Most Powerful DALPA Leaders On Virtual Basing
 

Captain John Malone MEC Chariman

"Virtual bases? Effect on: manning, reserve coverage/obligation, W/S and G/S impact to the non virtual base that the flying is removed from, and of course no paid moves. Fact is the company can open/close a base already with no modification needed from our working agreement. Where did this come from? I have no recollection of this on the survey."

Captain Scott Martin Counicl 44

"I live in Tampa and totally against virtual basing."
44 vice chair elect

Captain Sam DeRosa Council 44 Chairman

"This is a HUGE concession that will negatively affect Pay and QOL for every pilot at every base that has their flying siphoned off to these virtual bases. There is a very good reason our contract currently covers the opening and closing of pilot bases. It protects all of us from the company opening and closing bases and shifting flying with little to no notice. Allowing virtual bases (even on a test basis) is another huge concession and very slippery slope to the degradation towards our pay and QOL."

I agree with these 3 leaders.

NO VIRTUAL BASING

We can trust management on virtual basing as well as we can trust them to follow our contract on JV scope. And that is not at all.


__________________
Jerry Fielding

Yup.

Nope!

Not gonna do it, wouldn't be prudent.

So, I don't understand, given these comments, why it's even being put out there.

Considering it wasn't a pilot want, then it's in there because the company wants it. So it must have value but that value was definitely not shown in their section 3 opener. Like I told my rep, in this environment I would expect to get our re engagement rates without concessions (the 22% barely gets us to our rates in 2004). With what I'm seeing right now in the negotiator's notepads I don't know if they can get us enough for us to swallow this thing.

Granted it could be false but I heard DALPA offered it up and the company didn't ask for it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A common negotiating tactic is to ask for a scary concession (which you don't really need), then offer to drop it in return for a harmless-looking one (which you really want). :rolleyes:

Wisdom. OFG

And yet another effective strategy is to have the opposing sides representatives, spend millions of their clients own money....... selling your 'must haves' as a good deal.:D

Management already has with the FA's a VB costing matrix. They may not have directly 'asked' for it, but could very well have planted the seed of getting our side to surface the issue as a mgmt. 'give'....

We give this to them we will regret it...

I heard it was a CVG thing.

Here's how I look at virtual basing. Let me know where I'm wrong.

Basically, the company doesn't know where it wants to use some of its heavies (777). So, it spends a bunch of money deadheading pilots around and putting them up in hotels instead of risking the expense of starting a new pilot base that would have to be closed when marketing changes its mind.

Somebody in management comes up with the idea of virtual basing and they brainstorm up the idea to sell it to the pilot group as a flexible tool that will benefit the commuters living at these random bases (if they become virtual bases). Obviously (the logic would go), if you are commuter, you'd be better off taking a chance your home airport will become a virtual base - even if its unlikely - rather than take a pass and guarantee no commuting relief.

The goal would be, for example, to get a narrow body captain living in Dallas to support the idea, because he might benefit and would have nothing to lose. What would happen, however, is the company would have no intention of virtually basing narrow bodies, they only want to eliminate the credit time in select wide body categories. And those wide body pilots can already deviate with positive space and get paid the credit - a commuter's dream.

So, what would more likely happen with virtual basing is a senior wide body F/O living in Dallas now making less money would be motivated to upgrade and displace the junior narrow body Captain that thought he was rolling the dice on not having to commute.

Both pilots end up with a non-paid commute and less money.

That's why I think the company wants it.

Nailed it. This is why Captain's Malone, DeRosa and Martin were so against it.

Once the camels nose is under the tent is will never go away. We will regret it deeply as it will harms us all. Fewer widebody captains means slower upgrades and slower advancement in category bid position.

I thought the first leg couldn't be an ocean crossing. Did I misread the AIP?

"A virtual base rotation may not begin with an ocean crossing or contain an ocean crossing
to or from an existing pilot base"

A pilot who lives more than 125 miles from airport center will receive:
 Positive space travel between his home and the TDY or virtual base at beginning and
end of each bid period, and
 His option throughout the bid period of:
• Positive space travel between his home and the TDY or virtual base for each
rotation or on call days, or
• Airport hotel for all nights between rotations and during stretches of on-call day.

Positive space and hotels?

only for the virtual base

VB'ing is a major reason to vote NO

777 trips generally start with an ocean crossing.

Based on the language, it wouldn't be for international flying. It would apply to domestic, provide "free" bases, dilute seniority and is cost saving. I wrote my reps against it.

Short term, I think virtual basing is targeted at the ER category and the flights to South America that are originating in MCO. as you point out, the AIP says no ocean crossing....doesn't say no international flights.

OK, but positive space and hotels. No longer have the credit. 777 was mentioned above. Didn't see it happening. SA is ocean crossing, 3 degrees south of the equator or 8 hours.

