GucciBoy

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



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

hockeypilot44

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

sailingfun

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.

Dustycrophopper

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

CBreezy

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.

Denny Crane

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

Hank Kingsley

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.

Denny Crane

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

LumberJack

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.

Karnak

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.