Read this months crew resources newsletter. It explains what I have been trying to say on here for the last two years. VB’s are of very limited use to the company and savings are minor.
As far as gut our contract and work rules all I can say is black helicopters are everywhere! Regardless of how this test goes the company can open for anything they want in the next contract. Even if they open a couple of VB’s it has zero impact on the next round of negotiations. In fact if they are as bad as you post it works in our favor on the next contract.
VB’s, much ado about nothing!!!

 

I did read it. And what I read was "we need more to make this work". I don't know if you missed the last negotiations or what, but we actually had to send the TA back, it was so full of things we never asked for, didn't want, and apparently also, didn't fully understand. It's not a stretch to imagine 'tweaks' to the VB agreement that 'helps' the company and makes the incredible convenience of VB's a reality. You've already got guys on here foaming at the mouth to get a 320 or 757 base in their -ville or -burgh. I'm willing to bet that those pilots would have an entirely different set of priorities than a hub-based pilot.

If you lived in Boston, would you commute to a 767 job in NYC or drive in for a 320 job? What would you be willing to give up for that convenience? I don't want to find out the answer to that question, but I'm willing to bet DALPA already has a list!

 

VBs will:
Divide the pilot group
Dilute the bid package, but you won't know what's gone
Reduce credit in trip rigs -- that's what you guys want correct, more work for the same pay?
Reduce the requirement for pilots on property

If they're much ado about nothing, then the company won't mind when they go away.

 

I agree. It's too much of a can of worms down the road (think future contract negotiations) to not just kill it now.

 

I’ll support VB’s if they increase our share of JV flying! Quid Pro Quo

 

Ooo I wouldn't say you won't know what's gone. My category would know exactly what is gone.

 

Its an interesting read in the march cr newsletter

 

Ditto. You are correct sir. I have no dog in the fight. Int'l.

 

So what’s the difference if the company opens an actual base instead of a virtual base? Does the anti-VB argument advocate a single mega-base (in ATL, I presume)? Does the pro-VB argument advocate a base in every ville and burg?

With only one category, isn’t CVG essentially a permanent VB?

 

There are two big differences. A VB is more expensive for day to day operations with the contractual extras pilots get. The company can however shut or move a VB at any time for no cost. There is significant cost to closing a normal base.