Opportunity knocks at EWR
05-24-2021, 06:20 PM
#11
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,110
Originally Posted by Powderkeg
MDW is not currently a base, nor do we operate flights out of there. But again the the LOA fallacy...whatever helps you sleep at night. The fact is the company doesn’t need the union’s permission to open a base.
I work here so I know we don’t fly into mdw. I also know the company doesn’t need permission. They do need to staff trips and that becomes difficult when I commuter clause a day before show because that’s my second flight. There’s zero chance of ttn being a pilot domicile without an loa to address that issue.
05-24-2021, 06:25 PM
#12
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2014
Posts: 228
Originally Posted by Powderkeg
MDW is not currently a base, nor do we operate flights out of there. But again the the LOA fallacy...whatever helps you sleep at night. The fact is the company doesn’t need the union’s permission to open a base.
05-24-2021, 06:34 PM
#13
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,110
Originally Posted by monkeybrains
MDW is absolutely still a pilot co-domicile and the company could start running flights out of there tomorrow without a system bid, and you are correct, the company can open a new domicile anytime they wish, without any input from ALPA.
05-24-2021, 06:34 PM
#14
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2014
Posts: 228
Originally Posted by fcoolaiddrinker
I work here so I know we don’t fly into mdw. I also know the company doesn’t need permission. They do need to staff trips and that becomes difficult when I commuter clause a day before show because that’s my second flight. There’s zero chance of ttn being a pilot domicile without an loa to address that issue.
could the company call TTN a co-domicile with PHL starting in July with no notice to ALPA? I don’t know, but it would be a pretty stupid move because they would not be able to efficiently get pilots into position. Wouldn’t be the first time they did something stupid, but I don’t see it happening for the same reason they didn’t make MCO and TPA co-domiciles, operational reliability would suffer significantly.
05-24-2021, 06:37 PM
#15
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,110
Originally Posted by monkeybrains
The company does not currently fly into MDW, but MDW and ORD make up the CHI pilot domicile. The company could put MDW sequences in the July bid packet if they choose, without permission, what the company can’t do is call ATL a pilot domicile in July. They must first run a system bid.
could the company call TTN a co-domicile with PHL starting in July with no notice to ALPA? I don’t know, but it would be a pretty stupid move because they would not be able to efficiently get pilots into position. Wouldn’t be the first time they did something stupid, but I don’t see it happening for the same reason they didn’t make MCO and TPA co-domiciles, operational reliability would suffer significantly.
could the company call TTN a co-domicile with PHL starting in July with no notice to ALPA? I don’t know, but it would be a pretty stupid move because they would not be able to efficiently get pilots into position. Wouldn’t be the first time they did something stupid, but I don’t see it happening for the same reason they didn’t make MCO and TPA co-domiciles, operational reliability would suffer significantly.
exactly. Nice summary.
05-24-2021, 07:58 PM
#16
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2015
Posts: 918
Originally Posted by monkeybrains
The company does not currently fly into MDW, but MDW and ORD make up the CHI pilot domicile. The company could put MDW sequences in the July bid packet if they choose, without permission, what the company can’t do is call ATL a pilot domicile in July. They must first run a system bid.
could the company call TTN a co-domicile with PHL starting in July with no notice to ALPA? I don’t know, but it would be a pretty stupid move because they would not be able to efficiently get pilots into position. Wouldn’t be the first time they did something stupid, but I don’t see it happening for the same reason they didn’t make MCO and TPA co-domiciles, operational reliability would suffer significantly.
could the company call TTN a co-domicile with PHL starting in July with no notice to ALPA? I don’t know, but it would be a pretty stupid move because they would not be able to efficiently get pilots into position. Wouldn’t be the first time they did something stupid, but I don’t see it happening for the same reason they didn’t make MCO and TPA co-domiciles, operational reliability would suffer significantly.
05-25-2021, 02:09 AM
#18
Bus Driver ordinarie
Joined APC: Aug 2015
Position: Airbus CA
Posts: 555
Originally Posted by Powderkeg
I’ve heard this nonsense spouted before...it’s always “I heard” or “I think” but nowhere I. The contract have I been able to find where dual bases aren’t allowed. If AA can base pilots at 3 bases in SoCal I guarantee F9 can as well.
Clearly there is precedent for treating pilots and FA’s differently in the same region.
My previous employer had JFK & LGA as a co-base; but it required an LOA and several concessions (longer report window etc to implement)
Any NE or NorCal/SoCal co-do would likely require concessions to the point of it being pointless for the company..
Midway and ORD are in the same city; TTN and EWR are not.
There is nothing in the contract; but I’m sure they would recognize the need to work with our union…
Last edited by Punkah Louvre; 05-25-2021 at 02:50 AM.
05-25-2021, 04:39 AM
#19
Line Holder
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: A318 short bus
Posts: 47
There was a period of time when Frontier pilots were not being represented by FAPA or ALPA. In that time ORD/MDW dual base was allowed and very nearly TTN/PHL. Fortunately, before the TTN deal was done we had FAPA again and would never have another dual base loa.
05-25-2021, 04:55 AM
#20
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,110
Originally Posted by AncientAliens
Stupid question…but what’s the limit? PHL/BWI? MIA/PBI? SEA/PDX? ORD and MDW are in the same city but PHL and TTN is a hike especially during rush hour.
i Believe it was 100 miles but I’m not positive. They wanted to do a chi mke as well at one point. Luckily an agreement could never be reached on that one. IMO It’s highly unlikely for the company to open another dual base without an Loa to address these issues. The current one pretty much failed as a dual base. The Loa is NOT for permission it’s for resolution of foreseeable contract issues. I’m also pretty sure anyone that has dual bases has an loa to address each one of those. More than likely Individually.
Last edited by fcoolaiddrinker; 05-25-2021 at 05:29 AM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
