a new category) in a base that has great "commuting" weather and then "hoping" pilots would bid a VB in the middle of the country from this one base? I say again, NOT GONNA HAPPEN with just one base to recruit pilots to staff the VB from...
I agree with your last sentence.
Denny
I agree with your last sentence.
Denny
Many of us (me included) assume that the virtual bases could come and go at a whim. That's not to say that they couldn't have a semi permanent vb that lasts for years with no backend downside for them if they decide to close it.
06-04-2017, 10:24 AM
#103
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Posts: 794
Originally Posted by sailingfun
I posted months ago that VB's as currently structured were not high on the companies list to implement as there was little cost savings. In fact I suggested that we would not see any VB's this summer and was told that by the forum that they would explode like acne on a 14 year old by summer. The union used Carmine to run numerous simulations of possible VB options. In the end they found 3 cities that might work for a total cost savings of 20 million a year. None of the cities being discussed were among those.
06-04-2017, 10:37 AM
#105
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2015
Position: Left
Posts: 1,807
Originally Posted by BobZ
makes me think about bidding it......just to see what happens.
https://blog.swiss.com/en/2017/04/pilots-view-of-the-swiss-bombardier-cs-100
06-04-2017, 11:21 AM
#106
Bent over by buybacks
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Feb 2017
Posts: 519
Originally Posted by sailingfun
I just found it also. It's a union pub not a base newsletter. It also makes no mention of a Midwest VB as widely quoted here.
Originally Posted by StoneQOLdCrazy
Among other things (my buddy was not optimistic about the future MSP fleet picture), the company guy stated that the C100 would be set up for an LAX base--and a mid-continent VB.
If it turns out to be SFO, than the crew resources guy was misleading the MSP pilots at that meeting. He wouldn't do that, would he? With "Rules of the Road," and all.
06-04-2017, 03:11 PM
#108
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,504
Originally Posted by 4fans
I understand the "pull it down" crowd. Logically, their argument makes sense.
I don't understand the "it will never happen" crowd. It almost seems like they know it will happen and want us to live in denial until it's here and we can't get rid of it.
I'm in the third crowd, which is the "let's see how it works before pulling it down" crowd. I'm interested in how it will be implemented. Because I believe it will be implemented, and will potentially have an effect on all of us in some form or fashion.
I don't understand the "it will never happen" crowd. It almost seems like they know it will happen and want us to live in denial until it's here and we can't get rid of it.
I'm in the third crowd, which is the "let's see how it works before pulling it down" crowd. I'm interested in how it will be implemented. Because I believe it will be implemented, and will potentially have an effect on all of us in some form or fashion.
I was of that crowd too...But if they choose to not implement it during the trial period there is absolutely no reason we should extend it and allow them to.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
06-04-2017, 04:25 PM
#110
ATL 717B
Joined APC: Mar 2015
Position: C-130J AC / B717 FO
Posts: 362
Originally Posted by tunes
I was of that crowd too...But if they choose to not implement it during the trial period there is absolutely no reason we should extend it and allow them to.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
