BOS Pilot Base
08-27-2019, 09:44 AM
#51
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: Captain
Posts: 822
Originally Posted by LumberJack
You also don't see how it would be worse had they not. It's just one of the countless variables ALPA was right to pull it.
You have your opinion and mine differs. As a pilot group, if we are going to allow pilots to take leaves, PDs etc, I would much rather seem this happen with some sort of pay attached to it. Doesn’t mean the program couldn’t be better etc, but we have had these things since 2002 or so and there was never any sort of social media outrage or worry about who was taking them until now. So I really don’t buy the “It might hurt my quality of life” argument any more than a pilot who drops or takes a KLOA. Since they went relatively senior, it actually allowed many pilots a schedule improvement.
Looks to me more like we just took schedule flexibility away from pilot group all for looks and no other tangible benefit. Well, I guess it did make the Chit Chat crowd tingle for a few seconds.
08-27-2019, 09:50 AM
#52
Da Hudge
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
Originally Posted by RonRicco
First, I could care less about a VB as I don’t commute, but I would have been interested to see if they turned out as awful as say the “9 hour short call window” that had many on SM upset.
Outside of whether someone is fan, not a fan of VB, using it as a retaliation did exactly what? Especially with no data, apparently there wasn’t enough leverage in the program to change any sort of behavior. We still have scope violations, decreasing trip quality, middle seat DH, little progress in section 6 etc.
Other than the feel good aspect (again, on a contractual section that provided almost zero leverage) how has the retaliatory move benefitted us? Test data may not have provided any more leverage, or it very well may have provided more. I’ll take anything above zero.
AND, I only ask in that context “retaliation” because that is the justification given by some.
Outside of whether someone is fan, not a fan of VB, using it as a retaliation did exactly what? Especially with no data, apparently there wasn’t enough leverage in the program to change any sort of behavior. We still have scope violations, decreasing trip quality, middle seat DH, little progress in section 6 etc.
Other than the feel good aspect (again, on a contractual section that provided almost zero leverage) how has the retaliatory move benefitted us? Test data may not have provided any more leverage, or it very well may have provided more. I’ll take anything above zero.
AND, I only ask in that context “retaliation” because that is the justification given by some.
It was in no way possible for it to be a bad faith pull down, as it was negotiated in good faith to have a no fault pull down at any time. Data, schmata, anyone could see it was a cheap alternative to reduce pilot jobs and cut credit at the benefit of a handful. The company had already started their bad faith antics with intentional scope violations and other crap, so in no way was it a good plan to let them go forward with the VB. No clairvoyance needed... the crap was already going down hill with the company’s behavior.
08-27-2019, 09:51 AM
#53
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2015
Posts: 3,117
Originally Posted by sailingfun
If your position is that there is never anything mutually beneficial between the company and union and that the job of a strong union is to handicap and hinder the company in every way possible you would be correct.
Everyone seems to believe that it was okay to arbitrarily pull it down and that VBs were the beginning of the end of the Delta pilot group. Don't know and now don't care seeing as it is a moot (moo for "Friends" fans) issue. However, the fact remains that ALPA agreed to the VBs, 66% of the then pilot group ratified TA2 which contained the VB MOU and then the MEC arbitrarily pulled them down - not upon the expiration of the MOU#16-02 extension window nor after one or even two months of trials. My point (that you completely missed) was that if ALPA hadn't agreed to the VB, and if it hadn't been ratified by 66% of the pilots who voted on TA-2, there would have been nothing to pull down. It's done, they're gone and now it's time to focus on real issues like international scope and the Company's attempt to keep the operation pressed against the red line while playing fast and loose with Section 23.
08-27-2019, 09:57 AM
#55
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2015
Posts: 3,117
Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp
A very small portion of people will yell about anything, and the 9 hour short call is a fine example of that. Using that to validate your view on VB is not good, as that is a poor analogy. VB was specifically negotiated with a no fault pull down, as by definition it is a manning concession. I looked strongly at it when considering my TA2 vote, and that language is what made it possible for it to not be a negative factor.
It was in no way possible for it to be a bad faith pull down, as it was negotiated in good faith to have a no fault pull down at any time. Data, schmata, anyone could see it was a cheap alternative to reduce pilot jobs and cut credit at the benefit of a handful. The company had already started their bad faith antics with intentional scope violations and other crap, so in no way was it a good plan to let them go forward with the VB. No clairvoyance needed... the crap was already going down hill with the company’s behavior.
It was in no way possible for it to be a bad faith pull down, as it was negotiated in good faith to have a no fault pull down at any time. Data, schmata, anyone could see it was a cheap alternative to reduce pilot jobs and cut credit at the benefit of a handful. The company had already started their bad faith antics with intentional scope violations and other crap, so in no way was it a good plan to let them go forward with the VB. No clairvoyance needed... the crap was already going down hill with the company’s behavior.
