Virtual Basing
 

Does anyone know how this would work and what benefits there would be for anyone? Both the Company side and our side. I don't see ANY good points for the pilots except for a VERY few.

They only want it for widebody international and there is no upside for the pilot group.

Camel nose.

Good instincts.

There are pro's and con's depending on whether you are a pilot or management.

If you are a pilot, you can get "based" at home if you live in a virtual base. The con, is that there are caveats.

The pro for management is that they can build trips without deadheads and therefore, lower credit.

I'm sure there are others that can elaborate more.

Write your reps on this, think of the consequences. Just moved X number of hours out of your base, now your on reserve or can only hold Baghdad layovers.

Kinda like senior FOs bidding with LCPs? Or the 777 payrate? Or any of a half dozen other items out there in our contract? I want to see what this is all about. You might be right that it will be a disaster, but I have nowhere near enough details yet.

Virtual Bases are not a good idea....management can turn this "good deal" (that's how mgmt will sell it) into a nightmare.

VB was in there because of the CVG mafia. Harwood primarily and then Buzz.

CVG will close in fairly short order, and MCO was the faux experimental base to deflect attention. Harwood is a smart guy, but not smart enough to actually make his motives opaque.

VB is totally inappropriate. TDY, on the other hand...

Until we see the actual contract (TA) language, if it exists in the next TA, nobody knows the details on how this would work, and even then, there will be unforeseen loopholes which will be exploited by the company just as there always are.

Bottom line, the only reason the company wants Virtual Bases is to eliminate DH credit. That is a 3 way win for them. It saves them paying the DH credit, and the seats can now be sold to customers rather than held for crew, it saves them on body count in every category where the DH credit is eliminated, and it saves them the cost of hotel rooms for the DH crews.

What the pilots get is.... they get to drive to work instead of a guaranteed PS seat to/from work, but the trips will be worth less overall due to the reduced DH time, so those same pilots will have to work MORE to accumulate the same monthly pay/credit time. Meanwhile, they will stagnate in position longer as there will be reduced need for pilots in the categories above them, as that DH credit time goes away too.

So if VB can be traded for higher payrates for everybody how is that a bad deal?

Did you miss Timbo's post above yours?

Close all bases except ATL, and farm out the flying to VB on a monthly basis. That's their "need" next contract.

Because it's sort of like "monetizing" our PS. Hard to figure out how much of the raise is a raise, and how much is a trade. Start with the raise. Then trade and monetize on top of that.

Devil is in the details. VB is a big NO for me.

That's exactly how it will be sold, but in the long run, we all lose, as you'll be stuck in a lower paying seat, and/or flying more to make up for the lost DH credit time/jobs.

Bottom line, the company wants this, not us, what does that tell you? :rolleyes:

Here's a quick example of what this could cost us. Take the LAX SYD trip. For years it's been flown by 777 pilots based in ATL. It begins and ends with a 5 hour DH to/from LAX. It blocks about 28 hours, pays about 38 due to the DH. Two trips = 76 hours for a line. You could stay with that or you could greenslip another one, be FAR117 legal and be paid 144 hours for flying 3 of them.

Now that they have opened the 777 base in LAX specifically to eliminate the DH on this trip, the trip is only worth 28 hours. Now you have to fly 3 of them for a 86 hour line, instead of 2 for 76 hours, plus the ability to GS another one. You are now working 4 more days for 10 hours. Oh, and guess what else? They don't need as many 777 pilots now. So no 777 upgrade for you!

OK, now extend that concept to all 3 of the 777 trips out of LAX. SYD, PVG, NRT. Now add JFK 777 trips DH, and SEA, and MSP. Before they put the 777 in LAX, each of those trips had 10 hours of DH time included. That's 4 pilots each trip, X 5 hours DH, every day. Oh, plus the hotels for 12 pilots a night on each end, every day.

And the 777 is our second smallest category. Think of all the DH they could eliminate if they opened a virtual base in BOS for the 767/757, or in MCO for the 737/MD88. And what if they opened a virtual base in Narita? All of our wide bodies fly a bunch of DH in/out of NRT, and some of those DH legs are 8-14 hours long, back to the states. Eliminate all that DH pay and associated jobs, what do you think is going to happen all the way down the list?

