Well, that would be a majority so I would say they did what the membership wanted if they took the raise. Or is your post mere flamebait?

I don't know how the negotiations went - it's just an idea of how the company might approach VB down the road. You said that that "domestic is chump change" - so perhaps the company sees that as well and has future plans for a VB. Look at SWA - they didn't get a raise to their TA to match Delta (after our TA came out). Their President said they would just reengage in a bit to give the company something they want in exchange for higher rates.

Of course we aren't SWA - but the company will do the math (and so will DALPA) and the MEC will vote in favor what is best for all the pilots. We really don't know what the VB will be like - I'm happy it's just a test. We will see what it's like, and if we don't like it, we can end the test.

I doubt it would go through MEMRAT - when was the last time we did MEMRAT on a contract change? But I think the MEC would put the language out for the pilots to discuss and provide feedback before they agree to it.

Not flame bait, just how it might come down the road in the future. Everything is a tradeoff. I really doubt the MEC would make changes to the VB that benefited the company a lot if there wasn't demand from the pilot or just compensation.

The potential problem comes from the company and the MEC thinking something is worth X, and the pilots don't agree (see Stand-up overnights).

Then I guess we agree. If 8000 said yes and 4000 said no, the ayes have it.

I personally put CDOs in a little different category. That is a safety issue. Personally, and I am talking about me, if we had CDOs and I got assigned one, I would call in fatigued as soon as I landed. I... and again I am talking about me, cannot operate like that... safely. Whole different animal. But if the group wanted them I would have to accept that.

Not to mention you have a 1-6 chance of being qualified on the airframe of the month.

I'm OK with VB as a 1 year trial but do have one particular concern with this program, and maybe I'm just being paranoid but here it is:

Suppose we go through the 1 year trial period and the company goes out of there way to soft pedal it and really highlights the value of it to the Pilot group. Minimal complaints, many happy commuters so we codify it into the PWA and it becomes permanent.

Well at this point the company starts to change how they implement it - all while remaining within the PWA. It now markedly affects Bid packages and not for the better. Well at this point we stuck with it.

Like I said - I am OK with VB but perhaps we should retain the ability to pull it down unilaterally because as pointed out above the company can implement it any way they want - slowly at first and then show its true colors after it becomes permanent.

We definitely do not want to hear - "We did not think that they would do that" regarding the VBs.

Scoop

When we codify it via a LOA which is required we simply retain the right to pull it down.

IF the LOA stipulated that. If after one year we are getting communications from our union that a LOA is being discussed, I will be the first to contact my reps to keep that provision in the LOA, and not just part of the initial one year test period.

Guys are saying that, but my bet is they will fly more after the raise. "Gee look how much more I can make this month with just a couple of white slips! " They'll tell themselves they're piling up cash so they can retire early, but they'll go to 65, or whatever the new max becomes. We're pilots, man. It's what we do.

I agree with Scoop's post and your comment above.

My fear is the company does as Scoop says and makes it a year of nirvana for the pilots and everyone loves it. But then the company insists on removing our right to pull it down in the replacement LOA. I hope we don't fall for it.

Hook

That has not proved to be historically true. The highest block hours per pilot were when our pay rates were lowest.

this^^^^^^^^^^

It's right up there with I'm quitting at 55.

I'm planning to able to leave at 58. The key is putting yourself in that position so you have choices. If I am able to leave at 58 I am also able to take SILs or drop the trips I don't want(maybe that's my entire month.)

I was present for this portion of the road show in NYC. The way VB works is the size of the VB is limited by BOTH the desires of the company AND the number of volunteers for that particular VB for that particular bid period. If the Company 'tricks' us for a year, then turns it into a POS program, people will not volunteer for the VBs. They will then die. Regardless of what the company wants or the MEC decides, we the pilots can effectively kill the program at any time.

Not really. The point is they will give some goodies to a few pilots in order to reduce overall pilot jobs. As long as the individual goodies continue, there will always be pilots who bid it. Remember trip parking? :roll eyes:

Sometimes the purpose of our CBA is to protect us from ourselves.

