Airline Pilot Central Forums - Attarian: Virtual Bases still a “Great Idea"

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)

- United (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/united/)

- - Attarian: Virtual Bases still a “Great Idea" (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/united/100784-attarian-virtual-bases-still-igreat-idea.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by CLazarus (Post 2329759)

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.

Good question, I suspect that the percentage of commuting LEC reps is WELL below 55%, otherwise shame on the LECs who elected them! I'm not sure how effective a commuting rep would be advocating in flight office if they're not there.

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. As for a floor resolution at the MEC, those generally affect all United pilots, not just a carve out. Stranger things have happened, but I wouldn't hold my breath for a spontaneous MEC floor resolution without multiple LEC resolutions supporting the subject.

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

Ok... I'll bite....

One theory I have heard is that it splinters the political base of an LEC...

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by awax (Post 2329796)

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

Me too. The effect of the new proxy voting system might be interesting.

Quote:

Originally Posted by awax (Post 2329796)

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.

Yeah, well, a resolution of minor importance that I agreed with was passed unanimously at an LEC meeting only to be met with a "Meh" at the MEC level and not acted upon. Not a big deal, but a little discouraging. LEC biases or no, it seems to take more than a single LEC resolution to get action from the MEC.

Quote:

Originally Posted by awax (Post 2329796)

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

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RomeoHotel (Post 2329815)

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

I'd disagree, read section 8-H. If the company tried to open VB on the premise that "it's not in the contract" I think we'd set a record on how fast the grievance was awarded.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CLazarus (Post 2329820)

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.

Nothing that hasn't been said before, so I'll spare you the recap. :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by cadetdrivr (Post 2329783)

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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CLazarus (Post 2329352)

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.

I might be conflating United with a former employer of mine but didn't United try a mini-base in PDX many years ago? Seem to recall all the pilots that lived in PDX area were all for it so the company gave it a try. The only problem was when sick calls forced pilots living in SEA to drive to PDX to cover early morning trips that opened up late in the evening. The SEA pilots raised a protest and the experiment was over. Anyone else remember that or am I conflating?

Quote:

Originally Posted by FAAFlyer (Post 2329894)

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.

I wonder what percent of sick calls are mid-pairing? I'll bet single digits %. Hardly a "non-issue." Actually, I would imagine it's one of the biggest issues.

Quote:

Originally Posted by krudawg (Post 2329921)

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

You are correct that PDX was tried as a satellite or such to SEA. My understanding is similar to yours in that senior guys living in PDX would bid for/drive up for the good trips out of SEA, forcing guys living in SEA to come down and cover PDX trips/reserve. Clearly this was an unacceptable result. I think the big takeaway is that a full on VB cannot be within 1-3 hr driving range of a base. Thus SAN could never be a workable VB for LAX, PHL could not be one for EWR, etc. (BWI does come to mind as being more than sixty minutes in rush hour traffic from IAD).

Quote:

Originally Posted by CLazarus (Post 2329352)

Dude, how long have you been here? Do you remember when HA was hired a why? If you have forgotten, he was brought on by Tilton to torpedo ALPA because he himself had intimate knowledge of the inner workings of ALPA. Do you think HA is your buddy and gunning for our best interests? Because that would be inexcusable näive. More likely it was an easy chance to play "good cop" while his true goal is to pit ALPA interests against each other... :rolleyes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nucflash (Post 2329987)

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

Not long, so no. I didn't try to make a case that he was a good guy or had our interests at heart either. About a year ago I wondered on these forums if the CO still had an interest in VB after the MEC slammed the door on it. I finally got a crystal clear answer and felt I might as well report on it in a timely fashion. But as I said in my OP I don't see what there really is to be done about it in the near to mid term. Time will tell.