It seems to me the VB undercurrent is being generated by examining alternative operational designs.

Brainstorming a bit, if a narrowly defined VB concept isnt economically viable seems they might start modeling perhaps a region/fleet PBS pool for monthly schedules.

Example...a NE region pbs bid run. This would allow network/CR to construct rotations free of the domicile end point requirements and provide pilots to bid schedules suited to their geographic compatibility to constructed rotations.

The concept of VB is the product of people here looking for a better (more efficient/ profitable) way to do what we do.

We have a lot of smart and dedicated people around this company. And not just in the cockpit. Given the task to find a better way these folks just might come up with one.

VB calculations should inform this group our future will likely be one of change.

 

 

The "benefits" of VB and TDY are miniscule compared to the benefits of the current system. I'm all for finding a creative solution to help those who can't move to a base, but VBs and TDYs are NOT it.

 

The newsletter was confusing. They basically showed their work and it seems like Boston 320was the most promising location for the company to try it but they determined it was not viable. But they still seemed to indicate that they are going to try several virtual bases this summer? What am I missing?

 

We do more than enough flying in BOS to have a real base. What's stopping it is the company's choice to make every single flight a different piece of equipment, even when seats are about the same. To have that "flexibility" they will have to pay dearly for overnights/hotels/perdiem/credit, surplus reserves, a huge training bubble and way more pilots. They have already and permanently decided this is how they want to do it. So why should we try to save them money by reducing required pilots and JOBS when the only "benefit" is a few less commuters from time to time? That's one of the poorest ROI's imaginable. Its right up there with paying 150K for a "studies" degree.

 

So are all of you guys against the VB concept also for setting a cap on swaps and trade with friends? To me all of these are productivity gains for the company.


Scoop

 

You’d have to be a little more specific but, in general, I’m with you.

Denny

 

As I understand it the Swap board and also Swap with friends have no pick-up limit. Open time has a max pick-up limit. Some Pilots use the swap board and Swap with friends to bypass the Max pick-up.

As long as its in the PWA it is perfectly fine with me. My question is why don't we try to remove them and set hard caps on all pick-ups? Both issues, VB and no pick-up limits, seem very similar in that they benefit those who choose to participate with more pay and flexibility at the expense of the Pilot group at large.

Lots of angst with the VB and yet no one seems to care about pick-ups. Reminds me when all the guys were going ballistic about reserves being able to fly to ALV+15 while the company sneaked in 30 day July and August months which is many many times more detrimental to the Pilot group.

Scoop

 

You are right. It’s just doesn’t have a high profile like VB/TD. Plus it’s not as easy to terminate....

Denny

 

I'd like to see some data. How many, what categories, etc. exceed max pick up. I suspect this is a new hire, junior issue but I could be wrong. Anything that limits schedule changes would be suspect for me. VBs are an obvious loss of bid package flying available to choose from. That's my issue with VBs. And productivity related reduction in jobs.

Schedule flexibility is a good thing as far as I'm concerned. If you have to pick up a trip with a few hours extra to get the days off you want/need and still have a normal pay month so be it. I don't think many will pile on for regular pay but again I could be wrong. Data is needed.