C100 VBs
06-21-2017, 02:11 PM
#181
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2015
Position: stake holder ir.delta.com
Posts: 10,022
Again this comes down to interpretation.
Strick interpretation would mean it expires on the date specified. That would be to our benefit. However, loose interpretation would benefit the company. Why is it, we must always expect strict interpretation when it comes to gains (monetary or other benefit) for the pilots when the company exploits language? But... when strict language interpretation is less beneficial to the company, it is loosened. DALPA epic fail...again.
Strick interpretation would mean it expires on the date specified. That would be to our benefit. However, loose interpretation would benefit the company. Why is it, we must always expect strict interpretation when it comes to gains (monetary or other benefit) for the pilots when the company exploits language? But... when strict language interpretation is less beneficial to the company, it is loosened. DALPA epic fail...again.
06-24-2017, 01:20 PM
#182
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Originally Posted by Denny Crane
Does anybody really think the company can staff a VB in the middle of the country with just one base for the aircraft especially when that base is LAX!?! Number one: a VB requires pilots that are already trained and in a permanent base to bid it. Number two: a VB requires a contractual amount of reserves. Sooooo the company is going to overstaff the one base in LAX in hopes that enough pilots will bid a VB? And pilots are gonna bid LAX CS100 in hopes of getting a VB at a location they don't know about prior to an AE award? NOT GONNA HAPPEN on either side of the equation.
I can't believe there are 8 pages to this thread....
Denny
I can't believe there are 8 pages to this thread....
Denny
AUS has had flights upgauged to both coasts, SAT is growing.
DFW has a ton of RJ's to the current hubs of LAX, MSP, DTW, LGA and JFK. You put the CS Jets on those routes plus the DAL flying there is more than enough flying to support a CS base. The RJ's are full and they need better lift out of DFW.
It could all easily be done by domiciles in LAX and NYC but the credit goes down with a DFW base. It means a lot of day turns and no layovers for the rotation construction.
If the VB does get approved as the test period ends and is not extended, they can always do a micro base. Crew Planning has been discussing those for years too. There are also a ton of newer hires that live in the DFW area. They have been making commuting much more difficult the last year or so. They know how to get those jumpseats right at noon.
Last edited by acl65pilot; 06-24-2017 at 01:50 PM.
06-24-2017, 02:56 PM
#183
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2015
Posts: 631
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
They can easily staff a mid-continent base on the CS Series. AUS, SAT, DFW all could easily be staffed.
AUS has had flights upgauged to both coasts, SAT is growing.
DFW has a ton of RJ's to the current hubs of LAX, MSP, DTW, LGA and JFK. You put the CS Jets on those routes plus the DAL flying there is more than enough flying to support a CS base. The RJ's are full and they need better lift out of DFW.
It could all easily be done by domiciles in LAX and NYC but the credit goes down with a DFW base. It means a lot of day turns and no layovers for the rotation construction.
If the VB does get approved as the test period ends and is not extended, they can always do a micro base. Crew Planning has been discussing those for years too. There are also a ton of newer hires that live in the DFW area. They have been making commuting much more difficult the last year or so. They know how to get those jumpseats right at noon.
AUS has had flights upgauged to both coasts, SAT is growing.
DFW has a ton of RJ's to the current hubs of LAX, MSP, DTW, LGA and JFK. You put the CS Jets on those routes plus the DAL flying there is more than enough flying to support a CS base. The RJ's are full and they need better lift out of DFW.
It could all easily be done by domiciles in LAX and NYC but the credit goes down with a DFW base. It means a lot of day turns and no layovers for the rotation construction.
If the VB does get approved as the test period ends and is not extended, they can always do a micro base. Crew Planning has been discussing those for years too. There are also a ton of newer hires that live in the DFW area. They have been making commuting much more difficult the last year or so. They know how to get those jumpseats right at noon.
06-24-2017, 03:13 PM
#184
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2008
Position: Kickin’ Back
Posts: 6,971
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
They can easily staff a mid-continent base on the CS Series. AUS, SAT, DFW all could easily be staffed.
AUS has had flights upgauged to both coasts, SAT is growing.
DFW has a ton of RJ's to the current hubs of LAX, MSP, DTW, LGA and JFK. You put the CS Jets on those routes plus the DAL flying there is more than enough flying to support a CS base. The RJ's are full and they need better lift out of DFW.
It could all easily be done by domiciles in LAX and NYC but the credit goes down with a DFW base. It means a lot of day turns and no layovers for the rotation construction.
If the VB does get approved as the test period ends and is not extended, they can always do a micro base. Crew Planning has been discussing those for years too. There are also a ton of newer hires that live in the DFW area. They have been making commuting much more difficult the last year or so. They know how to get those jumpseats right at noon.
AUS has had flights upgauged to both coasts, SAT is growing.
DFW has a ton of RJ's to the current hubs of LAX, MSP, DTW, LGA and JFK. You put the CS Jets on those routes plus the DAL flying there is more than enough flying to support a CS base. The RJ's are full and they need better lift out of DFW.
It could all easily be done by domiciles in LAX and NYC but the credit goes down with a DFW base. It means a lot of day turns and no layovers for the rotation construction.
If the VB does get approved as the test period ends and is not extended, they can always do a micro base. Crew Planning has been discussing those for years too. There are also a ton of newer hires that live in the DFW area. They have been making commuting much more difficult the last year or so. They know how to get those jumpseats right at noon.
As a Texas resident, are you going to down bid to the CS100 in hopes of getting a VB in DFW? Even if the company does establish one in DFW, whose to say how long it lasts? As we all know Marketings' plans change. It might be there for a few months and then they decide to change it to a 737 VB.