08-27-2019, 10:04 AM
#56
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2013
Position: Fastest Hunk of Junk in the Galaxy
Posts: 1,657
Originally Posted by RonRicco
Low balling SIL offers? That was the negotiated point was it not? Market based SIL offers. If guys didn’t take them, then the price to play went up. So SILs were pulled allowing a pilot who might otherwise get paid for zero obligation for the month, the “option” of getting zero pay with a KLOA.
And based on the context that it was about SIL pay (not whether we should have them at all) what did we get? Does the RCC now have more control?
I don’t see where any of the pull downs themselves have delivered anything to the pilots. If the results were the appearance of being “hardline” then I wouldn’t disagree it did that, but that moniker hasn’t actually paid any dividends yet either if you look at the recent degradation we have been experiencing.
And based on the context that it was about SIL pay (not whether we should have them at all) what did we get? Does the RCC now have more control?
I don’t see where any of the pull downs themselves have delivered anything to the pilots. If the results were the appearance of being “hardline” then I wouldn’t disagree it did that, but that moniker hasn’t actually paid any dividends yet either if you look at the recent degradation we have been experiencing.
Originally Posted by sailingfun
So we showed them and went from getting pay for a month off to getting zero if you want a leave for a month!
08-27-2019, 10:20 AM
#57
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: Captain
Posts: 822
Originally Posted by Han Solo
Market based SILs? Are you effing kidding, why have a union at all if individual pilots can have a bidding war race to the bottom? What a stupid idea, even JetBlue figured out that was an untenable position.
And every other pilot who would never take a SIL is better off for having them gone. How many pilots would have benefited from a SIL vs. the number of total pilots? A hundred pilots benefit at the expense of 14,000? Seems like an easy takedown to me.
And every other pilot who would never take a SIL is better off for having them gone. How many pilots would have benefited from a SIL vs. the number of total pilots? A hundred pilots benefit at the expense of 14,000? Seems like an easy takedown to me.
So my point was in the context of “we wouldn’t have pulled them down if they paid more.”
But, if pilot senior me picks bids one, it helps just about any pilot junior to him or her. So yes, there are probably just as many scenarios where pilots other than the ones who took them could benefit. No different than a KLOA and better than if the pilot were to bid, take trips I would have bid and then put them on the swap board..
08-27-2019, 10:36 AM
#58
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2015
Position: A350 Both
Posts: 7,292
Originally Posted by FL370esq
It was a good move? Seemed pretty arbitrary to me. ALPA agreed to VBs but then pulled it just before it was even implemented. Seems kinda bad-faith to me, especially when they extracted nothing from pulling it down.
Smart union leadership would have let it implode on its own thereby letting the company absorb the failure....or at least let it run one month before pulling it down.
Smart union leadership would have let it implode on its own thereby letting the company absorb the failure....or at least let it run one month before pulling it down.
08-27-2019, 10:39 AM
#59
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: Captain
Posts: 822
Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp
A very small portion of people will yell about anything, and the 9 hour short call is a fine example of that. Using that to validate your view on VB is not good, as that is a poor analogy. VB was specifically negotiated with a no fault pull down, as by definition it is a manning concession. I looked strongly at it when considering my TA2 vote, and that language is what made it possible for it to not be a negative factor.
It was in no way possible for it to be a bad faith pull down, as it was negotiated in good faith to have a no fault pull down at any time. Data, schmata, anyone could see it was a cheap alternative to reduce pilot jobs and cut credit at the benefit of a handful. The company had already started their bad faith antics with intentional scope violations and other crap, so in no way was it a good plan to let them go forward with the VB. No clairvoyance needed... the crap was already going down hill with the company’s behavior.
It was in no way possible for it to be a bad faith pull down, as it was negotiated in good faith to have a no fault pull down at any time. Data, schmata, anyone could see it was a cheap alternative to reduce pilot jobs and cut credit at the benefit of a handful. The company had already started their bad faith antics with intentional scope violations and other crap, so in no way was it a good plan to let them go forward with the VB. No clairvoyance needed... the crap was already going down hill with the company’s behavior.
Staffing concession? You bet. But, it was negotiated in the context of job gains (like increased vacation etc) to partially offset that. If this were some sort of stand alone item proposed today, I might be on your bandwagon, but it was not. It was negotiated for certain quids and then there was an attempt to negotiate it for additional quids. All of this is window dressing as most of the posts circle back around to the fact it was a defensive move (retaliation).
So 80, I understand where you are coming from and can accept that. I just think you let it run at least once, look at the data, add more protections if needed and then if you don’t like it, pull it down. I think our timing and approach were poor.
08-27-2019, 11:33 AM
#60
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2015
Posts: 1,642
Can someone explain to me how a single voluntary virtual base is a staffing concession, but an additional real base (as currently contractually allowed) is not? If either were implemented, why wouldn’t the net staffing solution be the same, or perhaps even higher under VB since the company still has to staff for the condition no one voluntarily bids it?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
