buscappy

exactly correct

reminds me of when a certain Wendy M wanted to give "super seniority" to moms for monthly bidding - to be home with their kids

there's always gonna be some effort to skirt the seniority system.
with the ideas of virtual bases and "fixes to reserve", it's the folks who choose to live in a city away from where they work...

good grief

CLazarus

I'm starting to get a strong sense of Deja Vu on this thread now, a lot of familiar names and opinions regarding VB. That said, I can't tell if individuals have really read closely what I initially posted or watched the video. So, I'm going to say again what most caught my eye about how DAL plans to implement this:

Once enough volunteers have come forward to make a VB workable in any given month, the flying for that month comes to the VB from their respective bases. That is, lines are built after folks have committed to the VB but before monthly bidding opens. So, the monthly bid packages could conceivably be built in such a way that seniority is honored if PBS can 'learn' to anticipate how folks are likely to bid. Example: PBS builds flying aimed to please the top ten lineholders living in base X, the next guy in base X has bid VB so PBS carves out some VB flying aimed at his seniority level, and so on all the way down the line. No, I don't think PBS can do this now and maybe it never will get it right (we are a fickle bunch indeed). But a few years ago I wasn't seeing ads on web pages that were customized specifically for me based on my prior web browsing history either. Darn cookies.

Anyways, the DAL VB threads had a lot of the exact same discussion as what has transpired here. If their test falls apart, and I can already see how it might, I'll be glad we didn't go there. But if it works and becomes routine, well, we'll have been handed some bargaining leverage at least.

awax

Predictive algorithm and adequate volunteers to make VB work is nonsense. You can't take manpower and block hours away from a base and suggest it doesn't affect seniority.

Carveouts for special interest groups have no place in a union.

Grumble

What if its the worst, all night flying that goes to the bottom anyway? Then how would you feel?

Does the company moving flying from one base to another not already abrogate seniority? Who is the special interest if they open a VB in say LAS and MCO? Can not everyone bid for it?

Not making a case for VB, and I can't see how to make it work without causing huge problems, but a lot of the arguments guys make based on a hypothetical seem just as implausible.

Probe

So, we open a VB in Vegas and MCO. 3 months later, half a dozen guys move to Key West and Ajo, Arizona. They create an even harder nightmare commute. Then, they get on APC, and complain how they are getting screwed by the VB, and they should get positive space passes to MCO and LAS.

The fringe will always complain, and come up with some wack job idea that they believe will benefit them. Sort of like bidding to commute to reserve, and then wanting to change the reserve rules to make their bad lifestyle choice more palatable.

Next...............................

CLazarus

You crack me up Awax, repeating the exact same points again and again as if it they get stronger with each try.

Here is your prime argument used against you. EWR is widely acknowledged as having the best flying in the system. However, DEN is by far the most senior, with many relatively senior folks who live there commuting to SFO/LAX to get a line, fly WB, or whatever. Is it not an abrogation of seniority that such senior folks in DEN have to do this? By golly, why isn't the MEC forcing the company to route the best flying through DEN and making those junior guys in EWR suck it up? Come to think of it, why do we allow bases to bid separately for their "own" flying? I suppose perhaps we should allow guys to bid in seniority order without regard to base. I wouldn't mind bidding and commuting to a couple of different bases during the month for a crack at some of their best trips, it wouldn't add much commute time for me at all.

What's that you say? "But, but, but, it would make no sense to have all those great Caribbean turns start in DEN! We've always carved out separate bidding by base." I agree with you, but the DEN base is indeed senior so I guess by your line of thought we'd have to build inefficient trips and burn money to honor the seniority of the pilots there. Profit sharing be dammed!

I would have been content to see this thread go nowhere after my initial post, as I'm fine just observing how things go for DAL. Like I said, the discussion on their forum on the subject was damn near cut and paste from what has already been said here. If you've got a brand new case to make, I'm all ears. If not, let the thread die pretty please. Spare me any insults though, I consider them to be veiled attempts to shore up a weak argument.

awax

I'm glad you're amused, however you haven't provided an example of how opening a virtual base avoids abrogating seniority. You correctly cite that pilots live where they want and fly what they can hold for whatever reason but I think you're confusing monthly schedule preferring with equipment/base award.

What you fail to address is this: A new base, represents new flying and ALL pilots on the seniority list have the right to bid it.

