Originally Posted by Timbo

Until we see the actual contract (TA) language, if it exists in the next TA, nobody knows the details on how this would work, and even then, there will be unforeseen loopholes which will be exploited by the company just as there always are.

Bottom line, the only reason the company wants Virtual Bases is to eliminate DH credit. That is a 3 way win for them. It saves them paying the DH credit, and the seats can now be sold to customers rather than held for crew, it saves them on body count in every category where the DH credit is eliminated, and it saves them the cost of hotel rooms for the DH crews.

What the pilots get is.... they get to drive to work instead of a guaranteed PS seat to/from work, but the trips will be worth less overall due to the reduced DH time, so those same pilots will have to work MORE to accumulate the same monthly pay/credit time. Meanwhile, they will stagnate in position longer as there will be reduced need for pilots in the categories above them, as that DH credit time goes away too.

Originally Posted by JamesBond

No, I saw it. There are a few pilots that get to take advantage of these things as they are. Good for them. If they can be restructured and result in a better deal for everybody, I don't see the harm. It is worth exploring anyway. Once again, I guess it depends on whose ox is getting gored as to how they feel about it.

Originally Posted by WhatNow

Could you not apply the same logic to FO trip buys?

Originally Posted by Scoop

Timbo's first paragraph nails it. I am not as for or against VB as most on here, pretty much ambivalent on the subject. One thing that worries me about everything in the TA (and especially VB) is unforeseen consequences and second and third order effects - they always manifest themselves.

The only way I would even seriously consider VB if it is by mutual consent of the company and DALPA and can be discontinued at any time throughout the length of the contract. If we had that protection it would be worth investigating in my opinion. American does this in SAN on a very limited basis and the the AMR guys say it is a good deal - so there may be an opportunity here.

I repeat - I am neither for or against this but feel it is worth investigating.

Scoop

Originally Posted by Banzai

There is a LOT of PWA language around the concept of a "base". Everything from scheduling, to green and white slipping, to bigger issues like the ramifications of opening and closing categories. Ramifications like training, seat locks, displacements, etc., etc.

What's to stop them from opening VB MCO every summer, and closing it every winter? What would happen if they did?

And, of course, there are issues like deadheads, etc.

When I got the survey call, I said this was a no-go. I can see a few ways it could be nice for some pilots. I see so many ways it can go very badly for us. Doesn't Allegiant do VBs? How's that going?

Originally Posted by JamesBond

How do you know it is a no without any details? I don't understand.

Originally Posted by scambo1

Like him, i dont want any more camels in the tent.

Originally Posted by Timbo

That's exactly how it will be sold, but in the long run, we all lose, as you'll be stuck in a lower paying seat, and/or flying more to make up for the lost DH credit time/jobs.

Bottom line, the company wants this, not us, what does that tell you?

Here's a quick example of what this could cost us. Take the LAX SYD trip. For years it's been flown by 777 pilots based in ATL. It begins and ends with a 5 hour DH to/from LAX. It blocks about 28 hours, pays about 38 due to the DH. Two trips = 76 hours for a line. You could stay with that or you could greenslip another one, be FAR117 legal and be paid 144 hours for flying 3 of them.

Now that they have opened the 777 base in LAX specifically to eliminate the DH on this trip, the trip is only worth 28 hours. Now you have to fly 3 of them for a 86 hour line, instead of 2 for 76 hours, plus the ability to GS another one. You are now working 4 more days for 10 hours. Oh, and guess what else? They don't need as many 777 pilots now. So no 777 upgrade for you!

OK, now extend that concept to all 3 of the 777 trips out of LAX. SYD, PVG, NRT. Now add JFK 777 trips DH, and SEA, and MSP. Before they put the 777 in LAX, each of those trips had 10 hours of DH time included. That's 4 pilots each trip, X 5 hours DH, every day. Oh, plus the hotels for 12 pilots a night on each end, every day.

And the 777 is our second smallest category. Think of all the DH they could eliminate if they opened a virtual base in BOS for the 767/757, or in MCO for the 737/MD88. And what if they opened a virtual base in Narita? All of our wide bodies fly a bunch of DH in/out of NRT, and some of those DH legs are 8-14 hours long, back to the states. Eliminate all that DH pay and associated jobs, what do you think is going to happen all the way down the list?

Originally Posted by Banzai

There is a LOT of PWA language around the concept of a "base". Everything from scheduling, to green and white slipping, to bigger issues like the ramifications of opening and closing categories. Ramifications like training, seat locks, displacements, etc., etc.

What's to stop them from opening VB MCO every summer, and closing it every winter? What would happen if they did?

And, of course, there are issues like deadheads, etc.

When I got the survey call, I said this was a no-go. I can see a few ways it could be nice for some pilots. I see so many ways it can go very badly for us. Doesn't Allegiant do VBs? How's that going?

Originally Posted by NERD

You have to ask yourself, why do they(mgmt.)want VBs? They can open a "real" base anytime they want. They could easily open MCO or DFW for example. Lots of overnights, and lots of pilots living there. They are pushing for this to kill credit without the training churn a real base would cause. It is designed to save the company money and abrogate seniority.

Originally Posted by Banzai

What's to stop them from opening VB MCO every summer, and closing it every winter? What would happen if they did?