Gunfighter

Fully agree with this sentiment. It applies equally to aircraft deliveries, JV scope, SLIs, etc. The street runs both ways. IMHO, the MEC vote had more to do with JVs than it ever had to do with VBs.

waldo135

If that’s the case, to paraphrase others here...we made a checkers move in a chess match. It makes us look JV.

FL370esq

Junior Varsity or Joint Venture? (probably more like the intramural squad) 😁

Hank Kingsley

In concept, VB was a 717/CS in San Antonio. Flying to South America or returning from LHR opens a can of worms. Where does it go from there?

Han Solo

I think the vote was a good move. If SF is right, then VB didn't matter much to the company anyway and thus weren't terribly valuable as negotiating capital. If he was wrong then the MEC just prevented a harmful contract stipulation which could have been considered "status quo" when C2019 negotiations roll into town. I'll throw down right now and say C2019 will make the last round of negotiations look like afternoon tea with the queen. I say 3 years of pain, who will take the under on that?

ERflyer

Four years.

FL370esq

I'm not so sure that Section 6 "status quo" would have been an issue. The parties expressly agreed to pretty liberal "take-down" language applicable to either side (more so for the pilots seeing as the company controlled the VB process). I think the company would have had a hard time prevailing in an argument that DALPA termination during Section 6 negotiations is a violation of status quo.

That being said, I personally think it was a less than impressive showing by the MEC to take down the VB before giving it at least a month or two before canning it. Just smacks of bad faith even though permitted. Why did we spend negotiating time on the LOA if we weren't going to try it? Love to hear the story of why we gave the company the extension and what we got for it.

Scoop

I don't mind the MEC taking down the VB if it was part of a strategic long term plan.

What I do mind is MEC comms that are designed to persuade rather then inform.

For example all the comms about VBs were pretty much doom and gloom without showing any of the advantages. IE - Time will be removed from all ER bases. No mention of all the Pilots that would also be leaving all the ER bases to "fund" the VB. ATL Pilots were going to fly the time regardless of it was starting in ATL or MCO. The same for NYC etc. The gain for the company is pretty much DH credit. From reading comms updates some believed ATL would have same number of pilots flying out of ATL with 30 less lines to choose from - that is not how it would have worked.

Like I said, if this is part of a long term strategy partly in response to the company apparently blowing off our PWA at will: reroute pay disputes, 350 delivery flights etc then fine. I fully support the MECs decision, I would just rather see more balanced comms. Inform us neutrally and lot us decide what we like and don't like. Enough with the persuasion.

Scoop

LumberJack

Agreed, we all hate being sold to. Just give me the pros and cons of the issue and let me decide.

That said, I'm very happy they killed VBs. Good riddance.

JamesBond

and no retro. Certainly not 'full' retro. But ya'll are good with that I assume.

Standing by for incoming.