You see it as a weak argument, although I'm just paraphrasing current CBA language. I don't have convince anyone really, but I'll damn sure grieve any unilateral change. The MEC has already told the company that ALPA's not interested in VB's for many of the "weak arguments" I'm making. VBs won't happen, but I'm curious to see if you have an idea of how it could be done without gutting the CBA? It appears not.

I don't troll the DAL forum, or watch their videos, maybe you'd like to make a case for how a VB would affect the UAL pilot CBA. Also, as per your wish, I'm doing my part to make sure this thread, post, and the idea of a virtual base goes nowhere.

Here's the bottom line. If the company determines that flying can more efficiently be done from a new base, we have a process for that. In that contractual process, ALL pilots get a crack at it.

Here's your chance, convince me that a virtual base is anything more than attempt to carve a special good deal for commuters in one fleet and one base.

Convince me that my company seniority is not affected if a desirable base is opened and I can't bid it because I'm not in the correct BES.

Convince me that the g-line in the BES where the flying is taken from won't change, and that the number one pilot in that BES will have as many options to bid a monthy schedule.


I'm all for new bases, new flying, and more options.....in system seniority order. Does that "argument" offend you?

awax

Well there's the rub huh?

As pilots we don't have a contractual mandate to influence the company's allocation of flying systemwide or between hubs. The SSC can offer input and make suggestions but beyond that, the company flys where they want.

We do however have very specific language that addresses how that flying is staffed. It's worth studying the history of how and why that specific language evolved.

The company loves the idea of a VB if they can bypass the "expensive" process of opening a new pilot domicile. Pilots living in VB city would obviously love to shed the commute, no doubt! But, if ALPA agrees to VB, all new bases will be VB and in the long run we screw ourselves.

As an aside, reading this thread there's an apparent disconnect between "allocation of flying" and "staffing of flying". To have an informed conversation it's really important to know the difference.

duvie

AWAX,

You seem to be taking a harder line on issues in the last year or so... maybe that's an error in my perception, but I'm going to add a counterpoint because your take on this issue seems a little black and white.

You have two main points, one is not an argument for or against VB because it is your subjective opinion on how flying is doled out, not the implementation or even de facto policy of the union or company. The second point is that the policy is a "carve out."

The main point that you were making, is essentially that every base has the right to it's flying. When you express that a base's flying and G line mustn't change for a VB to be something you support, you are in effect saying that the flying belongs to a certain geographic area and that it should not be shifted around. Obviously that is not true and the point was made earlier. Furthermore, this would overwhelmingly be implemented on narrowbody fleets, which see a large amount of seasonal and mission fluctuation as it is (bar ETOPS stuff). Flying that is traditionally associated with certain bases is usually on the larger aircraft and would not feasibly be able to be done using virtual basing. So the 757 guys can keep their LIH, GRU, etc and the widebody guys can keep their girlfriends or boyfriends in Asia or South America. Given the nature of computer-generated schedules, I personally just don't see a lot of the same overnights month over month reliably in the pairings, I.E. "good flying."

I'm not going to go into the reality that commuters tend to be more senior and therefore it is more likely than not that most junior people would see their seniority go up percentagewise in base. That is my speculation and based on anecdotal evidence, however perhaps a union survey would help show our whole pilot group what the likely affected groups would be.

But, let's assume that a base has some sort of right to its flying and an obligation to keep things relatively steady. You allude to your main issue being carveouts. But I think that is a cable news type buzzword for a concept that is much more interesting and democratic. The bottom line would be, if a new section of the contract appealed to enough pilots, then the union would pursue it. Call it what you want, but if it was beneficial to both us and the company and more people fight for it than against, it would not be a carveout, simply a new policy regarding the staffing of "non-hub domiciles." I think that is an important distinction because the people who pursue this for us are elected. It is hardly perfect, but we have a much better track record than a lot of other representative democracy type organizations. If your representative continually votes for policies that benefit a small few, they probably will not last very long.

FWIW I live in base and have no plans of commuting, but the idea could help a lot of fellow pilots and I'd be more concerned with the effect it would have on our operational performance than "my flying." Just my take

svergin

We already have virtual bases. They are SNA, SJC, ONT, BWI, DCA, and LGA. Flying gets pulled from other bases to staff the flying in these virtual bases and no one has a problem with them.