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).

 

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.

 

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...