Ha...you have an open mind? Gotcha...that's funny

You are the worst water-carrier and spewer of FUD.

You cannot prove how the VBS will be used against us any more than I can. I can only use past history as a guide, and we have proven over and over that our weak language in our contract gets used against us as a weapon. So, I choose to overlook a little money and think about how this will hurt us in the long run. I'm not as short-sighted as you are. Your choice, but nice try on the FUD. That's a first.

Sure I can. Let's start with the simple fact that VB's can only at the worst possible junction do nothing more then reduce credit time. Domestically I think we currently run 5 or 6%. The very worst that could ever happen is VB's reduce that to zero. That's so highly unlikely as to be laughable. Reality might be something like a .25% reduction if they do a great job with it.
The second thing to consider is with the restrictions and costs associated with the program opening a base might be a better option. In fact if there was really some gold to be mined here they would be opening additional bases.
The last thing is the program ends after one year. Absent sitting down at the table and negotiating the continuation of the program it's over. We can add anything we want to the LOA if we want to extend it including the right to end the program at any time.
I don't care for virtual bases but it's not even a slight concern for me. I still would bet that it will be such a small program that it will never be more then 250 pilots at a time in a VB. It would not surprise me at all to see the company not even try it.

your analysis is both shallow...and non-dynamic.

Let's hear yours!

VBs will remove flying from the true base bid packages. For a large base with a lot of commuters (ATL, NYC) this could benefit both in base pilots and commuters. Conversely a smaller base with a majority of pilots living in base, (SEA, MSP, LAX) this could destroy QOL and the trip mix. I'm willing to see how this plays out but the first time my QOL is degraded, I'll be authoring a resolution to kill it. I have my doubts but the isn't a deal breaker for me. (yet)

This will most likely end deadheads and long layovers.

End long layovers a la the 717 bid package? Tell me how VBs will end long layovers in ILM, PHF, ROA, CHO, AVL, ATW, ABE, and many other similar sized places?

VBs will no doubt have some sort of impact, somewhere. At this point it is all so speculative that any prediction is no more or less likely than any other.

Seems like his analysis is based on facts. The most significant being that if we don't like how it works out we can pull it down. I'm willing to give this a trial period and see how it goes. I'm not buying into the FUD being sold by those who want to spin this into Armageddon.

I think VB is a lot like CDO. Some might like it, others not. I'm willing to take a look. If it sucks we can dump it.

The problem with "we can pull it down" is that WE can't. The MEC can. Do you trust the MEC to make that choice for you? Who will be on the MEC in a year? Things to consider...