BOS Pilot Base
09-16-2019, 07:42 AM
#111
Line Holder
Joined APC: Apr 2016
Posts: 83
I was in the A terminal last week. Work is underway on rebranding the old Southwest gates. Good news!
I think DAL would like nothing more than a VB for Boston and MCO (and maybe SFO). VBs give the company significant flexibility (read "agility" in corporate-speak), which is always a good thing. Actual bases require leasing space, hiring staff, training cascades, and limiting flexibility.
This is why we need to remain inflexible on VBs. We, as pilots, want to be able to bid for the seats which we think will deliver our own personal optimal pay/QOL results. We don't want to give the company the ability to yank the rug out from under us at a moment's notice. I'm hopeful that if we don't give the company wiggle room on VBs, we may just get that Boston base.
I think DAL would like nothing more than a VB for Boston and MCO (and maybe SFO). VBs give the company significant flexibility (read "agility" in corporate-speak), which is always a good thing. Actual bases require leasing space, hiring staff, training cascades, and limiting flexibility.
This is why we need to remain inflexible on VBs. We, as pilots, want to be able to bid for the seats which we think will deliver our own personal optimal pay/QOL results. We don't want to give the company the ability to yank the rug out from under us at a moment's notice. I'm hopeful that if we don't give the company wiggle room on VBs, we may just get that Boston base.
09-16-2019, 08:31 AM
#112
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: window seat
Posts: 12,522
Originally Posted by BounceBounceBam
I was in the A terminal last week. Work is underway on rebranding the old Southwest gates. Good news!
I think DAL would like nothing more than a VB for Boston and MCO (and maybe SFO). VBs give the company significant flexibility (read "agility" in corporate-speak), which is always a good thing. Actual bases require leasing space, hiring staff, training cascades, and limiting flexibility.
This is why we need to remain inflexible on VBs. We, as pilots, want to be able to bid for the seats which we think will deliver our own personal optimal pay/QOL results. We don't want to give the company the ability to yank the rug out from under us at a moment's notice. I'm hopeful that if we don't give the company wiggle room on VBs, we may just get that Boston base.
I think DAL would like nothing more than a VB for Boston and MCO (and maybe SFO). VBs give the company significant flexibility (read "agility" in corporate-speak), which is always a good thing. Actual bases require leasing space, hiring staff, training cascades, and limiting flexibility.
This is why we need to remain inflexible on VBs. We, as pilots, want to be able to bid for the seats which we think will deliver our own personal optimal pay/QOL results. We don't want to give the company the ability to yank the rug out from under us at a moment's notice. I'm hopeful that if we don't give the company wiggle room on VBs, we may just get that Boston base.
As for "real" bases, the whole leasing and hiring staff is just silly. They could send one of the bazillion NYC admins there without costing them a penny, especially since a real BOS base would likely canabalize NYC by a little bit (with zero downside to anyone). Leasing? Leasing what? a walk in closet in a large terminal we already control 100%? Zero cost.
The only reason there isn't already a BOS pilot base is marketing's militant reliance on every flight being on a different AC even across ones the same size ranges. Good for them that they think they save a penny here or there or whatever, but that doesn't justify the VB scam on the pilot group at large.
Once we fully reclaim the Taj Mullin soon a narrowbody base there would be easy to justify with very, very minor marketing adjustments. It would reduce commuting and increase coverage reliability there which would more than make up for the false "cost" of this 160 seater going there versus that 160 seater coming back etc.
If and when we get the other intl gates and (functionally) all of A is narrowbody, we could easily support multipile narrowbody bases in BOS. If they withhold them trying to get VB "flexibility" at that point we should reduce entertaining that idea from zero to negative zero divided by zero.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
