DAL to give Virtual Basing a try
12-16-2016, 03:35 PM
#41
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,808
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
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
Yeah...
Read the current CBA and tell me how I'm being subjective.
Fact:
Section 20-A-1 of the current UAL CBA acknowledges that it's the company's responsibility to allocate the flying.
Fact:
Section 8 details the rules for staffing that flying.
Fact:
Section 10 details the (partial) benefits to maintain a pilot's quality of life when the company shifts flying as described in Section 20.
Now, with respect to "virtual bases" or "non-hub domiciles" (whatever those are), I'm all for it as long as existing CBA language is followed. It's funny that you accuse me of using a buzzword when the term "virtual base" is actually just new flying for which staffing requirements are specifically addressed in the current CBA.
Gutting significant portions of Section 8 & 10, just to make life better for a handful of commuters is foolish & I'm sure I'm not alone. Changes like the one you're referring to would require membership ratification because it does "significantly change pay, benefits, or working conditions.", so don't hold your breath.
You guys are playing Checkers against a company that plays Chess. Section 8 & 10 represent significant value and the company would love to take it away. I'm amazed so many guys are vocal and in fact clamoring to give it away.
Last edited by awax; 12-16-2016 at 03:45 PM.
12-16-2016, 03:57 PM
#42
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2012
Posts: 181
It appears that 8H requires the company to advise the MEC of their intentions. In turn the MEC can make recommendations to the company.
I'm not sure where this would prevent the company from opening a new base, even if it's "virtual".
I'm not sure where this would prevent the company from opening a new base, even if it's "virtual".
12-16-2016, 04:34 PM
#43
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2009
Posts: 5,244
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...............................
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...............................
12-16-2016, 06:34 PM
#45
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Feb 2015
Position: 777FO
Posts: 770
Ugh, I still have Christmas shopping to do.
I don't need to address it, because maybe you didn't catch it. A DAL VB, even if only open for just a month, would be open to bid systemwide (i.e., to ALL pilots on the seniority list). The CO only proceeds with it if there are enough volunteers in the right equipment to make it work. Sure a WB guy ain't gonna be able to bid MCO (well, I suppose it is possible), but if he wants it bad enough and it looks to last I'm sure he can find a way to get there eventually.
Our MEC told the company we as a pilot group weren't interested. I don't believe ALPA directed that stance. If so, it would be a pretty remarkable bit of defiance for a major ALPA carrier like DAL to ignore the wishes of national (esp when it is headed by a DAL Captain). Anyways, perhaps someone should alert DAL pilots that their brand new DPA has already been gutted (actually, my understanding is their VB test is via a MOU so who knows what your take in that case would be).
I think the clinical term is actually "lurking", I have found it quite enriching to keep up on what is going on industry-wide and ask questions. But ya had to get in a dig somehow I suppose.
I find that particular statement to be mere window dressing for the masses. I can't imagine that deep down you actually think there will be any new traditional bases opened anytime in the next decade or two. Baring collapse of one of our competitors, there just aren't any realistic places left stateside. But meanwhile, pencil necked Wall Street types keep suggesting we close LAX or IAD and who knows if CLE will be around in a few years?
Point taken actually. However, I also think if the company can't efficiently staff allocated flying there won't be any growth of flying. We certainly seem to have lots of competitors out there who will quickly step into any opening we leave while we argue and bicker over seniority semantics.
Of all the legs I've flown in the last couple of years, I've flown with FA crews from our smaller FA domiciles maybe a half dozen times tops (LAS/BOS are the only two I can actually recall, on 2-3 legs). They were quite senior. Meanwhile, I've flown many, many trips with extremely junior FAs on reserve some of whom commute. All of the junior ones were from our big domiciles (no CLE crews flown with yet BTW). You will interpret this as abrogation because a small amount of flying has been "taken" from the big domicile for the benefit of those small domicile FAs. I interpret it as honoring the seniority of those small domicile FAs who are senior enough to bid what little flying is available at their home. Remember, I'm talking just tiny fraction of all the available flying seems to be flown by small domicile FAs.
Anyways, I can make new and different arguments till next year but it is a waste of our time. I think it is safe to say we have our minds made up for now and nothing we say here is going to change them. The DAL test is of interest because its concrete success or failure has the ability to change my mind at least. I'll be lurking all right to see what they think of it. I'm sure you'll want to get in the last word on this thread in the meantime. Merry Christmas.
I think the clinical term is actually "lurking", I have found it quite enriching to keep up on what is going on industry-wide and ask questions. But ya had to get in a dig somehow I suppose.
I find that particular statement to be mere window dressing for the masses. I can't imagine that deep down you actually think there will be any new traditional bases opened anytime in the next decade or two. Baring collapse of one of our competitors, there just aren't any realistic places left stateside. But meanwhile, pencil necked Wall Street types keep suggesting we close LAX or IAD and who knows if CLE will be around in a few years?
