Originally Posted by CLazarus

Serious question, anyone have an idea what percentage of LEC/MEC officers are commuters? I know that company-wide the percentage of commuters is 55%. I'd be pretty surprised if even 1/3 of our elected officers company-wide are commuters. I'd like to think they represent the interests of all our pilots equally on all issues, but they are not immune to human biases. I like the LEC officers I've met so far on a personal level and trust that they are dedicated to the group as they see it. But, I haven't seen a lot of commuters at the LEC meetings I've made it to.

Originally Posted by awax

I suspect that the percentage of commuting LEC reps is WELL below 55%,

Originally Posted by awax

Regarding VB, a carefully crafted (and passed) council resolution should sideline any bias on behalf of the LEC. Council direction is what the members say it is, not the LEC officers.

Originally Posted by awax

Back to my question, why is it that the company likes VB and union doesn't?

Originally Posted by RomeoHotel

Also...it's not in the contract... and given the recent handling of PTC versus line value ... it's not always about what serves the pilots best

Originally Posted by CLazarus

I'm pretty sure you already have your own answer queued up to that one, so I'll say "Meh" and pass on discussing it.

Originally Posted by cadetdrivr

You broke the code.

Last time this concept came up the company could not "justify" reserves. So if you were sick you needed to trade out of the trip or find somebody else in your virtual base to pick up the flying.

Meanwhile, pilots in the existing bases were opposed to the loss of "their" flying.

The plan went nowhere.

Originally Posted by CLazarus

I have it on first hand authority HA himself said exactly this a while back. He also said he’s personally brought up the subject with our MEC Chair. For anyone who remembers previous threads I’ve participated in regarding the subject of Virtual/Satellite/Sub Bases, you might imagine my delight at learning this. However….


After all the vague warnings of possible “unintended consequences” (glug, glug, burp), I actually thought up one on my own that I won’t detail on an open forum. In general I realized how some pilots might effectively be ‘forced into’ a Virtual Base. That is obviously unacceptable. But, as circumstances change, this possible “consequence” might be rendered moot by other events.


Also, I have a better sense now of how difficult it can be to influence the MEC. Now I never imagined it would be easy, but after observing a separate/noncontroversial LEC resolution get nowhere at the MEC level I see no point in the near-term pursuit of something far more divisive which I’d be lucky to even get approved at the LEC level.



Meanwhile, I do not believe DAL’s own VB test has even started yet. If DAL is successful I imagine that UAL might bring the subject up with us again anyways when contract negotiations open next year. Or not.



Been a little dull on the Forums lately. Peace out.

Originally Posted by FAAFlyer

We have virtual FAs in LAS and BOS I believe. It's not untested.

Sick calls also happen mid-pairing, not always prior to 1100 the day before beginning a trip. I think that's a non-issue.

Originally Posted by krudawg

I might be conflating United with a former employer of mine but didn't United try a mini-base in PDX many years ago?

Originally Posted by CLazarus

I have it on first hand authority HA himself said exactly this a while back. He also said he’s personally brought up the subject with our MEC Chair. For anyone who remembers previous threads I’ve participated in regarding the subject of Virtual/Satellite/Sub Bases, you might imagine my delight at learning this. However….

Originally Posted by Nucflash

Dude, how long have you been here? Do you remember when HA was hired a why?