Virtual Base in MCO
04-16-2018, 07:36 AM
#131
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 767A
Posts: 791
Originally Posted by JamesBond
OK, thanks. But let me play devil's advocate for a moment. We are going to hire 1000 pilots this year, and 1000 pilots next year. The vast majority of AEs for the last two years seem to have been on the lower end of the seniority list. --- ALL upward movement at the bottom of the list -- It does however remain to be seen how the -88 drawdown will affect the list, but let's leave that out for the moment. 47 jobs will be 'lost'. OK, where will they come from and where will they go? Will we be seeing a displacement in the 767 category? Or will these 47 'lost' jobs come from the newhire ranks. We are still going to hire 1000 pilots, so I am guessing that it will not even remotely be noticed. So then you are saying that there will be a 767 displacement. Has that been discussed anywhere? I certainly haven't seen mention of it. This is temporary, so it wouldn't make any sense for the company to do this, and then drawdown the category only to have to either build it later, or pay premium to cover the schedule.
Meanwhile, 80 pilots have a better QOL for a period of time.
The horror.
Meanwhile, 80 pilots have a better QOL for a period of time.
The horror.
04-16-2018, 08:59 AM
#133
Line Holder
Joined APC: Nov 2017
Posts: 56
Originally Posted by JamesBond
OK, thanks. But let me play devil's advocate for a moment. We are going to hire 1000 pilots this year, and 1000 pilots next year. The vast majority of AEs for the last two years seem to have been on the lower end of the seniority list. --- ALL upward movement at the bottom of the list -- It does however remain to be seen how the -88 drawdown will affect the list, but let's leave that out for the moment. 47 jobs will be 'lost'. OK, where will they come from and where will they go? Will we be seeing a displacement in the 767 category? Or will these 47 'lost' jobs come from the newhire ranks. We are still going to hire 1000 pilots, so I am guessing that it will not even remotely be noticed. So then you are saying that there will be a 767 displacement. Has that been discussed anywhere? I certainly haven't seen mention of it. This is temporary, so it wouldn't make any sense for the company to do this, and then drawdown the category only to have to either build it later, or pay premium to cover the schedule.
Meanwhile, 80 pilots have a better QOL for a period of time.
The horror.
Meanwhile, 80 pilots have a better QOL for a period of time.
The horror.
They are 2 PWA cycles ahead of us. I watched the exact same thing play out at a regional airline. “Oh it is so much cheaper to live in Albany than it is to live in the LGA area!” Fast forward a few years and the airline was 60% “outstation bases” and language was lost in a bargaining cycle under mediation about crew room requirements citing cost issues.
But regional guys know nothing. I’m done talking on this topic for now. I’ll just wait for the I told ya so part.
04-16-2018, 10:00 AM
#135
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2006
Position: 737 FO
Posts: 2,370
Originally Posted by LCAhotline
You don’t get it. It’s a poorly worded LOA attached to our PWA. The implications in the FUTURE carry way more risk than the rewards are worth. The ocean crossing segment language will be removed. Then the company is gonna get ****ed off when MCO sick calls happen, so they’ll go after new sick language and cite difficulty with VB sick leave as the reason.
They are 2 PWA cycles ahead of us. I watched the exact same thing play out at a regional airline. “Oh it is so much cheaper to live in Albany than it is to live in the LGA area!” Fast forward a few years and the airline was 60% “outstation bases” and language was lost in a bargaining cycle under mediation about crew room requirements citing cost issues.
But regional guys know nothing. I’m done talking on this topic for now. I’ll just wait for the I told ya so part.
They are 2 PWA cycles ahead of us. I watched the exact same thing play out at a regional airline. “Oh it is so much cheaper to live in Albany than it is to live in the LGA area!” Fast forward a few years and the airline was 60% “outstation bases” and language was lost in a bargaining cycle under mediation about crew room requirements citing cost issues.
But regional guys know nothing. I’m done talking on this topic for now. I’ll just wait for the I told ya so part.
04-16-2018, 10:03 AM
#136
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: Left seat of a little plane
Posts: 2,396
Originally Posted by LCAhotline
You don’t get it. It’s a poorly worded LOA attached to our PWA. The implications in the FUTURE carry way more risk than the rewards are worth. The ocean crossing segment language will be removed. Then the company is gonna get ****ed off when MCO sick calls happen, so they’ll go after new sick language and cite difficulty with VB sick leave as the reason.
You are starting with VBs which are still mostly a vague unknown and ending up with the company demanding large changes to our sick leave policy.
I prefer to withhold judgment at least for a little while.
04-16-2018, 10:59 AM
#137
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2012
Posts: 1,418
Originally Posted by JamesBond
Show your math.
“C15 FAQs 16-05
November 2, 2016
Q. Will Virtual Bases decrease pilot staffing to minimum levels at those bases that are not yet at minimum levels? What impact will Virtual Bases have on the total number of pilots needed system wide? Will Virtual Bases make scheduling changes more difficult?
A. Virtual basing and TDY are projected to offset about 47 of the 73 jobs that will be created by the increases to vacation and CQ training pay. Neither of provisions are expected to have an impact on the numbers of pilots above the minimum staffing formula that the Company carries in various positions. As such, there should be no change to how readily a pilot can adjust his schedule today.”
04-16-2018, 11:55 AM
#138
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2015
Posts: 631
Originally Posted by Herkflyr
Though I'm skeptical of VBs myself, your reasoning here is what they call the slippery slope logical fallacy. Often seen in politics, it states "if we do just this one thing (elect my opponent, allow VBs etc), then this will happen, that will happen and then this other thing will happen and we all die in a huge nuclear explosion."
You are starting with VBs which are still mostly a vague unknown and ending up with the company demanding large changes to our sick leave policy.
I prefer to withhold judgment at least for a little while.
You are starting with VBs which are still mostly a vague unknown and ending up with the company demanding large changes to our sick leave policy.
I prefer to withhold judgment at least for a little while.
04-16-2018, 11:58 AM
#139
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: Left seat of a little plane
Posts: 2,396
Originally Posted by Peoloto
Except not thinking of these things can progress to us getting caught with our pants down saying “we didn’t think they would do that” in the future.
But constantly forecasting worse case doom and gloom scenarios also tends to lead to the Boy Who Cried Wolf syndrome. We should treat VBs with healthy skepticism but leave it at that.
04-16-2018, 12:08 PM
#140
Line Holder
Joined APC: Nov 2017
Posts: 56
Originally Posted by Peoloto
Except not thinking of these things can progress to us getting caught with our pants down saying “we didn’t think they would do that” in the future.
IMO, this is a risk with very little reward. Not worth taking at this time. If the company will benefit from virtual basing, then we can get something for it down the road. The language we have in our LOA is poor at best. We have nothing stating that a virtual base may not contain more than X pilots. We have nothing saying that we cannot have more than a single fleet type, or two fleet types in a virtual base. We have very little protective language is all that I am saying. Not to mention it’s a bargaining chip.
Clean up the language, make it more than a page and a half, include some protections, then it’d be a big fat maybe for me.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
