Virtual Basing & TDY
 

So looks like DFW, MCO, and RDU for starters. Never saw that coming. (Eye roll) Unknown negative effect on staffing? Add that to the NO column for me. Sorry.

Look back at the campaign letters for Malone, DeRosa and Martin.

Virtual basing? Hell no!

They rolled over after 10 minutes in office.

All great places to have actual pilot bases. VBs are a great way to make sure that will never happen.

We didn't think they would do that.

One thing that scares me about this is it doesn't totally prevent ocean crossings from happening on a rotation from a virtual base. Example: Company establishes a 75/767 virtual base in RDU. First day is RDU to ATL to PIT. Second day PIT to CDG. Third day CDG to PIT. Fourth day PIT to DTW to RDU.

Denny

This only lasts for a year, if it's something that is not working out it can be terminated.

By Memrat, right?

Good point. I'm still trying to get my mind about VB and TDY. I think they have the potential to make our lives better. I'm very skeptical because I invested heavily to live in base, but I think there can be solutions that male everyone's life better (even the company gains).

Or it can open the gates to hell.

The most important thing about VB + TDY is that it will be done on a test basis. We will need to ensure that we have smart pilot advocates monitoring the tests.

I see no cost advantage to the company in doing that over using a ATL or DTW crew. What the company really wanted was ocean crossings from a VB. That was where the money was!

Maybe we'll give them that next time, in exchange for industry average rates.

There's an infinite number of examples of the company doing something stupid that has no cost advantage. Why do they DH crews to SEA to fly SEA-ICN, SEA-LHR, etc? Bottom line, every base will lose time with VBs. And the "no ocean crossing first leg" rule will be the first to go by surrender monkey LOA.

I also add it to the NO column. These are ridiculous. However its a points deduction and not a poison pill because we still have the unilateral power to eliminate them. And we should. If we MEMRAT this, we would start a ground swell movement to stop these stupid things ASAP.

Its a concession, but how many concessions come with the pilot's ability to single handedly eliminate them as soon as we want? So let's just do that if this MEMRATs.

Do you have a crystal ball? Pretty early to be predicting what *will* happen.

Also why don't you call the crew planners and ask those questions? While we could stock a library with the history of stupid DAL decisions, often this stuff is done far beyond the scope of you and I posting on message boards. Sometimes there is even a rationale behind it.

Crew resources has posted the answer to his question several times in their letters.

What would the procedure be to eliminate these bases if they are bad? Is it only at a mec level or do we get a vote at the end of the year? This is one of the only items so far of this ta that I am nervous about - not enough to vote no but I would like to have a veto if it sucks

Whats wrong with this? We used to do this in a C-5 all time. Pick up army stuff stateside and then hop it over the pond to Spain and then downrange. I don't see the problem.

I agree: this is an area that requires more clarity.

I see there are volunteers (good luck to those poor souls) here logging these sorts of questions, and for me this is probably #1.

If the TA MEMRATs we immediately put pressure on MEC to pull down the VB's and TDYs. Easy.

Yeah, like THAT will happen.

It reads like the test period can be extended/cancelled/whatever. For personal reasons, I see no benefit, but perhaps some can enjoy better lives, so I'm willing to look at it, and let it be tested.

I think this item actually represents both an opportunity and a threat, and we'll need to be all over it, and very slart about it. We need close adult supervision. We need to be all over the MEC, not necessarily to pull it, but extend the test out, or otherwise preserve the option to pull it down.

There will always be guys that will bid this sort of thing. But if there are not enough bidders will VB and TDYs be assigned?

AFAIK, no. Seems very clear it's voluntary only.

I say pull it down immediately. This will only cost jobs, period. That is the only reason for it other than to save a paltry amount on hotels.

The day this MEMRATs (if it does) we should all pressure our reps to pull this toxic provision down ASAP. There is no reason for it on our side. I'm very Pro-Commuter and have been regardless of commuting status. But this is stupid from a group perspective. Really stupid. We need to pull it ASAP.

Its not a TA rejection issue, because if we even would reject it because of this, we could easily reject it afterwards with the current language. So I'll look past it for TA evaluation, but we need to get these pulled immediately.

Screen shot your post.

This makes me laugh.

Go back and read what Malone, DeRosa and Martin wrote about virtual basing in their campaign letters.

Flip side the company gets to explore a little and they determine that a DFW pilot base is in everyone's best interest... and a base opens. Or the base really only needs 50 something pilots and it's simply not worth the full time status.

TRYING to be positive, I could see this leading to future bases.

Actual bases will be affected assuming the new bases don't end up as growth opportunities and new markets.

Didn't you tell us to vote for these guys?

The topic was stupid things they do with no cost benefit. Their reason has been shortage of crews in SEA, yet half a dozen AEs come and go with no positions or backfills.

I don't see it that way. As long as we're addicted to operating every single fleet on earth and also giving marketing absolute control over every aspect of flight ops, we're not going to get very many if any additional bases. VB's don't help this and in fact may make it worse because it gives them the ability to pull down "bases" entirely due to seasons or equipment shifts.

The reason is a seasonal shortage of crews with projections in the future flying eliminating that shortage.

I say let's wait and see.


So nyah.

Of course you do. I have not seen a concession that you have not vehemently supported yet.

How do you know those 3? Did I miss something in a NN? Thanks!

Not trying to start rumors

Those 3 cities were randomly chosen for the map just to demonstrate what airports could be eligible for a Virtual Base under the language

Apologies if that got anyone's hopes up. We have no inside information and there was no intent to suggest that those will be Virtual Bases

And I have yet to see you post anything where you don't light your hair on fire and run around with both arms flailing like some 5th graders on lunch recess.
https://media2.giphy.com/media/90rLh...oM/200w.gif#40

The only one of those three that even makes sense is MCO as a 7ER VB. The reason I see MGT wanting a VB is in a large "focus city" like MCO or BOS with a lot of ops with the same equipment. MCO could support a small ER base where management had the luxury of flexing up or down their staffing needs without displacements costing them money and back flow in the training department. (That is why JB wants this and I don't blame him. If I had any hope of being based at home for even part of the year, and not commuting, I'd be all over this.)

BOS also makes sense. We have lots of domestic flights on the 757, plus the international flights that we do there. In the summer they use A330's and 764's but there is enough service for a small base if management has the discretion of shrinking it without penalty. I also see a seasonal A330 base in MSP. Possibly even PDX, PHL, 7ER for the summer.

I haven't been to DFW in a couple years but from what I remember, we only have 2-3 gates and don't have common equipment flying in and out of there, same with ORD. Every narrow body aircraft we own makes an appearance daily, which isn't conducive to a pilot base. Look to the airports with a lot of the same type flying in regularly. Like CVG and the A320. :eek:

If I'm reading the NN correctly, it's virtually impossible to have a virtual base with equipment larger than 75/767. The ocean crossing restrictions see to that. Also any current base cannot be a virtual base. From the NN: A virtual base will not be located at an existing pilot base, e.g., SEA cannot be used for a 777 virtual base.

Denny

Notice he's orange..... Just sayin'....

They could not fly international out of BOS with a virtual base.