C100 VBs
07-02-2017, 08:38 AM
#221
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: window seat
Posts: 12,522
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
Given the way the VB is currently constructed, and how it will be used its limited. They are not going to dump a lot of reserve staffing in them. In fact the company said openly that they did not think that they would be overly popular long term.
I think they're being very careful to not try VB's until they can make them look really really good (even if it costs them money) and then use that to expand them with the grand prize of international.
07-02-2017, 08:43 AM
#222
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,273
[QUOTE=gloopy;2388584]I agree with this part. But the danger is allowing the continuation and eventual expansion of them. The current VB language is similar to the "we just need 40-50 large RJ's that's all, to open up markets to help us help you!" then 10 seconds later its hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of them (and now they want more).
I think they're being very careful to not try VB's until they can make them look really really good (even if it costs them money) and then use that to expand them with the grand prize of international.[/QUOTE
Everything is up for negotiations every contract.
I think they're being very careful to not try VB's until they can make them look really really good (even if it costs them money) and then use that to expand them with the grand prize of international.[/QUOTE
Everything is up for negotiations every contract.
07-02-2017, 10:42 AM
#223
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2013
Position: Taxi Driver
Posts: 411
Originally Posted by sailingfun
So if the company needs them we should make them permanent? They drop dead at the end of the test period automatically. We don't even need to pull it down. Regardless they are a non event.
07-02-2017, 01:14 PM
#224
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,273
Originally Posted by Spudhauler
What evidence do you have to prove they're a non-event in the long run? If this is the case, why did the company want in the contract? I'm not a conspiracy guy, but I'm not a naive fool, either. They wanted it in there for a reason, and I think gloopy hit the nail on the head. This isn't about short term relief for the C Series or any other plane, it's about long term cost reductions by needing fewer pilots as the retirements ramp up. This is obviously a detriment to our career prospects, and there is no reason for us to continue down that path.
Just read the Terms and it's pretty clear there is not a lot to gain on the companies part. A VB is a base like any other base. It's costlier then a regular base to run but cheaper to open and close.
07-02-2017, 02:27 PM
#225
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2015
Position: Power top
Posts: 2,959
[QUOTE=sailingfun;2388587]
Spoken like a real management puke. Except, they'll drag their feet with all must haves and needs. You know the drill. You really a union member?
Originally Posted by gloopy
I agree with this part. But the danger is allowing the continuation and eventual expansion of them. The current VB language is similar to the "we just need 40-50 large RJ's that's all, to open up markets to help us help you!" then 10 seconds later its hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of them (and now they want more).
I think they're being very careful to not try VB's until they can make them look really really good (even if it costs them money) and then use that to expand them with the grand prize of international.[/QUOTE
Everything is up for negotiations every contract.
I think they're being very careful to not try VB's until they can make them look really really good (even if it costs them money) and then use that to expand them with the grand prize of international.[/QUOTE
Everything is up for negotiations every contract.
07-02-2017, 03:01 PM
#226
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2014
Posts: 367
Originally Posted by sailingfun
The union was granted access to Carmine and ran a bunch of simulations to determine the possible ways the company could employ a VB. In the end there was a potential cost savings of about 20 million dollars and a limited number of potential VB's.
Just read the Terms and it's pretty clear there is not a lot to gain on the companies part. A VB is a base like any other base. It's costlier then a regular base to run but cheaper to open and close.
Just read the Terms and it's pretty clear there is not a lot to gain on the companies part. A VB is a base like any other base. It's costlier then a regular base to run but cheaper to open and close.
07-02-2017, 03:07 PM
#227
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2015
Posts: 3,117
Originally Posted by sailingfun
The union was granted access to Carmine and ran a bunch of simulations to determine the possible ways the company could employ a VB. In the end there was a potential cost savings of about 20 million dollars and a limited number of potential VB's.
Just read the Terms and it's pretty clear there is not a lot to gain on the companies part. A VB is a base like any other base. It's costlier then a regular base to run but cheaper to open and close.
Just read the Terms and it's pretty clear there is not a lot to gain on the companies part. A VB is a base like any other base. It's costlier then a regular base to run but cheaper to open and close.
07-02-2017, 03:47 PM
#228
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2015
Position: stake holder ir.delta.com
Posts: 10,032
The current VBs/TDY can and will be expanded in the future. The job cost was put out by the union and this LOA alone was responsible for the single largest jobs hit. The company wants it. Let it expire and start over if it's important enough to make it back on to the negotiating table. If nothing else, it has the side-show effect of distracting from other things. Allow it to expire and clean the slate.
MEC approval of brand and livery use is in the contract too. This is a tool for the future. No real harm now, but just wait.
MEC approval of brand and livery use is in the contract too. This is a tool for the future. No real harm now, but just wait.
07-02-2017, 04:05 PM
#229
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2015
Position: Power top
Posts: 2,959
Very little to be gained by the pilot group with VB. Overall, a loss. It's exploratory by the company, with the end game is setting up seasonal bases for international. It's a huge win for management. This way they can put a 777 base in Fargo, if it doesn't work, let's try El Paso, don't laugh.
07-02-2017, 04:22 PM
#230
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,273
Originally Posted by notEnuf
The current VBs/TDY can and will be expanded in the future. The job cost was put out by the union and this LOA alone was responsible for the single largest jobs hit. The company wants it. Let it expire and start over if it's important enough to make it back on to the negotiating table. If nothing else, it has the side-show effect of distracting from other things. Allow it to expire and clean the slate.
MEC approval of brand and livery use is in the contract too. This is a tool for the future. No real harm now, but just wait.
MEC approval of brand and livery use is in the contract too. This is a tool for the future. No real harm now, but just wait.
There was one mention of job loss from VB's and a offset we got. Both were minor. The 85 hour ALV was a far greater impact.
