He made that assertion. So if there's more to his argument, I want to hear it.

Case in point—it wasn’t a personal attack until you decided to perceive it as such.

I still would like to know why you’re in favor of a new base opening at the expense of credit, premium pay, and jobs—like I’m generally curious on your reasoning.

this is called gaslighting

for the same reason i favor having any of our bases. quality of a career is often enhanced with the choice of where to live or work. most people want more bases, not fewer, even though the latter would require more hiring and generate more credit

While I don't necessarily disagree, this is where (from what I understand about) virtual basing was so different than fixed basing. Since it could be moved around willy nilly by the company month to month, it wouldn't be as predictable to plan, say, a family around, in the same way that fixed basing does. The company creating an actual new base is a huge commitment on the company's part, to the point that it can actually have some degree of predictability on the pilot's part as to where/how to live. Virtual basing is/was a totally different animal from that perspective. And it doesn't take a stretch to fathom that virtual basing could have the downstream effect of reducing fixed bases, credit, premium pay, jobs, all at the same time.

don’t bother trying to answer him- he’s just here to stir the pot and make himself sound smart to himself.

oooff since you replied to my post a page back I’ll respond to your question as earnestly as you ask it: Please tell us, specifically, what your day consisted of on August 4, 2018. The problem is you can’t answer such a simple question and even if you try, one could demand yet more unverifiable evidence to support your answer. Until you choose to politely engage on here and resist the temptation to score cheap political points while pushing your self-centered social agenda, “many” on here will continue to ignore you.

That said, you asked for specifics so here’s what I saw, though it may not be “specific” enough to satisfy you. I saw in the VB a clear path for the company to reduce system-wide credit. Credit= pay for pilots, as you know, so the net effect was a reduction in pilot pay. Fine, I can deal with that in theory because we negotiate together. The problem was the upside only favored ROUGHLY (I don’t recall the specific number of Capt/FO) 300 total pilots who would choose to bid a VB for whatever reason. The cost to the rest of the ER fleet pilots was lower-credit, higher-block ratio pairings. Which is ROUGHLY analogous to a drop in qol for those pilots. It isn’t a leap to see that this concept might expand to other locations and equipment. Again, not a showstopper for me personally but something to negotiate. Assuming a VB may expand to (oh I don’t know….) RDU, AUS, BOS, DFW, etc. I began to wonder what the difference is between a base and a VB. Why not open a new base instead? I also wondered if I might choose to move to one of those VB cities if a VB started in a place I’d like to live. And then I noted the lack of predictability and durability of a VB and concluded that living in a VB would be seasonal at best and possibly a crap shoot for ANYONE in that city unless he was sr enough that the VB doesn’t really matter. Then I noted that quite a few pairings ALREADY EXISTED with a DH to or from the VB city for those sr enough to hold the pairing. And I concluded that a VB for those guys was probably a net loss. So who benefits: a jr guy in that VB? Sure, I’d like that too but I remembered that I’m in a seniority system and if I wanted to drive to work I could live in a base. I accepted the lost qol from that personal decision and concluded that overall, a VB didn’t benefit enough of the pilot group to justify the change. YMMV.

edit- I see verdell and I had a similar take

can you show me where i’ve attempted to score “cheap political points?” no, you cannot. you can keep my name out your mouth with that ****. a few of you have a real weird need to personally attack me just because you disagree with me politically, even in threads that have nothing to do with politics. you know who doesn’t personally attack you? me. think on that.


i can certainly see the potential pitfalls and uncertainty, but those were mitigated by the specifics of the vb agreement, and we could have gone forward and seen how things developed.

But we didn't. End of story

nobody is disagreeing that we did not go forward with vbs. if you don’t want to discuss them, don’t.

So… what I’m pulling from this is that the union shut down VB’s for the upcoming AUS 320 base to happen?

Go read MSP Update from April 26, 2018 off the DALPA site. There’s a good recap of the fears at the time by the actual maker of the resolution to end VB. (It wasn’t ATL) The person who seconded the resolution was SLC LEC chair.