I think the union is already calculating that VB's will cost pilot jobs.

They are also calculating that other areas of the contract will add pilot jobs.

I'm doing SILs and dropping trips. And when the FA's beat me to the pickup, I'll quit.

[quote=gloopy;2238697

. . . .sometimes the purpose of our cba is to protect us from ourselves.[/quote]

.
Attachment 2987
.

I agree with both of those statements, and I'm not saying vote no because of VB's.

My point is that its a job costing negative, but in this case its one that we can unilaterally pull down. I think its a no brainer that we do so.

If for no other reason than bargaining leverage................yes it must go.

It's really just the commuters versus the residents. Eventually this will come to a head, and we will see a vote at the MEC to decide the matter.

I say kill it.

Looks like we could easily protect 47 jobs per the headcount slide from the roadshow. Pull it down and the staffing/productivity metric shifts in our favor. I may be wrong too, it could be 47 each year but that tale isn't labeled well.

Doesn't that same slide show the company agreed to things that add jobs as well?

Yes it does. Net: -8 for 2017, -8 for 2018, +14 for 2019(increase in VA pay)

Ending the VB and TDY would Net: +39 for 2017, +39 for 2018, +61 for 2019

That would be negotiating in bad faith. Give it a chance, then if we don't like what it's doing, we can pull it down.


The ability for our union to back out of something if we don't like it, is a major concession for the company. It's not something that normally happens.

I'd like to see "back out" clauses like that in future contracts. We shouldn't screw it up now by not giving things we negotiated an honest chance.

We as line pilots are not negotiating. We have no obligation to try anything. I understand the desire to be amenable and the limited benefit to some select group of commuters or some specific residents of some yet unknown cities, but this unbounded power to affect the entire seniority list with a reduction in trip choice (yes QOL) is more concerning.

Also this is a business decision, just business. I don't think management was saying "we don't think they will do that." They have plans and contingent plans. This is a no brainer capture of jobs.

True. But, you are asking the people who are negotiating to act in bad faith. In my opinion, that would be a detriment to us line pilots in the future.

Let me get this straight. You think the company's true intention is everything they tell you in negotiations?

I pretty sure I didn't say anything close to that. If that's what you got out of it, you misunderstood.

I'm very pro-commuter and I say kill it too. This is a horrible idea.

This is what happens when we have a handful of well meaning guys negotiating against a shark tank army of lawyers. This has "we didn't think they'd do that" written all over it.

My point is we can't give it a chance, because that chance will be as positive as they can possibly make it in order to get it made permanent. We won't see their full intent during the trial period.

Its also not bad faith to negotiate a pull down clause and then pull it down. That is part of what was negotiated. We can pull it down for any reason at any time we want to. That was the deal. If the company pulled it down (they won't) would we complain that they were acting in bad faith? Of course not.

Even if we wanted to accept the job losses from this as permanent, it would require airtight language so voluminous it would end up being a contract within a contract. We'd have to outthink every flank and every contingency imaginable to make sure the eventual reality wouldn't be worse than the trial period our decision to codify it would be based on. We would need to prevent every single loophole; they would need to find just one.

VB's are a concession. This was apparently such a big deal that all sides knew that the pull down clause had to be included for this not to become a poison pill issue. IMO we can't fairly judge these based on a trial period. They cost jobs, they will be used to their maximum potential at some point beyond the trial period, and they therefore need to be pulled down.

Or, after the one year trial period, if all was ok, we could agree to extend the concept for another year, with the same pull down provision, in exchange for additional gains in ur contract.

It is bad faith to negotiate something, then back out of it, for no other reason than other than, "because we wanted to."

That pull down provision gives us a lot of power. It gives us a lot of leverage. You shouldn't want our union to misuse it.

