|
Originally Posted by rp2pilot
(Post 2262684)
If it dilutes the quantity and quality of flying in an existing base without the contractual provisions of a new Base (such as you mention), it does indeed abrogate seniority. If there's enough flying in a particular city, open a base and allow people to bid into it per the seniority list. For example, hundreds (if not thousands) of pilots have chosen to live, at great expense, within driving distance of SFO. Now, open a "virtual base" in Portland Oregon; the trip pool in SFO diminishes and negatively impacts the livelihood / QOL of the person living in California at the expense of the commuters that now enjoy a lower cost of living AND the ability to drive to work.
|
Originally Posted by WhiskeyDelta
(Post 2262642)
There will be no guarantee that any VB will be open for a defined period of time unless an LOA is agreed to after the program starts.
Next, solve reserve and short call coverage in a VB. It's beyond ridiculous to think you can take block hours and man power out of an established base to give commuters a special good deal and not have it affect pilot seniority. |
Originally Posted by FAAFlyer
(Post 2262711)
What's the difference between opening a new base and creating a virtual base? V-files? We no longer need to get our jepp updates before starting a trip so I am not sure I see the difference.
New flying is just that; new flying. Our CBA has specific language that was hard fought and paid for through negotiations that deals with new flying. I'm not willing to give that away because commuting is hard. |
Originally Posted by awax
(Post 2262722)
Are you sure you have that in the right order? There would have to be an LOA in place before a VB is available to bid. Otherwise I'm sure I'd be fighting to be first in line to grieve the company unilaterally changing my work rules.
Next, solve reserve and short call coverage in a VB. It's beyond ridiculous to think you can take block hours and man power out of an established base to give commuters a special good deal and not have it affect pilot seniority. The issue were are having is I am at Delta so I'm talking about our agreed upon VB language. Sorry for the confusion. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
Originally Posted by WhiskeyDelta
(Post 2262742)
The issue were are having is I am at Delta so I'm talking about our agreed upon VB language. Sorry for the confusion.
It'll be interesting to see how the DAL pilot group navigates the VB issue. |
Originally Posted by awax
(Post 2262816)
Slumming in the UAL forums? No side-boob here! :D
Haha. Well I was the first person to post a reply to the OP and figured it was obvious I wasn't UAL [emoji3] Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk |
Originally Posted by WhiskeyDelta
(Post 2262442)
And to add to the VB info, MCO has from day one been at the top of a very short list of initial test VBs so I'd be surprised if it isn't the first one. That could make the program a success because we still have tons of commuters from there and the surrounding cities within driving distance.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk |
Originally Posted by awax
(Post 2262624)
If the company can support an additional pilot domicile, there are current contractual requirements and pilot benefits already on the books.
Will a virtual base provide: Systemwide bid for all pilots to preference the new BES? Paid moves? PS Pass travel for at least 6 months while pilots move? Base Trades? There are more, but if the answer to any of the questions above is no, than virtual basing absolutely abrogates pilot seniority. Follow the contract. |
Originally Posted by svergin
(Post 2263635)
You get none of those with a base trade either. But everyone is ok with those.
|
V bases ain't gunna happen - abrogation of seniority issues make it a non-starter.
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:36 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands