Originally Posted by
DWC CAP10 USAF
PWA 1.B.23 defines a "hub" as having monthly average of at least 100 Delta schedule flight departures per day. It lists the hubs as ATL, CVG, DTW, JFK, LGA, LAX, MSP, SEA, SLC.
Delta reduced flights out of CVG back around 2015-2017 and referred to CVG as a "focus city" around that same time.
There was a caveat of SEA not being considered a hub with regards to the Alaska Marketing Agreement.
I think when folks say "domicile" I think they really mean "base". The PWA 2.A.31 defines base as "location a pilot is assigned".
So BOS is now a Hub due to average number of Delta departures, its a FA base, but not a Pilot base.
I get all that and thanks for the recap but other than SEA and the now mostly irrelevant Alaska deal, there seems to be nothing relevant to how and where Delta bases pilots. There's nothing preventing or requiring a pilot base in the PWA that I can find. Hence my point is there's no leverage to cause what may seem like an obvious city to become a base or a threshold for number of operations. We are at the whim of the company so until there's a financial incentive to open or close bases we are stuck with our status quo. BOS and CVG seem like obvious examples to an uninformed line guy. But that's just it, I'm largely uninformed as to the reasoning about when, where, and which aircraft are right for our bases.
Am I missing something that we have that compels them to make changes? The VBs are a no go for me because we have too many unknowns. How many VBs, what amount of flying, which route from which bid packages could be poached, is international the next move, etc. My opinion is that we just have to go with the decisions made and have little, if any, input. The A220 in SLC gives me pause and makes me wonder if we ever get the full truth and if that truth is temporary. My real fear is the unforeseen and unintended consequences.