Yup. Done it a few times. If they open PHL as a co base, with more flights out of PHL, with that longer drive, at 50% surface deadhead pay(1hr/2hrpay); im saying my original point, that this isnt something that just happens in a vacuum that only affects 1 base.

MIA and FLL is a compliant CObase if they do it. If they do it or dont do it, pilots from all bases are required to make the surface DH to those bases. Making a base easier for a cobase (over the contractual limit, not MIA/FLL) only makes it easier for the company to grow those bases. Growing those bases while shuffling pilots back and forth at ground transportation pay is something that affects all pilots, not just a single base pilot

And down the rabbit hole we went...Original point was discussing what we will give up on a public forum, based on what 1 base wants. Ill personally leave it at that.

The Union may or may not “listen”, but you can bet your butt the company or someone they’ve hired is paying attention to these forums and posts. Figure it out.

Good, I want the company to know since the union won't tell them what we want. And just to be clear, I don't want to give ANYTHING for the PHL-ACY co-base. In fact, I'm sure we can get something if we give them the 6 miles.

why do you think PHL would have to be a base (co base or
not) for this scenario? A LAS crew flies to ACY on a pairing. Next segment of the pairing is a surface DH to Philly. Flies rest of trip, ends in LAS. What does base have to do with it? It could be a surface DH between stations

Asked and answered. The horse has been beaten to death on this. CoBase language is 50 miles and ACY to PHL is greater than that. That’s the end of that.

For now…..

Suggest you reread 8-C. No distance limitation. So with current contract they can't cobase ACY and PHL, but they can and do start trips in ACY, with a limo to PHL.

I dont need to reread. I never said anything about ground transportation limits, I said cobase is at 50 and unless something is given up, it cant be a base. Again, this has been beaten to death. Ive already said my opinion on why a cobase could lead to an increase in ground transportation versus what we see now.

Simply put, and for the last time; if the company wants a base in PHL, let them make it a base and staff it as a base, its outside of 50 miles. Making PHL a stand alone base would reduce the amount of ground limos from ACY-PHL-ACY, wouldn't you think? If PHL has their own pilots, why make crews limo back and forth. IF they co base, then the limos back and forth will continue and probably increase as they increase the flying out of PHL. This affects us all, as we have all done the limo, and I think it sucks.

My point has always been I dont feel actions of 1 base or unique to only affect that one base.

Ronny and I differ on whether cobasing affects other bases outside of the cobase. We agree to disagree. Horse beaten to a bloody pulp at this point. And none of this changed without member ratification, as something in this scope is probably considered too large for any LOA from the MEC. It affects us all.

Or here is a novel idea: just staff the philly flying the same way they do now with overnights or flying that flows through from other bases. Mini bases stagnate growth in other domiciles and lead to less flexibility.

Misread your post, and agree with your reply. I’ll be quiet now.