>>The only purpose of a VB is to reduce credit and therefore block hours and therefore pilot jobs.<<
I absolutely agree that a VB has the ability to reduce pilot jobs.
Not trying to pick on the user who posted this (or others), but would also like to point out that most/all of the discussion on this topic centers on trying to understand how the VB concept will reduce CASM...lower cost with less per diem, lodging, block hours, fewer overall pilots, etc.
What if management's desire for VB language is about something entirely different? Without opining on BOS specifically as a new base, but using it as an example for discussion:
Opening BOS as a "real" crew base obligates DAL to an (otherwise avoidable) training/re-positioning "waterfall" that is hard to model. This occurs at a time when a few hundred pilots are ALREADY getting displaced, the retirement curve starts to break upward, and there is already a significant burden on their training capacity (new hires, aircraft deliveries, etc).
The normal bean-counting managerial dogma of "maximize revenue, minimize cost" must be subordinated when encountering a LIMFAC that affects the operation of the underlying entity.
What other evidence might be present to confirm a management concern over a training LIMFAC?
--Adding extra middle of the night sim periods
--Eliminating 20 minute MX break between sims to increase throughput.
--Add your own observations here. I have some but they are subjective.
-------------------------------------
<edit..removed text from here after reading MD88FOs post, pending re-reading contract language when I get some time>
...............
Also, I believe PWA 6A makes a pilot going into a new base eligible for a paid move. There are conditions I won't review here as this is already getting to be a long post, but I don't see a limit on
retiring after moving to a new base. Hmmm.
(btw--->>LIMFAC=Limiting Factor)
Regards,
CCN