Well, my captain rep is based in NYC and gave his proxy to a rep from NYC for the MEC meeting...so I'm wondering how he represents me now.

The "wedge" you mentioned earlier is theoretical at best. I'd rank it up there with hats, commuting, pay banding, and dozens of other issues that seem to provoke a vocal subset into indignation.

You'd rank the largest change to our working agreement in history to hats? Really?

Hats? Seriously Clark?

Seriously, just open a Boston base. We have hundreds of 321 on order, this virtual basing does not make sense domestically.
They probably just don’t want to pay to displace people. We have to be careful, it may be a set up for the future

The current crew resources newsletter states a Boston A321 base would increase costs. I assume that is based on the current fleet. With future deliveries I assume that can and will change but for the moment I don’t think you will see a base.

.

This forum has an astounding level of VB expertise (as well as pantie wadding)

Especially since the Company has not even detailed precisely how any VB would even be mechanized.

How about we all take a breath, wait for details, THEN discuss.

.

Well thats no fun. :)

The last crew resources news letter did have a good overview of the program and issues.

.
Oops. Don't I feel like the goat? Will go search it out. Thanks.
.

He didn’t get “the memo.”

The newsletter discusses increased costs relating to a virtual base in BOS, not a permanent base.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I believe the company wants wide body virtual basing. The narrow body virtual basing is a stepping stone to wide body virtual basing.

The memo said a VB would increase system credit. A real base would have the exact same result. There is no difference between the two from a standpoint of building rotations and line awards.

The real issue is why does the company want them. Just my opinion but a virtual base, if enough interest allows them to grow, open and close it whenever they want. A permanent base requires an advanced entitlement, training, possible displacing from other bases and big displacements from the base if it doesn’t work. With the massive amount of training this airline does you can’t blame them for trying to save money but for us it’s different. I totally get if you lived in Boston you would think this is great to drive to work. But you would never know where your seniority would sit, it could be awesome one month and crappy the next. Also, take msp for example, one month a bunch of flying leaves the base and next month it returns, could drop regular line holders to reserve, weekends off people to weekends and so on. Planned a.e’s and even realignments at least give time for families to plan.
It is not our fault the company has so many airplane types and I agree I believe this is a set up for future widebody virtual basing

Part of me thinks you don't understand how a Stand up works because you spend zero nights in your bed on a stand up.

They may want it but I don't think they'll ever get it. If the Union is stupid enough (and I don't think they are) negotiate a wide body VB in the next contract, I'll be voting no again. That would be a EUUGE mistake and severely curtail wide body positions in both seats.

After reading the Crew Resources bulletin, I'm kinda surprised the company hasn't thrown in the towel with regards to VB's. Based on what they said about Boston, I don't see where any other potential VB would/could work out any differently.

Now, there's another monkey in the works and that's Temporary Duty (TD). I think THIS is a much bigger threat than VB's.

Denny

You are correct sir, and it will be a "must" have in the future. If the union refuses, the mediator will rule the pilots are not negotiating. Can of worms.

It may be a "gateway" issue for them but as far a a mediator saying we are not negotiating because of this one issue isn't gonna happen. That argument can be turned around by saying the Company is not negotiating by being intractable by not budging.

Denny

As a commuter... No to VBs. No no no...

There is no win-win. The company's win is less pilots(bad for us) and less credit(bad for us). The ONLY benefit is for a small number who will be temporarily home based in the busy months at the expense of all the rest of the pilots.

Right back atcha! You'd rank VB as the largest change to our working agreement in history? Really?

A voluntary system that pilots control?

Ok...you win.

That’s not even close to how the process works. The company gave us lots of improvements in the last contract. You are saying the company has to make more improvements in those areas or the mediator will turn on them. Mediators and the negotiating teams work off terms sheets that are costed out to the dime. In the end cost is the driving force.

I laughed at that also. One of the more bizarre statements ever on here.

Would the company like international VB? How are they going to get one ?

First off, I think virtual bases are a bad idea. I am domicile based at the moment, so I have that bias. But is it not true that even folks who aren't home based in the virtual base would see the benefits of positive space commuting on the front and back? I am not advocating for it, but I want to understand all of the benefits and detractors.

I could make the argument that greenslips only benefit those that live in base. The something like 80% of NY based pilots have little shot at greenslips because they don't live there.

The only way they would open a VB is if it saves money and pilots. VB's have been around forever and never has a pilot group spent negotiating capital to implement it. It is a concession overall, plain and simple.

Again, benefit the few at the expense of the many. In your GS scenario, the system wide # of GS's would go down because of increased efficiency. Saving the company money and pilots.

In both cases, I am on the fence. I think the jobs issue is way overblown though. jmho

And I would disagree with that. Its been my experience that most green slips are awarded during the morning of the the day prior. Yes there are exceptions to that for popup trips but to make a blanket statement that 80% cannot get a GS because they commute is wrong.

Denny

I tend to agree with you here. IMO the bigger problem is Temporary Duty. THIS will do more to cut down on green slips and manning than anything I can think of........ It's like allowing a VB in an existing base......something the Union has not allowed in the VB LOA.

Denny

If I were management and wanted more point to point international service from mid sized cities like IND and AUS and felt pilot costs would be excessive I would do as has been done in the past with the carrot approach. A signed order as a example for 30 787’s contingent on VB’s for ocean crossing. Perhaps 1 VB base for each 3 airframes delivered.
They won’t get it in the next contract just by asking for it nor does this test set any precident in the next contract. As I have mentioned much ado about nothing. VB’s will die a natural death.

I said they have little shot. But the vast majority of greenslips go to the same handful of guys. At least in my category that is the case. I'm not complaining, just stating a fact.

The greenslip system is designed to benefit the very senior. The only way to short circuit that is to live in a highly commuted to base, and then you will get the short notice GSs. In a purely international category, skeds usually has the advance warning to be able to cover the vast majority of GSs the day prior because that's when the crew shortage occurs rather than short notice like domestic. Jmo, but in watching my category the last 18 years that is seemingly the way it is.

The pilot who had 234 hours last month living in FL might disagree with you! Probably a majority of international GS’s in NYC are assigned the day prior or early the day off.

Signed orders can be changed. They have these slimy things called lawyers that change them. Until they are sitting on the ramp with Delta on the side it isn't in the inventory.

My understanding of TDY is that it has far better received (by the pilot group) at airlines that have them than VBs. PS travel to/from, plus a hotel at company expense. It is all in the details.

Sent from my SM-G892U using Tapatalk

Fine. GSs all around. Wooo hooo. I am holding my breath because mine is surely in the phone line right now. Can't wait to get 234 hours like apparently everybody else is doing.

And was he/she really 'living' in Florida?

Well, I see it as giving the company the flexibility to "right size" every base every month for a few hotel rooms. I don't like it...

Denny

I'd rather see us protect international domicile flying for those that are based there. If it originates in a domicile, and there is a category there that flies it, those pilots should be doing that flying. Flights that originate out of a domicile are up for grabs.

Allowing Temporary Duty could lead to that as well as a massive reduction in overtime (especially during the summer) and fewer pilots needed. TD basically gives the company a flexible reserve contingent that can be moved around from base to base every month.........domestic or international.

Denny

The current Crew Resources newsletter seems to support this but I go back to my previous question from a while ago....

Whose term sheet was the VB first on?