Of all the legs I've flown in the last couple of years, I've flown with FA crews from our smaller FA domiciles maybe a half dozen times tops (LAS/BOS are the only two I can actually recall, on 2-3 legs). They were quite senior. Meanwhile, I've flown many, many trips with extremely junior FAs on reserve some of whom commute. All of the junior ones were from our big domiciles (no CLE crews flown with yet BTW). You will interpret this as abrogation because a small amount of flying has been "taken" from the big domicile for the benefit of those small domicile FAs. I interpret it as honoring the seniority of those small domicile FAs who are senior enough to bid what little flying is available at their home. Remember, I'm talking just tiny fraction of all the available flying seems to be flown by small domicile FAs.
Anyways, I can make new and different arguments till next year but it is a waste of our time. I think it is safe to say we have our minds made up for now and nothing we say here is going to change them. The DAL test is of interest because its concrete success or failure has the ability to change my mind at least. I'll be lurking all right to see what they think of it. I'm sure you'll want to get in the last word on this thread in the meantime. Merry Christmas.
12-16-2016, 08:45 PM
#46
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,808
A DAL VB, even if only open for just a month, would be open to bid systemwide (i.e., to ALL pilots on the seniority list). The CO only proceeds with it if there are enough volunteers in the right equipment to make it work. Sure a WB guy ain't gonna be able to bid MCO (well, I suppose it is possible), but if he wants it bad enough and it looks to last I'm sure he can find a way to get there eventually.
I'd prefer to keep it that way.
Our MEC told the company we as a pilot group weren't interested. I don't believe ALPA directed that stance. If so, it would be a pretty remarkable bit of defiance for a major ALPA carrier like DAL to ignore the wishes of national (esp when it is headed by a DAL Captain). Anyways, perhaps someone should alert DAL pilots that their brand new DPA has already been gutted (actually, my understanding is their VB test is via a MOU so who knows what your take in that case would be).
It's a shame ALPA won't provide a suitable resource for a dialog across company lines (now that IS a dig).
I find that particular statement to be mere window dressing for the masses. I can't imagine that deep down you actually think there will be any new traditional bases opened anytime in the next decade or two. Baring collapse of one of our competitors, there just aren't any realistic places left stateside. But meanwhile, pencil necked Wall Street types keep suggesting we close LAX or IAD and who knows if CLE will be around in a few years?
Point taken actually. However, I also think if the company can't efficiently staff allocated flying there won't be any growth of flying. We certainly seem to have lots of competitors out there who will quickly step into any opening we leave while we argue and bicker over seniority semantics.
Of all the legs I've flown in the last couple of years, I've flown with FA crews from our smaller FA domiciles maybe a half dozen times tops (LAS/BOS are the only two I can actually recall, on 2-3 legs). They were quite senior. Meanwhile, I've flown many, many trips with extremely junior FAs on reserve some of whom commute. All of the junior ones were from our big domiciles (no CLE crews flown with yet BTW). You will interpret this as abrogation because a small amount of flying has been "taken" from the big domicile for the benefit of those small domicile FAs. I interpret it as honoring the seniority of those small domicile FAs who are senior enough to bid what little flying is available at their home. Remember, I'm talking just tiny fraction of all the available flying seems to be flown by small domicile FAs.
Flight Attendants work under very different rules and are represented by a different union. Heck, they're not fully merged, so how can any observation you have about commuting FA's have any relevance to the UAL ALPA CBA? I get it, commuting is hard.
Anyways, I can make new and different arguments till next year but it is a waste of our time. I think it is safe to say we have our minds made up for now and nothing we say here is going to change them. The DAL test is of interest because its concrete success or failure has the ability to change my mind at least. I'll be lurking all right to see what they think of it. I'm sure you'll want to get in the last word on this thread in the meantime. Merry Christmas.
My point is simple: New Flying is addressed in our CBA, ALL new flying. If new flying is announced by the company, we have binding language to follow to staff that flying.
12-16-2016, 09:38 PM
#47
Don't say Guppy
Joined APC: Dec 2010
Position: Guppy driver
Posts: 1,926
Then, they get on internet forums and try to make their case.
No soup for them. Or, VB's. Or changes to the reserve system.
12-17-2016, 08:52 AM
#48
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Feb 2015
Position: 777FO
Posts: 770
100% true. And if it fails, that doesn't mean we couldn't find a way to be successful. In this business, it literally pays to be ahead of the competition.
I've got another shoe waiting to drop, but I'd rather start that discussion in a new thread sometime next year.
12-17-2016, 11:25 AM
#49
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,808
I've been through several base closures where I lived in domicile, and then not by my own choice, found myself commuting. Contrary to some of the wonderful private messages I've received on this topic, I'm quite aware of the plight of commuters and the QOL benefits of driving to work.
That said, the contractual language in sections 8, 10, & 20 we enjoy today offers all UAL pilots significant value. I'm absolutely opposed to even discussing those sections unless there's an equally significant benefit to all UAL pilots in exchange. I'd love to see you drive to work, the QOL improvements offered by living in domicile are many. However, a VB model would change section 8 & 20 FOREVER and become the model for all new flying. A change of this magnitude would require tangible benefit to ALL UAL pilots, not just the opportunity to bid a VB, but tangible, sustained, and significant benefit to every UAL pilot everyday. I think we both know that would only come from membership ratification of a new CBA.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