I think there are too many variables for pilots to try and sharpshoot VB's. But this is all speculation. If one is established, we'll see what happens...
Denny
06-25-2017, 04:08 AM
#186
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,262
Originally Posted by Planetrain
Where did he say in that post he was all for it and thinks it is a good idea?
06-25-2017, 07:46 AM
#187
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2015
Position: stake holder ir.delta.com
Posts: 10,022
He's a DFW commuter, no? Why wouldn't he be for it?
It's still a job sucking, productivity disguised, QOL and bid package obliterating issue that could have been allowed to expire, but the wisdom of the NC seems to be greater than mine.
It's still a job sucking, productivity disguised, QOL and bid package obliterating issue that could have been allowed to expire, but the wisdom of the NC seems to be greater than mine.
06-25-2017, 10:22 AM
#188
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: window seat
Posts: 12,522
Originally Posted by notEnuf
He's a DFW commuter, no? Why wouldn't he be for it?
It's still a job sucking, productivity disguised, QOL and bid package obliterating issue that could have been allowed to expire, but the wisdom of the NC seems to be greater than mine.
It's still a job sucking, productivity disguised, QOL and bid package obliterating issue that could have been allowed to expire, but the wisdom of the NC seems to be greater than mine.
That said, in its current form the company will be very limited in how many of our jobs they can eliminate. The C Series fantasy is hilarious to watch the white paper crowd pontificate about how great it is.
To think that they will have enough pilots from a relatively small base to staff a VB, with anything close to a CA/FO balance, based on people bidding that category in hopes of breaking them off a piece of aforementioned tiny VB is hilarious. That's not even the point of that sad little provision. The real point is getting the foot in the door, much like they did with the first double digit large RJ order. We just need this small tactical fleet to help us help you, see! Then almost instantly hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of them, and next round our MEC is seriously entertaining even more (stay tuned).
VB's as they potentially exist on paper now are a small cancer, mostly benign. We have the option to completely remove it with no deductible and no copay, but instead we're going to give it time to flourish, and 100% in the future we will be pressured to expand the job killing "operational flexibility" of them.
Its like watching a movie where we're the hot cheerleader home alone who hears a noise in the basement, and instead of calling the cops we're going downstairs in our flip flops to check it out. She turns on the light in the stairwell and it doesn't work, so she uses the light from her phone screen instead. Everyone watching is yelling at the screen "no don't go down there are you crazy!" and she goes anyway.
06-25-2017, 10:35 AM
#189
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2015
Position: stake holder ir.delta.com
Posts: 10,022
Originally Posted by gloopy
I agree that it is a job draining concession. With the unilateral pull down feature, its unfathomable that we wouldn't pull it down the second it expired.
That said, in its current form the company will be very limited in how many of our jobs they can eliminate. The C Series fantasy is hilarious to watch the white paper crowd pontificate about how great it is.
To think that they will have enough pilots from a relatively small base to staff a VB, with anything close to a CA/FO balance, based on people bidding that category in hopes of breaking them off a piece of aforementioned tiny VB is hilarious. That's not even the point of that sad little provision. The real point is getting the foot in the door, much like they did with the first double digit large RJ order. We just need this small tactical fleet to help us help you, see! Then almost instantly hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of them, and next round our MEC is seriously entertaining even more (stay tuned).
VB's as they potentially exist on paper now are a small cancer, mostly benign. We have the option to completely remove it with no deductible and no copay, but instead we're going to give it time to flourish, and 100% in the future we will be pressured to expand the job killing "operational flexibility" of them.
Its like watching a movie where we're the hot cheerleader home alone who hears a noise in the basement, and instead of calling the cops we're going downstairs in our flip flops to check it out. She turns on the light in the stairwell and it doesn't work, so she uses the light from her phone screen instead. Everyone watching is yelling at the screen "no don't go down there are you crazy!" and she goes anyway.
That said, in its current form the company will be very limited in how many of our jobs they can eliminate. The C Series fantasy is hilarious to watch the white paper crowd pontificate about how great it is.
To think that they will have enough pilots from a relatively small base to staff a VB, with anything close to a CA/FO balance, based on people bidding that category in hopes of breaking them off a piece of aforementioned tiny VB is hilarious. That's not even the point of that sad little provision. The real point is getting the foot in the door, much like they did with the first double digit large RJ order. We just need this small tactical fleet to help us help you, see! Then almost instantly hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of them, and next round our MEC is seriously entertaining even more (stay tuned).
VB's as they potentially exist on paper now are a small cancer, mostly benign. We have the option to completely remove it with no deductible and no copay, but instead we're going to give it time to flourish, and 100% in the future we will be pressured to expand the job killing "operational flexibility" of them.
Its like watching a movie where we're the hot cheerleader home alone who hears a noise in the basement, and instead of calling the cops we're going downstairs in our flip flops to check it out. She turns on the light in the stairwell and it doesn't work, so she uses the light from her phone screen instead. Everyone watching is yelling at the screen "no don't go down there are you crazy!" and she goes anyway.
But I just stayed a Holliday Inn last night, I'm not a real negotiator.
06-25-2017, 12:57 PM
#190
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,262
Originally Posted by notEnuf
Agree completely. Not to mention the negotiating leverage, if it goes away and they really want it back, well... What are they willing to give up for that?
But I just stayed a Holliday Inn last night, I'm not a real negotiator.
But I just stayed a Holliday Inn last night, I'm not a real negotiator.
