V Base
 

Give it a chance before fear mongering. It might be a great thing for a lot of commuters at very little impact to the in-base folks.

I think you will find the company limits the use. The only base I see them benefitting from it would be MCO.

But MCO isn't a base. So the flying comes from other bases. In the case of MCO, NYC and ATL will be the most poached sources of this flying. This will reduce pilots required, period. I also heard LAS and RDU, another 2 cheap hotel markets. In any case, the real point is their usage is essentially unlimited. Thankfully we have a pull down clause, which I hope we exercise ASAP. If we didn't have that, this would be a single reason NO vote.

Management well definitely slow play the change to preserve it for the future.

It seems like such a bad plan to vote in a TA that has multiple pieces that we hope to get taken out the second it is signed in.

I agree that VB will be the second biggest stagnation-causer in this TA behind WB scope. Though, if implemented properly, they may be able to have VB cost us even more jobs than the JV scope. I also agree that the 1-year test period will be a tiny version of the real plan. All of the smarter-than-us folks on here will be screaming I-told-you-so in a year as the TDY becomes law. Then the real implementation will begin, and we will see the flying ripped from our main bases (ATL, MSP, NYC most likely affected the most).

We never thought they would do that.

We actually have to renew it after the one year test period or it goes away. We don't even have to pull it down. In the end it will turn out to be much ado about nothing.

Stagnation.





Laugh my arse off. It might cause someone until month 5 to get that upgrade.

Seriously - you had better think of a different argument. Do you really think "stagnation" is a valid argument now? And wait until the 350 AE comes out.

There are some pretty valid arguments against this deal but stagnation is certainly not one of them.

Scoop

I think next year will be a good year AE wise but perhaps not quite the expectations some have. The slowdown in 350 deliveries with 4 removed from 2018 combined with a reduction in growth next year of 2% will reduce the need for pilots by about 380 jobs. The great unknown is the number of retirements.

This from the guy who thought Tennessee had a chance against Alabama.

Who knows...a broken clock is right twice a day...

I think his response was TIC

And that is not my argument scoopster. That is what some others are on here complaining about. Have you ever read any of my posts?

They are almost impossible to avoid, unfortunately..........

'they' who?

'They' = your posts :D

I went and looked and sailingfun is correct. If we do nothing it goes away in a year. And if the contract passes, we can terminate it immediately if we desire.

I also agree with the other posters that the company will make it as pilot friendly as possible during the test period.

Hook

after the test period can we terminate it at any time going forward?

That would probably be subject to implementation negotiation.

Denny

It terminates automatically unless the MEC specifically votes to renew it.

I know but I mean after that.

The theory (and it makes sense) is that the first year will be fairly palatable, we green light it, and then the other shoe drops.

If so, can we end it at any time going forward?

There is a thing called 'ignore' try it out.

At the end of the one year test period both parties have to agree to a new LOA to incorporate it into the PWA or it is terminated. So it appears that if we agree to continue past the one year point with a new LOA we are going to enshrine whatever is in that new LOA into the PWA.

Hook

That settles it. It must be pulled down during that period. Otherwise they will obviously make it as pleasant as possible just to get to that point and then the other shoe drops. We can't fall for that.

No. In the end, we will have left if in place and the company will use it as a huge weapon to reduce jobs.

Another thoughtless post. Great job.

And in your two whole years of civilian aviation you have gained more wisdom than I
could ever hope to have. You sir are just awesome.

Yes, I know - I was agreeing with you. Obviously it caught you off guard. :D

Scoop

How did you find out who I was? I thought this site was anonymous.

I found it at least semi-amusing that the very first reply to this thread was the good old "the company would never do that" argument.

Considering this forum is one OMG moment after another and 99% never happen I would say the forum is FUD after FUD from the usual suspects.
If what this forum posted about contract 2012 had turned out to be even remotely true you would not even have a job here. Just a couple of other examples include 20 pages of the evils of augmented domestic flights and the disaster that would be and 20 more pages on all the two man flights FAR117 would be causing. How did those turn out.
The simple fact is the domestic system is fairly low credit. A VB only makes sense if you can reduce that credit further and not increase your greenslips at the hubs when irregular ops hit.
In the end we can simply do nothing and the entire program dies. If we want to extend it we can via LOA. That LOA can take any form we want including extending the right to pull it down at any time. The company will have zero leverage so they will have to accept what we want.
As I originally posted the entire VB concept is so watered down from what the company really wanted as to now have very limited use.

Every post you make is FUD with nothing to back it up. Why don't you post some examples of how you think the company is going to create this massive job loss via VB's.

Seriously Sailing?

Have you seen the APC vote?

This is by far the most balanced forum. Yes it was heavily against the last TA, but so we're the Pilots.


Scoop

Those who yell loud and often can be misperceived as the majority. But I would say the overall forum is not FUD. Like Scoop said, look at the vote thread, 71/29 pass, which I have a feeling is what the actual vote will look like. I was a definite no on the TA1 and most likely a yes to TA2, I have always appreciated posts that counter baseless rhetoric.

If you want FUD, just go to chitchat.

I tend to agree with both of you. This place has all the inevitable "the sky is falling, all change is bad, and the good ol' days were always better than today" posts that you also find elsewhere.

However, here there is also some level headed discourse, with some respect and even humor thrown in that you don't see elsewhere, and I appreciate it. I don't go to the "Sh!t Chat" forum due to its toxic atmosphere. I no longer read the once-decent FB page for the same reason.

This deal *may* slow things a hair width, but it won't be anything like the last 15 years. No one can deny that. The constipation is now at the top end of the list but not for a whole lot longer.

What I find interesting is that here on an anonymous forum the discussion tends to be more issue oriented and professional, while at chitchat (which is not anonymous) it's more about personalities, name calling, and not professional at all, but much more of an embarrassment. You'd think it would be quite the opposite.

Explain how you think this, and how about a few examples of numbers with just a modicum of fact to back them up. Bullet points will do.


Or is it just more spaghetti?

Unlike you, I have an open mind but not when some know it all throws out some meaningless rhetoric.

All these things that are being called 'job killers' are not even going to move the needle. They won't even be noticed.

It's a farce perpetrated by the usual anti dALPA crowd with an agenda.

Agreed!!!!(had to reach 10 characters)

This is something that only exists to reduce pilot jobs. There is really no other reason for it besides maybe saving some hotels, but it would mostly occur in relatively cheap hotel markets anyway.

We absolutely have to go through all language with a fine tooth comb and assume that if they can do something worst case with it they will.

I think its obvious that whatever they do WRT VB's will be somewhat palatable at first. They want this option BADLY, even if they don't have a near term intention to go nuclear with it. So they know they have to limp through the first year on our terms to get it codified permanently. While technically this gives us leverage, it will be wasted if we rubber stamp something semi-positive that then becomes a significant jobs costing negative.

I see no net positive with VB's in that regard. If we want to be pro commuter there are many other ways to do it. This isn't it. This will cost jobs, dilute seniority and trip mix, and lastly cost jobs. We should already have the resolutions to pull this ASAP drafted and ready.