Get rid of Virtual Basing!
 

Is anyone else feel the same way I do? We need to get rid of it ASAP! The company is looking at many possible VBs and it will make the company more efficient, thus requiring less pilots. It’s time to get rid of it! Come on ALPA!

This is interesting. My view of virtual basing up to this point was that it would provide pilots with more flexibility in where they live etc. At least if the rules were written right. Anyway, I'm curious what going on in this area.

Dilly Dilly!

And how exactly do they plan on doing a hnl virtual base when every single leg out of there is an ocean crossing


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Semantics: “For purposes of this section, the Pacific Ocean shall be deemed a brackish pond”. :p

My last airline dabbled with that.

Upside: Home basing for some folks who don't want to live at the hub.

The downside for home based pilots: Small pool of trips, few options, limited flexibility.

The downside for everybody else: Dilutes trip pool and likely trip efficiency at the hub.

I'd be careful with this one. Even if you get protections, nobody knows enough about it to predict what rules you need. I don't know how the company would do reserves.

Let me guess you live in Peachtree City...

Let me guess you live in Dallas?

One man's trash.....

What I'm seeing here is the company is framing the VB as being a work in progress, and it's the pilots who will need to do all the work! DALPA has a history of miscalculating pilot's desires, and of getting bamboozled in terms of contract language. I could see the next contract being a disaster if we take the VB concept into the next round of negotiations. I believe the concept could be used to gut our contract and work rules.

You are also going to significantly split the pilot group into the VB's and the hub pilots. That could be a wedge that the company will exploit in future negotiations. Just look at the comments on here...

Virtual Basing could work, it could be a great deal, if we had a more cohesive pilot group and a unified union that had a track record of making gains at the negotiating table. But we don't. The company will ask for a LOT to make it happen.

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.

Just make Austin a hub and we'll call it good! :D

Would like to see a full BOS, MCO (or south Florida) and DFW(or AUS) base.

Just jump in a time machine and set the date to 1995!

Any place they want to make a base...great. No virtual bases though. I am a commuter and am totally against this. Reading through the CR update you can see how it will benefit only a small number while totally screwing up the trip mix for others.

Yes....any of these!

I posted on this a few months ago as well. I agree 100 percent we need to kill it b4 we find out what's in it.

Their update sounded like a plea for concessions.

As DeRosa, Malone and Martin used to say:

Virtual basing bad!

And then....

The good news was that it is relatively toothless in its current form. As has been said, kill it given the opportunity.

Ummmm......I ain't a smart guy by any stretch but WTF did I miss over the last few years vis-á-vis, EWR???

Per the CR Newletter:

"A virtual base cannot be established in an existing crew base."

"Cities highlighted in green would present the best scenarios for a virtual base test"

EWR is highlighted in green.

Idiots.....unreal.

I think we've already given them enough of a life line by letting it extend past 1 year of the signing of the contract. If it won't work in its current form then kill it. Actually, just kill it anyway.

Or kinda like when Sham said he would not vote yes on any TA that didn't go to "Memoryrat?" I can look around the table and pull out inconsistencies in the statements of just about any rep.

Either way, I haven't seen Sam or Scott roll calling to stop the majority, which is a strong majority, so why you like to go after reps that aren't even in your council all while you support ALPA lifers, no matter what their behavior, is beyond me.

How do we actually kill it? This is the worst thing that could ever happen to us. I mean no disrespect to Anyone who lives in a base that has potential.

Didnt read it so much as a request for relief.

Just an interesting explaination. With a side order of holee crud this is some serious calculations with too many moving parts. :)

They already have a FA bases in most of the “prospectives VBs”, why not opening a full base? After reading their explanation, seems that BOS would be a great start for a full base.

And it appears on the 320 fleet....with 400 airframes i guess so!

I see this being very bad for the two northern bases dtw and msp think about the reduction of flying in base if they open up florida virtual bases. It would have a huge impact on those bases which do not have all the flying Atlanta has.
Again I ask, how do we eliminate this thing do we get to vote?

VB can be a good thing if the pilots that choose to leave a category are senior to the trips that are taken out. If that is the case, pilots that remain in the category see a relative seniority bump. VB has the potential of being a win-win, but it depends on how senior the pilots that bid out of category are.

Just a thought.......but if Dalpa kills virtual basing without testing it, couldn't the Company then come back with a charge of not negotiating in good faith? We agreed to it but kill it without even trying it?

Denny

It's been in the contract for a while, it's not DALPA's fault the company hasn't been implementing it.

I think the description in the Crew Resource newsletter explained a lot - it's not as valuable as it sounds. The much higher credit combined with the cost of hotel rooms will probably kill the VB idea, as the VB part of the contract is written right now.

I think the value in the VB for the company is in international VB base, in cities like BOS or MSP that have more international departures in the summer but no wide body crews based there. But that's a real job killer that I hope DALPA doesn't agree to - I know I'd be writing my reps and hollering about it.

Virtual basing would give the company the ability to whipsaw the crap out of the pilot group. Think about it: How do your base reps represent such a diversely based pilot group? Think VB pilots would like stand up overnights? You bet they would! Spend every night in your own bed. And if that's the case, who cares about hotels? Crew meals? Per Diem? Company's got an issue they need resolved? Throw flying at the VB's and cut it in the hubs! Move airplanes around the system without having to displace pilots, pay for moves, give time off! Waiting for that Captain seat in your base? Get comfy, because it's going to be flown by the VB pilots... Premium flying will dry up. They will be able to close one or more current pilot bases. The savings from that alone is enormous. The amount of credit time that would vaporize is huge. The newsletter already telegraphed that they have 'asks' to make it work. What are you willing to give up for that???

I'm not buying the line that it's complicated and expensive to implement. On the contrary, I think it's a huge windfall. It's the future. EFB's, Virtual Sign In, CPSC, all make a physical base a thing of the past. We are being actively managed to think this is something we want, and need to pay for. It's obvious...the company is making Deadheading a huge PITA so that we'll drop the ocean crossing restriction on VB's.

If we go there, we need some major quid and some major new sections of the PWA to ensure that our pay and QOL don't deteriorate, but I'm not sure that's even possible. Our best strategy is to delay it's implementation as long as possible and when the company finally comes around and says 'how much?' ... we present the bill.

Oh, I just loved the HNL concept. Pilots would sell their souls to have a VB there.