What if vacation sell back gets us a larger percentage of vacation weeks in the summer and over holidays? I could see a scenario where allowing sell back in exchange for more summer weeks is a fair trade.

 

I don't see any way that is a fair trade. When the next contract occurs and we are in a down cycle what is the response to the company when they show that pilots don't really need vacation because they sell most of it anyway. That's not even mentioning the loss of jobs involved.
The change that needs to be made is vacation needs to be pay and credit. That would produce a large increase in staffing required particularly in the CA seats.
Allowing vacation sellout is a huge concession.

 

Vacation sell back is DOA. The desirable vacation weeks are far less than the undesirable. The senior in catagory hold the desirable weeks and have the most time to sell back. The only weeks management is looking to buy back are the ones that are most desired. The lack of progress on vacation value and more desirable weeks available is not encouraging.

Incentivizing the senior in catagory to goble up desirable weeks and sell them back to the company resulting in fewer weeks available during the desirable times is a non starter.

More value for vacation and more ability to use it during the desirable times was my direction given.

 

Clearly you two have seen this movie before....

 

Selling vacation is working more.

It's slows promotions and lowers you bid position.

Quality of life and scope are essential.

That means pay AND credit vacation.

 

Pardon my ignorance (new guy here). What's the difference between a virtual base and a base?

 

Pay/no credit means some guys are flying 80 hours in vacation months already.
We pretty much have vacation sell back right now.
It costs us 100s of jobs. Especially left seats.

Sell back is yet another concession that would hammer FOs, or anybody looking to move up to a higher paying category.

The contract used to protect us from ourselves. What happened to that concept?

I think we ought to bring back the cap w/ bow-wave and spillback.

 

That's an excellent question.
The answer is that nobody really knows the answer. It all depends on what the rules are for the virtual base or "satellite" base.

Just a couple BIG issues -

How will reserve work? Will there even be any reserves? The flight attendants can't call in sick without finding their own replacement. If they do, they get kicked out of the satellite base.

How will it be staffed? Normally when the company opens a new base it is put up for bid and open to any pilot regardless of any "freeze" and you are entitled to a paid move. I believe the last company proposal on satellite bases limited it to only those pilots already current and qualified on the airplane and there would be no moving benefits.
If they close or shrink the "virtual base" will the affected pilots be entitled to a mandatory displacement and/or a paid move?

Would it be a "domicile" for contractual purposes? That makes a big difference for domicile layovers and reroutes and all that.

There are a ton of other details that would need to be hashed out.

The company would LOVE satellite bases if we let them make the rules. It would reduce staffing and credit hours and deadheading and create lots of other efficiencies for them. Guys who happen to already live in a "virtual base" would love it also. But it would hurt everyone else by reducing the flying in existing bases.

The devil is in the details on "virtual bases".

 

Good post. It may not hurt everyone else in that people would also leave the other bases to go to the virtual bases, especially if they're senior to you.

As you said, the details would be key. It can't be run like the FA satellite bases. On the positive side it may help clear some of the wreckage of the past couple decades of base closings/downsizing and massive commuters from some locations. It may also make the company that much more attractive to prospective job seekers who may not be enamored with our current base lineup. Variety could be a very good thing as long as it was done right and came out as an overall win for us. Funny thing though, aside from more pay and time off, we probably have 13,500 different ideas what a great contract looks like.

 

Are we sure that pilots who live in these bases would love it? If I live in MCO and can get trips that start or end with DH from Atlanta...or have layovers in MCO that I wouldn't have if it were a base...would I necessarily be better off?