No, I saw it. There are a few pilots that get to take advantage of these things as they are. Good for them. If they can be restructured and result in a better deal for everybody, I don't see the harm. It is worth exploring anyway. Once again, I guess it depends on whose ox is getting gored as to how they feel about it.

I just don't buy all this fear mongering about lost jobs and stagnation at this point in time. Sorry, but we are retiring 800/year growing a little and hiring out the wazoo. Stagnation is so 2000s. And again, I am not necessarily saying that I am for it but I am not against it for the reasons you espouse. Besides, I would rather be in my window seat than sitting in 46b between two Sumo wrestlers.

How do you know it is a no without any details? I don't understand.

Like him, i dont want any more camels in the tent.

Seems there's a lot you don't understand. Are you new here? How many contracts and different management teams have you worked under here at Delta? If you are a Newby, I apologize and I'll try to go easy and slowly for you, but if you've been here for 20+ years, there is no excuse for the stupidity of some of your questions and comments.:rolleyes:

Okay..... any fleet mgmt. uses VB model gets a 15% override on highest industry pay rate. For every pilot in that fleet, VB or not.

If any future economic conditions requiring our 'accommodating' yet another mgmt. 'need' to mitigate that 15% override......vb is immediately terminated.

There...... that ought to do it....

Timbo's first paragraph nails it. I am not as for or against VB as most on here, pretty much ambivalent on the subject. One thing that worries me about everything in the TA (and especially VB) is unforeseen consequences and second and third order effects - they always manifest themselves.

The only way I would even seriously consider VB if it is by mutual consent of the company and DALPA and can be discontinued at any time throughout the length of the contract. If we had that protection it would be worth investigating in my opinion. American does this in SAN on a very limited basis and the the AMR guys say it is a good deal - so there may be an opportunity here.

I repeat - I am neither for or against this but feel it is worth investigating.

Scoop

Could you not apply the same logic to FO trip buys?

Not sure that I understand you here. What is wrong with FO trip buys?

Scoop

That's all I ave been trying to say.

There is a LOT of PWA language around the concept of a "base". Everything from scheduling, to green and white slipping, to bigger issues like the ramifications of opening and closing categories. Ramifications like training, seat locks, displacements, etc., etc.

What's to stop them from opening VB MCO every summer, and closing it every winter? What would happen if they did?

And, of course, there are issues like deadheads, etc.

When I got the survey call, I said this was a no-go. I can see a few ways it could be nice for some pilots. I see so many ways it can go very badly for us. Doesn't Allegiant do VBs? How's that going?

The way it was explained to me was that it was good for cvg pilots. But I didn't follow the train of thought close enough to give you why this person argued for it.

https://diasp.org/camo/0acf9b0064847...3736372e676966

You have to ask yourself, why do they(mgmt.)want VBs? They can open a "real" base anytime they want. They could easily open MCO or DFW for example. Lots of overnights, and lots of pilots living there. They are pushing for this to kill credit without the training churn a real base would cause. It is designed to save the company money and abrogate seniority.

To start, I agree with the above quoted posts. Plus, I don't commute (I know...it's a choice). Plus, unlike you, I do think it will cost jobs. Plus, I they already have the option to make any place a base that they want to. I suppose there is SOME way they could make it a win for the pilot group, but I just don't see it. Until they present some details that counter all of the above...It's a big fat NO.

This is basically what I see the company doing. Opening up and closing bases to avoid paying credit and it only really benefits the company while circumventing our contract provisions that protect us from those shenanigans. I'm against VB.

Timbo, you gave an outstanding background explanation of why pilots would naturally hate virtual bases (especially ones senior enough to bid the trip in your example). I happily bid for trips with deadheads myself. But, it also underlines why management everywhere wants to find ways to make VBs happen. There is an awful lot of money being paid for senior guys to basically do nothing more than nap. Meanwhile, as we are all aware, this is an incredibly cutthroat business and the legacies face competitors everywhere with minimal labor costs and work rules that pale in comparison. In the long run, I don't think being consistently paid to do effectively nothing is any more tenable than the three man cockpit was. In good times we legacy pilots can get away with it, but when the next downturn hits I imagine it might be the easiest concession to swallow.