Any flight to S. America south of 3.5S latitude comes under the ocean crossing definition. the MCO-GRU flights are also ocean crossings, thus would not be VB eligible.

Right, so they're targeting domestic not international wide body. Positive space, hotels. Saving on credit and base start up costs.

They want commuters to look at this as a chance to get PS if they have to commute anyway. Win-win for a tiny percentage of the pilot group. The rest get to have their bid package picked through and rewritten to pull out every last bit of credit. Bean counters get another huge bonus (taken out of our PS no doubt), and our QOL goes down even more.

NO. There is NO reason for us to even start down this path. They can open a base in any city they desire. We do not need to fix this problem for them.

Good point...forgot about that.

Makes me wonder where the real "value" of a VB is to the company. A piece of the puzzle is missing and I don't trust our NC......

I'm with you- particularly since the co will be obliged to cover hotel for all on call days and pos space (not sure if this is VB and TDY, or just TDY). There are maybe three areas of the country where the co could reliably get enough pilots to virtual base. Greater MCO area, DFW, and potentially CVG come to mind for me. The calculus has changed on this since the TA last summer where pos space was not included, so potentially more enticing to commuters, but as a test under the veto of the union- I see this ending up just like the "pickup open reserve days" option the co wanted a few LOAs ago- it's there, just not worth the cost and effort to use it.

The details are important, but if the union can turn it off, this seems like much ado about nothing.

Of course it is much ado about nothing. When has that ever made a difference to the SM crowd? I'm still waiting on more details on both VB and TDY before I formulate an opinion. Very tentatively, it seems VBs are not to be trusted, but TDY could be a good thing, with the right protections, which we seem to have.

The real value is getting the camel's nose in the tent. Next thing you know we'll have a side letter allowing just a few ocean crossing pairs...and then one allowing them all.

Seems like a huge win for the company and possible slight win for pilots living in the VB. Loss for the pilots from which the time is pulled.

Where's our huge win? All I see are lots of giveaways and big win for the company.

Ed's willing to give us total consciousness on our deathbed?

He has a pool and a pond. Pond would be good for the pilots.

the VB/TDY pitbull
 

Guys - one way to view Virtual Basing and TDY's for company convenience is like this:


It's a beautiful day, so you decide to take the twins out for some sunshine and fresh air in this spiffy new stroller you got. You are minding your own business when some guy flags you to a stop on the corner - it's the local drug-dealer walking his pitbull.

"Here, man - hold this!" he jives, thrusting the leash into your hand.

"Wait! What are you doing?" you protest.

"Hey, man, chicks dig Pits, you'll love it!" He calls out, as he jaunts across the street.


"But, but, I'm already married!" you protest further.


"Don't worry - he's trained" He yells back over his shoulder. "Don't forget to feed him!"


Now resigned, because you are a good guy, and don't want to disappoint anybody, you tie your new-found pet to the stoller, because you already have your hands full pushing the twins.

About that time - somebody's diaper needs changing. Why? Because shxx happens of course. You find a park bench and dig out a fresh diaper. By the third baby wipe (usually three, because you're an anal pilot, and two never seems quite clean enough, and four is just obviously OCD overkill) you are justifiably proud of your accomplishment, when it starts to go wrong.

A dumb little squirrel darts across the road.


Nooooooooooo (all this in slow motion), you pivot to see the pitbull charge off towards the squirrel.

He's tied to your stroller.


Who do you sacrifice? the kid laying on the park bench? or the one in the stroller headed towards the bus?



this is not our pitbull. Our dog is home. Let him lie there.

Even sneakier would be a side letter re-defining "ocean". :rolleyes:

Is this from Tommy Boy?

No. Whozzat?

Which is nice.

I love it! Fantastic analogy!

I'm going to agree with both PD and Jerry on this one. I didn't like VB before, and I don't like it now. If none of these guys wanted it, why is it on there?

Same reason I guess the MEC is agreeing to cab fares in NYC, or the VEBA, or instructor bennies: horse-trading at the MEC. Some of it, I totally understand, some of it, I don't.

The VEBA, for example. I'm still trying to understand how it works. How does that saying go gain: "from each according to his means, to each according to his means?"

First time I've ever seen a forced voluntary program.

I will take exception to the title, however. I don't think Malone/DeRosa/Martin are the most powerful leaders on the MEC. I listened to DeRosa talk to his pilots in ATL, and he actually struck me as pragmatic and smart, and he seemed to be interested in finding a path to a deal. Malone seems interested in delivering a product we can judge for ourselves.

If these three were the most powerful leaders on the MEC, I think we'd have a deal to vote on.

As it stands now, I think they're facing a recall attempt.