buscappy

Probe is exactly right.

change something seeking one result and beware the unintended consequences

reserve rules, virtual bases, pay banding. don't think you can change these things and have everyone continue to make the same choices they made before the rules were changed

by the way. yes. let's do everything the junior commuters want. and in the next contract! i, for one, will sit never-fly reserve in my beautiful sunny inexpensive virtual base and collect 72 hrs of widebody capt band pay each month

and the junior commuting dreamers can come fly three-leg-a-day trips to desmoines, instead of me

sweptback

All of you living in Florida moved there knowing that we had no base there.

CLazarus

Good for you Probe, glad to see you potentially benefiting from your seniority! Wait, I thought the reason our MEC wouldn't consider the VB proposal a couple years back was because it "abrogated seniority". (ab·ro·gate -
repeal or do away with). I asked a new hire commuter FA yesterday about the relative seniority of small FA domicile where he lives and commutes from, he said the junior FA in working domicile is a 2006 hire. Channeling Awax and his army of Straw Men: "No, abrogation means something totally different. It's in the UPA glossary, so you tell me what it means. The UPA is a house of cards, we can't make improvements to it without destroying it....". Sigh.

I'm keenly aware that I may never see any sort of personal benefit whatsoever from a VB system here if one were to actually take root. I'm quite o.k. with that so long as it ultimately provides a better overall QOL for the pilot group while keeping the CO competitive. I really appreciate the thoughtful posts I've read here that express similar sentiments, yeah I'm looking at you Duvie and Old Mako!

I'd like to think that if a poll was taken, most of the lurkers on these forums would agree that one group is clearly being more forthright in its views. VB might not benefit a huge portion of the pilot group, but if it actually works it could certainly benefit a far, far larger pilot cross section than the .01 percent that has recently delivered a Straw-baby (55% of our pilots systemwide commute). Whether DAL's test pans out or is spiked immediately, ALL of their pilots got some extra vacation pay out of the deal, which in Awax's math somehow equates to a concession by all of them. I guess he must be right that their contract is totally different than ours, made with straw or something.

BTW, to further spur my drinking habit, I'd like to start a new game whereby everyone drinks every time someone on these forums warns of unintended consequences or says 'management plays chess and we play checkers'. Seriously though, I'd say our union can actually play a mean game of chess (ref the '85 strike and the downfall of Ferris).

I'd rather not spend a layover commenting on this stuff, but I suppose the biggest skeptics out there are happy to string the thread along... and thus further advertise to occasional lurkers what is going on at DAL and get them thinking "if they can do it then maybe we can too". Wait for it... unintended consequences!! Glug, glug, glug...

awax

That's rich.

I called you out on your false equivalency argument regarding commuting flight attendants and the AFA contract and your inference that it had relavancey to the UAL ALPA contract , and somehow you feel that I'm the one with faulty argument. Pick my post apart point by point, if you can, instead of your emotional op/ed.

Let me repeat, I don't give a flip what DAL got, their contract is not our contract. I do care very much about protecting the UAL ALPA CBA which you appear to bent on giving away.

Do you understand the value of section 8, 10, and 20? I'm not asking from a commuter convince perspective, but from the bedrock value to the overall pilot CBA. Nothing that you've posted shows that you get it.

awax

I'm gonna play a guessing game.

I'm going to venture a guess that you've been on the property less than 5 years and this is probably your first union shop. I'm going to go with ex-military, maybe even still in the guard? There's enough service to your city to get you hot and bothered about a virtual base, I'd say Vegas or Phoenix. Your junior in the airline but are holding a 737 FO line hovering right around the g line but your schedule still sucks and commuting is a challenge. I'd bet you're working over Christmas and New Years and feel that if you could just bring the base to you, all would be right with the world.

Being junior sucks, but hang in there, your schedule will get better over time. While you're waiting, please don't line up to give away a contract that you apparently don't have a clue about what was given to secure.

SpecialTracking

Watcha got going for you up in Key West Probe?

JoePatroni

Happy hour starts at noon?

CLazarus

Detective Awax, I figured you would start sneering at some point as I've seen you do in other threads. When you start down that path it isn't a sign of a winning argument. More like a sign of weakness, and talking down to me just doesn't work if you didn't notice in the past. I have a lot of respect for guys who can make their case diplomatically and humorously. I've been pretty happy with my schedule actually, got bid line one again.

As for false equivalency arguments, me thinks it takes one to know one. Keep it coming, this thread is longer lived than I would have expected....

Probe

Haven't been to the Keys in years. I was just trying to be a complete
D!^&, as usual.

I remember years ago some union guys (senior ones) chiming in that the company should base the highest paying equipment in the domiciles where the more senior pilots live (SEA and DEN). They actually pulled it off for a while with the SEA 777 base, at some undisclosed cost to the rest of us in the CBA.

Sorry, no VB's. No improvement to commuting to reserve. Unless, of course, 51% of us are willing to vote for it, and PAY for it, on the next CBA. I won't be one of those voting yes for it.

awax

Not a detective, just a guess as you fit a familiar profile. My point is you lack perspective, and I don't mean that in a condescending way. Why do think there's so much pushback on VBs from senior guys and the MEC?

As for my false equivalency argument, here it is distilled:

The UAL CBA has language to protect scheduling and allocation of flying. I support keeping those protections in tact.

OK, deconstruct away