Kill VB
 

I wrote my reps, I encourage you to do the same. It is likely the TA will pass, let's at least get rid of one of the toxic items before it ever rears its ugly head. VB may be helpful to specific DAL pilots but as a whole this gives CS way too much flexibility and abrogates seniority. It has to go.

Maybe we should wait to see how it works.

I agree and I am not a commuter. With it being strictly voluntary and we can get rid of it if we don't like it, I say lets take a look at it. If it doesn't go how we want it then let it go.

I will vote in favor of any LEC resolution to kill VB.

MikeF16,

Just one question. How does it abrogate seniority?

Hmmmmmm..........let me think about this............could I say all the guys/gals that might like the idea of a VB (probably a lot of commuters) are now virtually (;)) being thrown under the bus?

The last is not directed at you or anyone in particular. Just pointing out a different viewpoint.:)

Denny

Green eggs and ham?

HaHa! I like it !:)

Denny

It's a good question and no offense taken.

Commuters lose no seniority in commuting. They have made a voluntary choice to use their seniority to enable their commuting lifestyle. VB will remove trips from the bid package which somebody who hasn't bid a VB (both commuters and those who live in domicile) would have had access to.

Example: Senior commuter lives in Dallas and uses their seniority to bid double commutable NYC trips. VB established in Tampa. All those late sign-in early sign-out trips that used to do NYC-TPA are now gone to a new hire who just happens to live in Florida and bid the TPA VB. How is that fair? That has most definitely abrogated the seniority system.

Mike, I respect your sincerity but you are just making up a scenario. It might be plausible or it might not ever happen or anything remotely close.

I don't commute but used to. The VBs are a huge unknown but I'm not convinced they are toxic. I am suspicious of them but our contractual language gives us an easy out if we don't like them. We should allow them to proceed and see what unfolds.

The company might conclude that they are a waste of time and effort. We might feel the same. Either side can pull them down.

Or just maybe, both sides will find them beneficial. It might even be (or not) several years of very successful VBs later we might even ask "what was all the angst about?"

That's just the point, I made up a scenario. It's easy. The company can do the same. I will give you the point that it might be much ado about nothing, I am certainly no great prognosticator of the future. But is there something wrong with what we're doing now? We didn't ask for this, the company did. I think you would agree that the company can use this to improve efficiency. Improved efficiency means less required pilots. How is that good for the pilot group at large?

Yes, they are a "huge unknown", and that is what makes them toxic. Nothing in the contract should be a "huge unknown".

..and yes, they do abrogate seniority. For the very reason that you must be qualified on the equipment that goes to a VB, it is an abrogation of seniority.

Pull them down immediately.

VB is absolutely toxic. It's lost jobs. The union posted something showing each adjustment to the contract and how many jobs were added/lost as a result of each adjustment. Something like

Vacation pay increased +6
Reserve SC credit +4
Virtual basing/TDY -55

You guys didn't see that?!?!

I can't find it otherwise I would copy and paste it. Someone who can find it please post this for everyone to see.

LOST JOBS IS TOXIC. ITS ABSOLUTELY NEEDS TO BE ELIMINATED.

While were at it, let's get rid of out of base yellow slips.

Green slip killer...........

If it ends up being a bad deal, can ALPA put out a memo that just says, "nobody bid VB or TDY"? Problem solved? Or does that break some sort of RLA Hurt Feelings law?

Don't need too. They just pull out of the test program. Boom, it's over.

Denny

After 1 year they get together to re-evaluate the program. At that point either side can put the kibosh on it so your question wouldn't ever be necessary. We just have to wait the one year from DOS.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, they are a huge unknown. That's why it's a test program that can be eliminated by either party. Guys are always asking for specific language when talking about unknowns.......well here there is specific language that allows for the program to be killed if it doesn't work out.

Come on, I think that's a stretch. A virtual base sounds like it will be a month to month bid, it may be there one month and gone the next. It's Basically a "category within a category." Your seniority in category is honored.

Denny

My question is who decides it isn't working? MEC or can the pilots vote? MEC better listen to the pilot if they are the ones in charge of deciding after the one year test period...

Test and voluntary. Pulled down with 45 day notice. Positive space, hotels and parking. Test it, pull it down or don't renew it. Lot's of protection. Not a big deal.

