Satellite basing
 

The MEC's latest email mentioned that the company is interested in satellite bases, but the MEC does not appear to like the idea. Taking out all of the politics (they are concerned about adequate representation, which I'm not at all convinced is an adequate excuse for turning this down), does anyone else want to hear how the idea might work, and what the logistics might be?

It seems to me that if there is a way to do something like this, it should not only be considered, but put out for a pilot vote once we know the details.

Not that I have a vote, yet, but I would live to hear the details. Hoping they don't shove it aside without even asking the pilot group first!

You hit the nail on the head.

FWIW, word from my reps suggests the concept was not discarded out of hand but rather the company "proposal" was totally lacking in details. Essentially it was "we want to do virtual bases."

The company can't even follow the simple sections of the UPA so specifics will have to be hammered out prior to any further formal discussions, let alone any votes. And that's not even considering that prior company proposals on the same topic eliminated reserves at the "virtual bases." Pilots would have to find somebody to cover their trip prior to calling in sick. Sound like fun?

Why would the company want this? (Hint: what does the elimination of reserves do to manpower requirements?)

A cynic like myself would presume that the company knows this and this latest so-called proposal is simply another item from the labor strategy playbook.

Thanks for bringing some intelligent thought to the topic.

These guys are inept at the basics and have been stomping all over the UPA yet now they want to make changes? There are some interesting comments on the other forum which highlight the problems not immediately apparent on the surface with this idea.

Good info... Thanks

I think it's a good idea. Should apply to all fleets. All pilots should have the opportunity to take advantage. In the case of wide body crews flying only out of big domiciles for international trips - they should have positive space, First Class seats from home and paid hotels when required by FAA rest regulations to cover trips and meal allowance. The local guys have to be compensated in some way or they'll have to move away from the domicile for equal treatment.

Sign me up but don't try to cherry pick it for the sake of the company at the expense of the majority of the pilots.

I don't think you'll ever see a single issue vote come out for pilots to vote on. There may have been one but I can't remember ever see one.

What do you want to bet that "virtual bases" aren't the same thing as bases for the purposes of a paid move. If I were the MEC I'd decline any offer to participate in solving the companies manpower woes until the current CBA language is running like a well oiled machine.

The devil's in the details, or the lack of.......

You mean like at every MEC meeting ever. :rolleyes:

Tell me the single issue vote you, AS A PILOT , had the opportunity to vote on.

Have you heard that there's a union on the property? Specifically, ALPA? Ya see the way it works is pilots vote for a representative, the reps then act as the proxy for each pilot.

To whine that you're not getting to vote on single issues is to ignore the reality of the system that we work with and through.

You jump in:

From the original poster -

My response:

You need to stop shooting before understand what your shooting at there buddy. I am impressed with your knowledge of pieces ALPA's role on the property, but maybe a little more content reading would do some good.

I'm relatively new to UA, but this is by no means my first rodeo, and I have quite a bit of dealings with ALPA. An MEC can put whatever they want out for a vote, or they can survey it, or they can do a combination.

This is a pretty big issue, and one that could be worth being put out for a vote if it gets to the point of being seriously discussed and developed. It wouldn't--and likely couldn't--benefit everyone or work the way we all want it to, and if it failed, it could be a huge expense. But other carriers have done some form of virtual basing, and I personally believe that in some form or fashion, it can work. It's a bit of outside-the-box thinking, and I like that.

I'd just like to have some idea of what the working concept is, and what the real obstacles are.

Several companies have tried satellite basing and it usually doesn't turn out so well. Latest to try...QX with GEG, BOI and MFR bases.

No doubt, the MEC can do a lot of things but keep in mind that the pilots got the contract ratification vote at UAL back in the 80's. Before that the MEC voted for the pilots through their representatives.

Like I stated earlier, I've never seen a single issue vote put out to the pilots unless you want to consider the CBA a single issue. It's just history and it's not likely to change.

Always good advice, buddy, I'll re-read.

There've been many membership ratification votes on the UA property, and most of them have created more problems than they've solved. Reps are quite capable of receiving line pilot sentiment and rendering a vote on the pilots behalf.

Huge potential for abuse by the company. Details need to be disclosed before we consider any kind of satellite or virtual domiciles. UAL can't get the normal contract straight. What makes anyone think they can get this right?

Apology accepted! Curious - when you say "membership ratification votes" you mean when our elected representatives vote for us not that EACH PILOT GETS A VOTE - Right? I only ask because a couple of newhires have joined this thread.

Historically, within ALPA, "membership" ratification is just that: the rank-and-file cast the votes (ex: CBA), as opposed to "MEC" ratification (ex: new policy). At my previous carrier, the MEC made a big show of making sure everyone understood the distinction.

For a major hub and spoke airline with multiple fleet types satellite basing only works under two conditions. No reserve pilots needed(find own replacement if sick) and the ability to pull the base down at any time if marketing makes equipment changes without triggering displacement benefits.

Just give us a base in Florida and I'll be happy.

Since you have the inside track to all things ALPA, please give us ONE SINGLE ISSUE VOTE the RANK-IN-FILE (here at good ol' United) has voted on.

Single issue meaning something like your desired in the original post - "It seems to me that if there is a way to do something like this, it should not only be considered, but put out for a pilot vote once we know the details."

Is you old airline CAL?

I've only been at UA a year (which I have made clear elsewhere already), so I can't speak to that. And no, the old airline was not CAL. I was simply explaining the difference between the two.

Every airline and every MEC does a few things differently...and I'm still learning the ropes here.

and the loop continues...........

I was just reminded of the assessment vote for insurance support of the furloughed pilots at UAL. That was a rank-in-file pilot vote and it passed with a clear majority.

Is there more?

ESOP mid-term pay negotiations (X2), C2000, ERP1, ERP 2, C2003, C2005, furloughee benefits, LCO work rules (X2), SLI assessment, UPA to name a few off the top of my head.

Correct, those are all contract/money issues and require pilot ratification. Do you have a single issue item the MEC put out for vote?

The only one I could close to was the vote for furloughed pilots insurance assessment. They could not impose the assessment and I think it needed a special pilot vote because it wasn't in the contract.

Guess a Strike Vote would be another.

PK

Of the several RJ issues over the years we did have one put to the pilots for a vote, if my memory serves me correctly.

Of course we also had the one signed behind our backs by I believe PW.

I am noticing a trend here. Many seem to think the form of government we have with ALPA is a democracy where everything has to be voted upon. Well in reality we have a representative form of government. What this means is we empower our associated council reps to act on our behalf. This also means, outside of required membership ratification issues, they can vote on a subject in a manner which may seem against our desires because they have "better" and more "valid" information from which to decide with.

Of course many pilots want control over the minutia and forget this.

^^^^^^^ Well said ^^^^^^^^

The standard for whether to send something out for membership ratification is in the flow chart on page 133 of the MEC policy manual and it states, 'Does the TA substantially wages, working conditions?'