Vacancy v. Base swapping
05-08-2019, 07:25 AM
#11
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: FIRE ALPA
Posts: 3,082
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)
05-08-2019, 09:40 AM
#12
Part of the problem
Joined APC: Jul 2013
Position: CRJ200 CA
Posts: 577
Originally Posted by Avroman
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 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.
05-08-2019, 10:03 AM
#13
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: FIRE ALPA
Posts: 3,082
Originally Posted by Flogger
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.
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.
05-08-2019, 09:16 PM
#14
On Guard!
Joined APC: Mar 2019
Posts: 1,181
Originally Posted by Avroman
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.
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.
05-10-2019, 06:24 AM
#15
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2009
Position: 320 CA
Posts: 423
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.
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.
05-10-2019, 08:24 AM
#16
Banned
Joined APC: Oct 2014
Position: 6 Train - Panhandler
Posts: 2,001
Originally Posted by DL31082
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.
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.
05-10-2019, 08:39 AM
#17
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: the right side
Posts: 1,373
Originally Posted by TalkTurkey
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.
05-10-2019, 09:57 AM
#18
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2006
Position: 737 FO
Posts: 2,370
Originally Posted by DL31082
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.
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.
Just giving you the reason it's not a common practice.
05-10-2019, 11:28 AM
#19
Will FTI for food...
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Feb 2013
Posts: 388
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.
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.
05-10-2019, 12:52 PM
#20
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2009
Position: 320 CA
Posts: 423
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.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
