I agree. Pilots are always eternal "glass is half empty" pessimists. The opposition to VBs is like the pre-PBS knee-jerk opposition to PBS in any form. Now that we have it, there would be massive complaints if we got rid of it.

The real issue with pulling down with VBs is that the MEC...once again pandering to the "let's make everything a toxic battle with the company" crowd...looked like utter buffoons. For starters we actually had negotiated the concept of VBs with the company. Then we let the company get to the point of actually publishing a VB bid package in MCO...then we pulled out of the agreement? But hey, we looked "tough" didn't we?

Maybe VBs would have been a bad thing by universal consensus. Maybe we all would have ended up saying "what was all the fuss and angst about?" (my opinion, but I could be wrong). We should have either never entertained the idea in the first place, or let it run for a few months.

 

If I’d had my pension stolen only to see management richly reward themselves for such brilliant strategy I’d probably be suspicious of them ever-after.

 

Fair enough. Suspicion is warranted. Reneging on a pseudo-deal at the last second, all for political points with a certain faction, was juvenile. I'd have respected the MEC more if we had just said no from the outset.

But that ship has sailed, and life moves on. I don't dwell on it. By the way, I don't commute, so VBs did nothing for me personally.

 

Yep. There's way more flying in BOS than it would take to justify a domicile...but for what plane(s)? As long as marketing dominates Flt Ops with absolute authority and has the mandate to move everything in a nanosecond to make one penny more, and along with that as long as we have this many (including some very redundant) fleet types, it will be hard to justify the massive AE/MD/new category-freeze waived churn, etc.

Maybe when we get the 5 gates back that will move the calculus a bit in that direction. Also the rumors of the other 7ish gates becoming a reality would probably lock it in for sure, and likely for multipile fleets at that point, but we'll have to stay tuned for that variable.

The biggest fulcrum is the company's overall strategy going forward there. It appears to be very bullish (and long overdue). It can take a long time to flip that switch, but it appears to have been switched and snapped off in the ON position.

Much like SEA/west coast/AK code share abuse where the consensus for many years was that they can do 14 737's a day LA-SEA full of half our pax, but we can't make a penny doing one flight because they own the entire west coast and only they have the uique west coast acumen to solve that impossible equation...until one day we decide to not only dip a toe in but to go in big.

While the two markets aren't absolutely identical in every respect, we're finally planting our flag in BOS it appears for the ultra long term. We may or may not become #1 there, but at the very least we will go from a distant, barely even relevant, anemic #3 to the runaway dominant #2 position, nipping at the heels of JB with the ability to at any time pry out any route crown jewels we want to. That's a very smart stratedgy to counter not only super saver capacity to FL, but a burgeoning attempt to flat out destroy margins over the Atlantic.

BOS is now both a defensive and a very offensive player for DL and will likely lead to a base for some equipment in the coming year(s).

 

Maybe VB's would have been a good thing. Maybe not. But the company had a year to implement them and couldn't/didn't do it. We let them extend. They led everyone down the BOS 320 path. Then out of the blue, MCO 757. It was the same with the A220 launch....NYC/LAX, then out of the blue, SLC! No warning, no head's up to the pilots that bid these things, no talking to the MEC. How do pilots plan anything with this lack of communication? I respect your opinion, but based on the conversations I have with pilots I fly with, you might be in the minority with the opinion that the MEC looked like buffoons pulling the plug. Almost all I talk to are relieved that the MEC called it off. While your post is supposed to be about the VB's, it reads more of a "Curly-esk" distaste for the current MEC reps. That, for me anyway, took away from any seriousness in your discussion directly related to the VB's. I'm not slamming on you at all. Just pointing out my observation on your post and a couple of points that I thought were pertinent to the topic.

 

Any time you use words like "Curly-esk" you take away from any seriousness in your discussion. This whole concept of name calling when someone disagrees with you is distasteful and too common. It reads more of "he makes a good point, but I don't like it so I'm going to equate him to someone else and call it a day."

I don't think virtual bases are a good idea, but I think the withdrawal was poorly handled. Waiting until pilots themselves started planning based on it hurt the pilots as well as the company. Letting it go so far after announcement and then canceling it was not just vindictive to the company but hurt our own and caused angst among the pilot group. After letting it go so far they should have said "this is the only month we will allow it, we are canceling the agreement."

 

I’m not disagreeing with anything you’re saying, but wasn’t the VB thing cancelled last minute because Delta wasn’t willing to work with us with the AM JV? They were violating our scope clause (or on the path to violating it) and wouldn’t agree to terms regarding the whole JV, so DALPA said, if you won’t work with us, we are done working with you.

That’s my recollection, anyway. Im not saying it was right or wrong.

 

That is not the reason Dalpa put out.

 

So did we put out or pull out?

IIRC, the VB concept was sold as this rational win-win bipartisan thing. We requested a heads up, recieved a heads up, then a last microsecond head fake pivot (BOS vs MCO at first, etc). Why? Because apparently an inch of flexibility will equal a mile of "we do what we want because we can." OK, and so did the union. No biggie.

And yes, while other flagrant disregards of the most important section in the PWA were happening (and continue to happen).

And it was never a grand slam revolutionary issue for either side anyway. If it worked out, the high water mark may have been very slight benefits for one or both sides, maybe. It was only a thing because we could pull it down at any time, and we pulled it down at any time. Overall an extremely minor issue and one I hope doesn't make its way back into the PWA but if it ever does, it should come with another instant pull down clause.

 

There was no "name calling" nor were we in a "disagreement". He voiced his opinion and I replied with mine. It's a discussion. I will give you that mentioning that his comments that I highlighted were "Curley-esk," was stooping to the same level as what I felt he was doing by making those comments about the MEC's tactics. For that, I apologize. Thanks for straightening me out.