I think the way the company has taken advantage of FAR 117 is concrete evidence of how "we never thought they would do that" is applicable. How about the way CS gives out trips to reserve pilots that leak into their following line-holder month at single pay. I bet you never thought they'd do that, yet in this contract we had to give up negotiating capital to get rid of that complete and utter BS.

I am trying to understand what your trying to say here but it makes no sense. This item has been a contractual step in trip coverage for at least 30 years. They use it when contractually it is required. How can you use that as a example of we thought they would never do that. The trip coverage ladder requires it per our contract. They have been doing it forever and it's mandated by the contract. Who would say we thought they would never do that??

 

See my above post. Your point makes zero sense. It's a contractually required trip coverage step. It's like step nine out of twenty plus steps in the ladder. If the company failed to do it any pilot assigned the trip from a lower ladder position would have a valid grievance. Our contract MANDATES the company to do it.

 

My real fear about VB Is simple. The company came to us, red flag!
The company is not stupid..... make VB a nice facet of the over all TA and when the proofing or vetting period is over and we sign off on it the the unexpected consequences that are money savers for the company will manifest itself and we will blame ALPA YET AGAIN that they should have seen it comming!

Just saying, fiig!

 

Of course when it comes time to negotiate the LOA we could always retain the right to terminate the agreement at any time.

 

Mike, I get your concern for this possibly affecting the better trips in the bid package. And I get your concern for the unknown. I don't know how this will shake out and I can't stand weak contract language, but by virtue of the fact that we can kill this thing if it doesn't go our way, I'm comfortable with at least giving it a chance.

We have a lot of commuters in our ranks, and if a VB in MCO or LAS improves their lives, even if it's only for a few months a year, I'm alright with giving it a chance. I live outside ORD and I know we won't see a VB, so I don't think it will affect me but Id be happy to know James Bond or Timbo (If he wanted to down bid) could take advantage of this to be home a few more nights. Let's give it a chance. If Timbo was tired of Joburg and downbid to the ER, that opens up a 777A position.

Like TED74 said, you'll never know what trips are/were affected by this. I bid the A320 Captain in NYC instead of the 717 A in DTW or ATL because, last January, when I looked at the different bid packages, the A320 trips in NYC were beautiful in comparison. Late sign ins for the most part, flying up and down the coast to Florida destinations, with early sign outs on day 4. Perfect trips for commuters. Now we have 1-3 day trips that are mostly un commutable with some 4-5 day trips that are commutable but it's a completely different mix than last January. I'm expecting them to get better in January again when they up gauge the NYC to FLA equipment. Delta is using historical data to "right size" the equipment on every route, not only for the time of day but the day of the week too. it didn't used to be that way. They like the flexibility, and this VB thing adds to that.

I feel that I've made a short post too long, but I think the main driver for this whole VB thing was so they could set up, for example, an A330 base in MSP or BOS for the summer to save deadhead costs, or a 777 base in NYC seasonally. We didn't agree to that so this is the first bite of the apple for them. They want even more out of this, eventually. I'd like to see how they use this but I don't think a domestic VB is their goal. I don't think they'll get much out of it, but if they do want more, maybe it will be a really good deal for some guys while they try to lure us deeper into the trap.

I'd love to not have to commute, even if it was for a few months a year, and while I know this won't help me personally, there are a lot of guys who might benefit from this. Let's at least give it a chance. You never know, the trips you like might actually get better. I doubt it, but there are a lot of commuters in ATL too, maybe your relative seniority gets better when guys leave ATL for MCO or wherever the VB's end up.

Sorry for the long and poorly worded rant, I'm trying to type this while watching the Cubs make history....

 

I'm just one voice and I made my opinion public but I can appreciate your counterpoint. Yes, we can kill this which is probably the tipping point that will let me vote yes on the TA; however, it is also my belief that once it is instituted we really won't know what harm it is causing. My guess is most people won't notice anything, yet that doesn't mean it will be harmless.

The fact that this was a company ask should send chills up your spine. They are going to reap unknown benefits at our expense. Because those benefits to the company and harm to the pilot group may not be easily identifiable in a paycheck or even your schedule, they may not generate the type of angst required to get rid of the program once it's instituted because of a vocal minority of pilots who will likely reap significant benefits from having their commute pains lessened.

No hidden agenda here: I left a place I liked living to move into a base I really don't like. So yeah, to me this is a kick in the junk. I have personal reasons for not liking this, but they don't invalidate my professional reasons.

 

That might be just a bit dramatic. Just because the company asks, doesn't necessarily mean they have fully envisioned their "evil master plan. "

I direct your attention to the Company's sick leave "must have" of C2012 which proved to be a raging flop as evidenced by their sick leave "must have" in these negotiations.

 

LOL, you've definitely got me there! No argument sir.

 

If negotiations are going to yield both give and take (I know that itself is debatable), these are the gives I'd like to prioritize.

 

I think we notice. I also think we'll be paying particular attention to any adverse effect from VB.

The key will be whether or not enough of us perceive any of the effects as adverse, and whether or not we're collectively apathetic about them.

This has a been a good thread.