I think the bigger reason the company doesn't want to do that is it takes away their ability to not fill secondary vacancies (that has largely been going on for some time in MSP and DTW) The company can shrink these bases without any costs currently. If they had that system or had to fill all secondary vacancies they'd have to displace in order to shrink a base (with contractual rights that would cost the company money)

I don't get your logic?

I understand why they don't want to allow it if incurs training costs, but what would be wrong with a 2 pilots simply swapping bases, as long as no locks are in place?

There would be no need to even use the normal vacancy bid.

Because the company has often chosen not to "Swap" pilots but shrink a base through attrition. A pilot chooses to leave and then the company doesn't replace that pilot. In your scenario, that pilot would be replaced when the company doesn't want that much staffing anymore.

See ATL 200 shrinking and compare it to MSP 200 closure.
ATL is shrinking on the 200 side through natural attrition, 5 leave and 0 are replaced = $0.
MSP closed, the remaining crews were displaced = $$$ paid by the company.

Base swapping really shouldn’t have anything to do with a vacancy. They way we did it at ASA was through the Union. If there were two pilots that flew the same aircraft but wanted to swap base they would contact the union. The union would post the trade for 30 days on the website an crew room TVs. If a senior pilot saw it and wanted to take the trade from the junior pilot they could, if not after 30 days the trade is finalized and we notified the company. They usually moved bases on the next monthly bid.

This process had nothing to do with vacancies. If the company wanted to reduce the base by not awarding secondaries they could still do that. It keeps the base and the exact same level the company wants it since it is a one for one trade.

Yea and I love how YOU GUYS keep it off hot mics so I don’t have to listen to how YOU GUYS did things.

It’s almost like if things were so great at ASA, they should have stayed. Or maybe they can go back...

That only works if the senior pilot is coming from the base the pilot in the base they want to go to is trying to go to. Otherwise you are removing the opportunity for the senior pilot to bid into said base themselves.

Just giving you the reason it's not a common practice.

Regardless of how it was done wherever, the biggest problem is that it is currently not being done often enough. People should be allowed to swap at least monthly. Vacancy bids done one every few months leaves pilots stuck in bases they do not want to be in and unable to swap with other pilots who want to trade.

This is a neutral cost to the company and it seems to be creating ill will amongst ourselves for no reason. Yes, I get that it is related to the current stagnation, but we could pursue it and uncouple base asignments from aircraft/seat changes if we desired.

Do whatever you guys want. I dont care, I am in the base I want. Things sure as hell weren't perfect at ASA, I'd be the first one to tell you some of those guys were arrogant as hell. One of the ways you figure out how to do things in our contract is to look at how other airlines might do things in theirs. I took the voluntary displacement language out of the Endeavor contract and adapted it to ASA a few years ago. I've enjoyed my time here at Endeavor and sure as hell dont think that ASA was better, but with that said something of the things in their contract was better then ours.