Flying the same amount of block hours with less pilots.

VB are an efficiency tool. They allow the company to flex staffing to the areas they need it so they need less pilots overall.

This is incorrect. First the agreement did not prohibit international flights. It prohibited transoceanic flights for obvious reasons. The company made no attempt to put transoceanic in the bid package. If you go to the DALPA website and put virtual basing into the search feature you can read exactly the reasons they pulled it down. There was a valid concern that at a later date the company would try and negotiate transoceanic into the agreement. They did not attempt to fly transoceanic in the test and were fully in compliance.

i’m not convinced the largest number of pilots is the single best measure of what makes my career enjoyable.


opening boston will likely reduce credit and therefore pilots needed, but it’s probably a net positive vs collapsing all flying into atl.

Allow me to play devils advocate.

If I'm not having to fly any more block hours, and efficiency is improved at the expense of none of us on property, how is this a bad thing? Doesn't increased profitability put more money in our pockets via PS?

I'm not trying to be obtuse. I genuinely don't see how this is a bad thing.

What faction was afraid of being harmed by a FLA VB? And what Council has the most sway. There's your answer.

Your debating style is sloppy. You overly simplify when it suits you, and split hairs when it suits you. And your use of conscious obtuseness is quite transparent.

Of course, "the largest number of pilots" is not the "single best measure." No one has actually said that. Sloppy.

I hope even you will stipulate that from a unionist standpoint, more jobs is better. And from a practical standpoint, more Delta pilot jobs has a number of benefits. You're probably smart enough to figure out what some of them are.

I'm not convinced that the BOS base is a net positive or that all of the flying would have collapsed into ATL. But that's probably unknowable.

more jobs *can* be better, but so can many other things that come at the expense of jobs.

for instance, having a widebody boston base, which reduces credit and therefore jobs, may be seen as beneficial by many. it might even be a worthwhile trade for jobs.


another example: sit pay incentivizes more efficient trips, which reduces credit and probably reduces jobs, but few want to get rid of it

I think it's inaccurate to assert that it would be "at the expense of none."

"By many?" Really? Sloppy.

If by "many" you mean fewer than 300 out of 17,000 pilots, then yes, I suppose so.

But that doesn't meet any rational definition of "many" in this context, and certainly does not clear the hurdle for a "worthwhile trade for jobs."

In any case, BOS is not a VB, and the "inefficiencies" (from the company's POV) associated with a permanent base may offset the company's credit savings.

i am not beholden to your definitions. i am not—and will never be—boston based, but i am still in favor of it opening, even at the expense of credit, premium pay, and jobs. because number of jobs isn’t how i judge my career quality.