On a side note, I think Allegiant is a prime example of VBs or such taken to an extreme. I absolutely think management there does it to abrogate seniority and weaken the pilot group while maximizing shareholder returns. Definitely a cautionary model.

Disclaimer - I don't have a dog in this particular fight so please spare me any flames. I hope you guys reach a TA soon that is overwhelmingly approved.

There are times when the airline industry could be considered cutthroat. The duration of this contract will not be one of those times. Post-consolidation with oil where it is and will likely stay, we are printing money and handing it out to shareholders. Our domestic competitors, who are being paid significantly more than we are, spend MUCH more revenue on servicing debt - where do we see the Delta advantage for that? The arguments about Delta needing to not pay people to do "nothing" ring so hollow, it's embarrassing to even read your post. I've never been paid to do nothing, and few are paid to "consistently" do so. I have, on the other hand, been stuck on a long layover NOT being paid to do nothing other than sacrifice a day of my life away from my family that I will never get back. Dead heading is a necessary evil if network wants the flexibility to do whatever it wants with little to no notice - it's a minor cost to facility exceptional and unprecedented profitability. It's also the result of Delta not being willing to fund company moves (like in any other industry) should they decide to actually open real bases. It's a fallacy that such costs even register in the grand scheme of things. I'm not flaming - just identifying numerous ways you're carrying management's water. Save it for a DeltaNet "news" article!

Trading virtual basing for pay raises is short sighted. During the next downturn (it will come at some point) how easy is it for the company to force lower pay rates (negating your raise from VB) vs the pilot group negotiating away VB?
I am tired of Delta Pilots focusing on pay rates only. ITS NOT JUST ABOUT THE PAY RATES!!!

Virtual basing is a big hit to pilot staffing and an automatic no vote from me.

Home Basing
 

I think that if the company wants virtual basing the union needs to say that we need home basing. Don't want CVG to be a base, fine, the only pilot base is ATL, fine, but every pilot now can live in the city of their choosing served by delta mainline/connection and will be provided positive space on both ends of their rotation and be paid DH pay during such time.

Negotiate further in the opposite direction of their "need" to maintain QOL. But I'm just a FNG so what do I know.

Well if the company were losing money and about to go bankrupt, like they were when they cut my pay $100,000/yr and took $1.4 Million from my retirement plan, then I'm sure we could discuss the efficiencies and cost savings associated with virtual basing. But that's not the case today.

The DH'ng is not being paid to 'do nothing'. The pilots have to get to the airframe they are trained on. The company choses what airframes to buy, where to base them and where to fly them. Delta has the most diverse fleet of any Major airline with 10 types now and about to add two more!:eek:.

(C100+A350).

They have to train pilots in every different fleet, and then they have to get them into position to fly the trips that THEY build. All the DH'ng expense is entirely self inflicted as a result of their fleet plan. Of course they would love to jerk us around and not pay us to get into position.

They buy all these different fleets because they can get them cheap, and/or better match the airframe capacity to the markets, and they are constantly moving airframes on/off different routes.

THAT is what causes all the DH'ng, and it is a cost of doing business if you are going to operate so many different fleets.

In fact, most of us who fly a lot of the international trips that begin and end with a DH do not even use the hotels, so we are saving the company quite a bit of money on the unused hotel rooms in some of the most expensive locations, like NYC, SEA and LAX.

OK as a colleague and I were discussing yesterday, it was his understanding that this can be called off by either party. So we have a get out of jail free card. Why not take a look?

Because what the company wants it for is entirely in their favor. This is not about a MD88 pilot being able to go to work in Pensacola. It's about being rapidly able to shift widebody international flying from city to city, swap aircraft types anytime they choose without any penalty. The pilots will provide all the grease to make it work. The company eliminates lots of DH pay and the pilots get to find their own way to work instead of positive space.
The companies biggest basing struggle is always widebody international. This solves it all for them.

ne-go-ti-ations.

Yes, I asked a rep about this. It can be called off by us or the company.