I don't think its bad faith at all as long as the membership is against it. Maybe if the MEC walked in on day after MEMRAT and says "don[t even bother, we didn't want this anyway" you might have a case. But its 100% legit to go in at any time and credibly say "hey our membership didn't like this so we have to pull it down IAW what we mutually negotiated because as we all know this whole TA wouldn't have MEMRAT'd in the first place without the pulldown provision and our pilot don't want this." The company would have no choice but to respectfully agree with that.

Your hypothetical example of perpetual one year extensions for gains is interesting. However I don't think the company would go for that. They want something from this far greater than whatever they are willing to do during a friendly trial period. That is the entire point of this. I'd also be surprised if DALPA wasn't spring loaded to make this permanent if it was 100% up to them. Would you be against this being made permanent?

Yes. We can go in any time after the agreement and say our membership doesn't like it. It seems like what some are wanting is making a push to drop it before it even gets started.


As for making it permanent: As with everything, I'd have to see how it was being used, what gains we got, and what protections and were put in place for us, before I would be ok with it being made permanent.

Once with Kragness as negotiating chair. Once under Wilson. Once under Maza.

It gathered steam after the commuter data came out in Centerline.

I recall it being a "nice to have" item instead of a hard target. Jeff Carlson spoke about it at an LEC meeting in late 2001. Something like, "If ALPA would bring it back to us, we'd take a hard look at it.". [That's my paraphrase of his comment!]

My sense is that it might have been in play after 9/11 if it was low impact, and would have mitigated furloughs in a measurable way. Unless we modified the APA system, it wouldn't work...and the APA system required more staffing than company-timed AEs.

Well, if so, then we would have the answer to their intent, no? The easy answer to the company saying, "We have to delete the pull-down provision," is to say, "Fine, then, let's pull the whole thing down. Experiment over."

Now,to your last point of DALPA's fecklessness.... Yeah, well, there is that....

Yeah haha I guess. :D Not so much feckless as it is hoodwinked maybe? I mean this is their baby after all. And if the one year trial period goes well enough, hey, why not extend it? You're not a conspiracy theorist are you? I mean, we really, really don't think they'll do that...:cool:

The OP was a commuting angry puppy guy out of Atlanta, if memory serves.
He also moved to Atlanta. He has heartburn over other people who chose not to move to Mecca getting some sort of "good deal" (that is unknowledgeable at this point) that he would no longer get since he moved to Mecca. Now this thread has morphed to how/if we can kill this provision.

I plan to vote yes on this TA, despite the "poison pill" that this VB thing is. Then again, it's in my interest, just as it's in the interest of the OP to "kill VB."

Bottom line here is this...We are a union, but not really in the sense of most unions. Most union workers are in lock step because each company offered provision affects each union member similarly. Not so in this white collar airline union. Some folks pack their wagons and move to Mecca, buy a hopped-up golf cart, and cruise the cart lanes of Peachtree City to their kids' soccer games. Others are in different life situations where commuting to do this job is a necessity.

I really hate to agree with Bond nee TSquare nee all his other screen names, but he is essentially correct about 12 pages back.

If this thing is an abortion, I trust our membership (and our current MEC leadership) to do the right thing. OTOH, if the company downplays it for a year then turns it into a beast we can no longer control, that could be a problem.

Just my $0.02 on what I currently see as a fat nothingburger we seem to generate thousands of posts about.

Gents,

Now that your TA has been ratified, I'm interested to get a handle on precisely what you guys have agreed to for VBs. If someone could post or PM the exact language or something close to it I'd be much obliged.

A couple of years ago UAL mgmt approached the MEC with a VB proposal that was immediately nixed by our side. If what you guys agreed to at DAL proves successful, I expect UAL management to try again. Thanks much.

Nobody knows the details of VB. It still has to be figured out.

According to the TA2015 implementation email, the deferred effective date for a VB MOU is no later than 1-31-2018.

Which is in conflict with the language of the MOU.

Duration

A. This MOU will become effective on its date of signing and will remain in effect for a period of one year following [DOS] unless extended by agreement of the parties. The provisions of Paragraph 1. Virtual Basing and Paragraph 2. Temporary Duty may be terminated at any time, separately or jointly, upon written notice by either party.