Virtual Base in MCO
04-04-2018, 07:09 PM
#11
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2005
Position: 7ER B...whatever that means.
Posts: 3,966
Originally Posted by ERflyer
Everyone should do what is right for them. If you want to bid the VB in MCO you should while it still exists. Could be a good deal. But it is a giveaway to company. We can revoke it and should. It doesn’t affect me personally either way but it does not make sense to decrease manning voluntarily.
04-04-2018, 07:43 PM
#12
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2013
Posts: 174
If the company and the union
needs a mco base, make them open one!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Say no to virtual basing
This is going to hurt our northern bases dramatically
Any flight from nyc, dtw, cvg, msp to mco now has the potential to be a mco-cvg-mco turn and not a cvg pairing
I will also throw in that we have not had a narrow body captain slot on any a.e. Since the moab!
needs a mco base, make them open one!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Say no to virtual basing
This is going to hurt our northern bases dramatically
Any flight from nyc, dtw, cvg, msp to mco now has the potential to be a mco-cvg-mco turn and not a cvg pairing
I will also throw in that we have not had a narrow body captain slot on any a.e. Since the moab!
04-04-2018, 07:48 PM
#13
Line Holder
Joined APC: Nov 2017
Posts: 56
Originally Posted by sailingfun
Know your contract:
“Ocean crossing” means a flight segment: a. across the Atlantic Ocean, or b. across the Pacific Ocean, as follows: 1) between the North American continent and the Hawaiian Islands, 2) between the Hawaiian Islands and any point west of the 160 degree meridian, 3) between the North American continent and a point west of the 160 degree meridian, 4) between a Pacific Rim airport and Australia and/or New Zealand, or, c. to or from an airport in South America, as follows: 1) between the United States and any point further south of the equator than 3 degrees, 30 minutes south latitude on the South American continent, and 2) any flight segment scheduled for greater than eight hours to, within or from the South American continent,
“Ocean crossing” means a flight segment: a. across the Atlantic Ocean, or b. across the Pacific Ocean, as follows: 1) between the North American continent and the Hawaiian Islands, 2) between the Hawaiian Islands and any point west of the 160 degree meridian, 3) between the North American continent and a point west of the 160 degree meridian, 4) between a Pacific Rim airport and Australia and/or New Zealand, or, c. to or from an airport in South America, as follows: 1) between the United States and any point further south of the equator than 3 degrees, 30 minutes south latitude on the South American continent, and 2) any flight segment scheduled for greater than eight hours to, within or from the South American continent,
Foolish as hell if we allow This VB to persist past June. ALPA should kill this immediately and it should never exist going forward.
Hopefully 0 people bid it. That’d be a nice show of solidarity.
04-04-2018, 07:52 PM
#14
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2013
Position: Taxi Driver
Posts: 411
Originally Posted by Dustycrophopper
If the company and the union
needs a mco base, make them open one!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Say no to virtual basing
This is going to hurt our northern bases dramatically
Any flight from nyc, dtw, cvg, msp to mco now has the potential to be a mco-cvg-mco turn and not a cvg pairing
I will also throw in that we have not had a narrow body captain slot on any a.e. Since the moab!
needs a mco base, make them open one!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Say no to virtual basing
This is going to hurt our northern bases dramatically
Any flight from nyc, dtw, cvg, msp to mco now has the potential to be a mco-cvg-mco turn and not a cvg pairing
I will also throw in that we have not had a narrow body captain slot on any a.e. Since the moab!
04-04-2018, 11:55 PM
#16
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,108
Management is willfully and repeatedly violating our contract.
Killing VB will send a clear message that we will not tolerate this behavior.
If they want a base, let them open one.
Managment was very clear on VB, they want more concessions.
Nyet.
Killing VB will send a clear message that we will not tolerate this behavior.
If they want a base, let them open one.
Managment was very clear on VB, they want more concessions.
Nyet.
04-05-2018, 03:26 AM
#17
Holding
Joined APC: Aug 2017
Position: Bus Driver
Posts: 126
Originally Posted by DALFA
What’s stopping DL from making MCO a regular base? Last I checked MCO has more departures than CVG (which is a pilot base). MCO could easily be a 757/767, 737, A319/20/21 base.
04-05-2018, 03:44 AM
#19
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,273
Originally Posted by Dustycrophopper
If the company and the union
needs a mco base, make them open one!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Say no to virtual basing
This is going to hurt our northern bases dramatically
Any flight from nyc, dtw, cvg, msp to mco now has the potential to be a mco-cvg-mco turn and not a cvg pairing
I will also throw in that we have not had a narrow body captain slot on any a.e. Since the moab!
needs a mco base, make them open one!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Say no to virtual basing
This is going to hurt our northern bases dramatically
Any flight from nyc, dtw, cvg, msp to mco now has the potential to be a mco-cvg-mco turn and not a cvg pairing
I will also throw in that we have not had a narrow body captain slot on any a.e. Since the moab!
As far as narrow body CA slots was that not the whole point of the MOAB? Cover all the known deliveries and retirements for the year?It does not change the total number, they were just all awarded at once.
04-05-2018, 04:56 AM
#20
Line Holder
Joined APC: Nov 2017
Posts: 56
Originally Posted by sailingfun
Would not opening a regular base in MCO have the exact same effect on the Northern bases?
As far as narrow body CA slots was that not the whole point of the MOAB? Cover all the known deliveries and retirements for the year?It does not change the total number, they were just all awarded at once.
As far as narrow body CA slots was that not the whole point of the MOAB? Cover all the known deliveries and retirements for the year?It does not change the total number, they were just all awarded at once.
No reason, at all, for this group to allow virtual basing. Email reps. Do whatever, but this has to go.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