I don't think that abrogates seniority. IMO, seniority abrogation is when, considering the both pilots are in the same situation i.e. category, the junior pilot gets a trip, day off, vacation etc. that the senior pilot wanted. You are talking about two now separate categories in TPA and NYC.

I gotta say, I'm enjoying playing "devils advocate" with this thread. Thanks Mike!:D

Denny

Post the info from the WHOLE slide then answer the question of how many jobs lost/gained over the life of the agreement. If you believe the NC's numbers from that slide, it's a staffing neutral contract.

Denny

There are "philosophical" seniority violations and then there are "actual" ones. The only one that matters is an actual one, meaning the contract states "senior pilot A gets such and such prior to junior pilot B" and junior pilot B got it anyway due to an error.

A philosophical abrogation is merely an opinion, where a pilots states "I believe that senior pilot A should get xyz even though the contract doesn't call for it."

Should a senior guy get to swap before a junior guy can WS? Maybe....but the contract doesn't call for it, so a junior guy getting a trip via WS before a senior guy gets to swap for is not a contractual violation of seniority, though I've heard more than one claim that it was a seniority violation in their OPINION.

Since the bid package comes out after the vb bid, the trip mix would essentially be created using the vb into the gonkulator. The vb would determine the trip mix and it would be hard to determine exactly what routes dissapeared from what base.

Bid what you want, and want what you bid. I heard this same kind of bullsh!t when we had Express. Every. single. pilot. senior to me had the opportunity to bid the category. They didn't. I did.

Your argument is hollow and ridiculous.

Yet you want to kill it anyway based on your perspective without knowing how it will or won't work. There's always a 'but' when someone makes a statement like you just made.

That is a very slippery slope my friend.

The appropriate heartburn you 'heard'.... was with our cba and its idiotic agreement that blatantly devalued the trade and craft.

Alpa:.....but your honor, a 737 pilot is in fact worth $X.......unless of course that pilot is based in mco......then its $X - 30%.

Your windfall came as a result of our cba's stupidity..... and at the expense of every other pilot in the profession.

But hey, I'm sure it worked out fine for you.

The software and computing horsepower exists to make vb a gain in efficiency......I would at a minimum expect our Cba to extract some part of that in increased compensation.

And yes.....retroactively.

You (along with whomever you heard express that OPINION) should brush up on §23...

Windfall? Seriously?

What?

You bid something that was a less advantageous deal than your previous position?

Nope. It was better. So tell me how that is a windfall. Or are you still calling "protect essential" in recurrent?

Better for you..... but not the profession. Yeah.... outside of your vernacular, and vegetation....that's what is generally accepted as a windfall.

Full Definition of windfall

1. 1 : something (as a tree or fruit) blown down by the wind
2. 2 : an unexpected, unearned, or sudden gain or advantage.

Complete BS. We are talking about a base. A base that will not be available to all pilots. End of story. It is a blatant abrogation of seniority. Period. If it wasn't killable, I would be voting no. Kill it, ASAP.

If you live in base, there is zero upside to VB for you personally.

What worries me is that adjustments to the test and the pull down decision will be made unilaterally, not by memrat

So tell me then what was the windfall part of it? The left seat????????? Is THAT the overriding be all end all? If it is, then why are there FOs at DAL that are senior to me? It certainly wasn't the money, because 767 FOs made more. Had I been able to keep my seat when the payrates went back up, you would be right, but I got bumped, hence no windfall. So what advantage did I gain per definition #2.

Ok, now I see what angle you are coming at it from. IOW, it's a new base and category, every one should be able to bid it. Of course the problem with that is, it's not a "permanent" category so to speak and that causes problems, hence the VB contractual language used to get around that part of our contract.

Best argument against I have heard so far. Will have to think about it.

Denny

Which segues nicely to my, <*cough*>, "favorite" quote from the ATL Roadshow:

Q: Will making the VB provisions permanent be accomplished via MEMRAT?

A: You already are [exercising MEMRAT], by approving this TA.


So, Dirt, I think it's safe to say you are correct....

True...So you know I don't care...:)

Well, if by unilaterally you mean the MEC, I would say yes. But if you mean unilaterally by the MEC Chairman, I'd say he wouldn't want to do that........I know, I know it's been done in the past. Just speculating that it's a fur ball an MEC Chairman could easily avoid.

Denny

Does that make it bad?

The flying time will come out of your bid package. How could that be good for you?