Ha...you have an open mind? Gotcha...that's funny

You are the worst water-carrier and spewer of FUD.

You cannot prove how the VBS will be used against us any more than I can. I can only use past history as a guide, and we have proven over and over that our weak language in our contract gets used against us as a weapon. So, I choose to overlook a little money and think about how this will hurt us in the long run. I'm not as short-sighted as you are. Your choice, but nice try on the FUD. That's a first.

Sure I can. Let's start with the simple fact that VB's can only at the worst possible junction do nothing more then reduce credit time. Domestically I think we currently run 5 or 6%. The very worst that could ever happen is VB's reduce that to zero. That's so highly unlikely as to be laughable. Reality might be something like a .25% reduction if they do a great job with it.
The second thing to consider is with the restrictions and costs associated with the program opening a base might be a better option. In fact if there was really some gold to be mined here they would be opening additional bases.
The last thing is the program ends after one year. Absent sitting down at the table and negotiating the continuation of the program it's over. We can add anything we want to the LOA if we want to extend it including the right to end the program at any time.
I don't care for virtual bases but it's not even a slight concern for me. I still would bet that it will be such a small program that it will never be more then 250 pilots at a time in a VB. It would not surprise me at all to see the company not even try it.

your analysis is both shallow...and non-dynamic.

Let's hear yours!

VBs will remove flying from the true base bid packages. For a large base with a lot of commuters (ATL, NYC) this could benefit both in base pilots and commuters. Conversely a smaller base with a majority of pilots living in base, (SEA, MSP, LAX) this could destroy QOL and the trip mix. I'm willing to see how this plays out but the first time my QOL is degraded, I'll be authoring a resolution to kill it. I have my doubts but the isn't a deal breaker for me. (yet)

This will most likely end deadheads and long layovers.

End long layovers a la the 717 bid package? Tell me how VBs will end long layovers in ILM, PHF, ROA, CHO, AVL, ATW, ABE, and many other similar sized places?

VBs will no doubt have some sort of impact, somewhere. At this point it is all so speculative that any prediction is no more or less likely than any other.

Seems like his analysis is based on facts. The most significant being that if we don't like how it works out we can pull it down. I'm willing to give this a trial period and see how it goes. I'm not buying into the FUD being sold by those who want to spin this into Armageddon.

I think VB is a lot like CDO. Some might like it, others not. I'm willing to take a look. If it sucks we can dump it.

The problem with "we can pull it down" is that WE can't. The MEC can. Do you trust the MEC to make that choice for you? Who will be on the MEC in a year? Things to consider...

Good question. Yes, I do trust them. I just trusted them to negotiate a contract. I think they listened to the pilot group and will do so again. I don't see the MEC being refilled with Moakies IMO.

This is incorrect. With no MEC action the program dies in one year. They do not have to pull it down. In order for the program to continue the MEC has to negotiate a LOA. We would have complete leverage in such a negotiation as to the final structure of the program.
LOA's can be negotiated at any time to change any aspect of the contract. If we did not have this program in the TA it could be added in one year via LOA. It could be added tomorrow.

Virtual Bases seem like they will reduce credit time which equals jobs, right? I do not understand how that is good for the pilots.

'facts'. No.... more like narrow assumptions.

Are you two suggesting the operation will remain as is.... with no effect.... after vb is phased in? And the the singular variable is credit time?

Shallow and non dynamic is exactly what it is. Management has historically limited crew and aircraft basing for cost factors as esoteric as base sick leave usage.

vb decisions will be made on multiple cost factors.... not just credit time. If implemented...I would expect to see bases with the largest percentage of commuters and in the highest employee cost locations as targets of opportunity.

Correct - less credit equals less Pilot jobs. But consider guys getting PS to and from work with paid for hotels. I don't commute, but that seems pretty good to me.

So we as a Pilot group have to decide the difference between protecting future jobs vs improving the QOL for Delta Pilots already here.

I would say the importance of protecting future jobs varies with hiring, retirements, furloughs etc. Right now hiring like crazy, massive retirements forthcoming I would put more value on improving QOL for current Delta pilots over future jobs.

What follows is not addressed at Taylor who asked a valid question above.

I mean isn't one of the strongest cries for a no vote based on us selling QOL? VB has the potential to greatly improve the QOL for some at a cost of less Dead Head credit.

Maybe VB will truly suck but maybe guys will like it. We will have a much better idea after we actually try it. The one consistency I see on Social Media is the determined No voters trying to turn many TA items into absolute disasters all requiring a No vote based on each single point they bring up. I sense desperation.

Finally - I seriously doubt anyone's vote will be swayed by an anonymous web forum. That is not to say that this forum can not stimulate and answer questions and contribute to ones understanding of the TA.

The only way an individual poster obtains any kind of credibility on APC is by their posting history. If a poster has a long history of well balanced, logical and thoughtful posts he or she will carry much more weight than a brand new poster with an apparent agenda who describes everything as absolute doom etc.


Scoop

So, then you are saying giving up all that credit time is good for pilots? A few commuters getting PS a few months per year is worth the uncertainty and shifting relative seniority that it will cause in the other bases?

Just like the "moakies" used to do, BtoA has created an alternate username in taylorswiftfan. Say it with me, everyone! "BANHAMMER!"

But but.......I wanna be BritneySpearsfan:D

You mods, always keep'en da little man down:p

I'll reserve "YayJustinBieber" for you if you want. :D

Yeah Baby!!:cool:

A "few" commuters? Let me ask you this: Who is going to bid VB/TDY? I'll answer: All most all if not all commuters. Why would a guy living in base bid one? This will be a huge boon to all 767 and smaller commuters. I don't see bigger aircraft being part of a VB.

The great thing about this is.............we (the union) can stop/call a halt/end this if we don't like it! As a non commuter (was one for quite awhile) I'm all for giving it a shot and seeing how it works out. This could be a huge QOL improvement for all commuters. Yes it's going to cut down on DH and thus require less pilots to be hired but as someone mentioned, with the current hiring and retirements coming up, it won't even be felt.

Denny

Almost all commuters may bid a VB, but surely they won't all get it, right? How is it a boon to ALL commuters? It remains to be seen if the seniority many of the VBers achieve in their VBs makes the shift worthwhile. It's not even clear to me that bidders will be able to set a percentage floor for seniority. A 30% pilot could end up 99% in the VB if protections aren't provided. And those commuters who aren't selected to VB will be left with a smaller bid package in their existing base.

To your last point, I'm not sure the hiring rate affects one's progression from NB to WB although it may improve QOL for those who can't hold WB at the seniority they require. Retirements naturally help progression to WB, but since they don't really accelerate much during this contract, that argument is premature. I think the effect of VBs (and ALV widening) will indeed be felt by many.

My hunch is that getting paid UAL's hourly rate (well below the earnings of FedEx and UPS) is a carrot big enough to disregard these sticks, FWIW.

>>Who is going to bid VB/TDY? I'll answer: All most all if not all commuters. Why would a guy living in base bid one? <<

Umm. Let's see. We don't know what the exact plans for VB are, but since you asked, here's a possible scenario:

--DAL announces a 757 VB in MCO for Jan/Feb/Mar. (there's a star right about there in the ALPA VB info-graphic too!)
--The MCO commuters celebrate, and bid for the VB.
--Unfortunately for the Florida crowd, several senior pilots living in MSP (or CVG..?) bid and hold the MCO VB, allowing them to become snowbirds at the company's expense.
--This comes at the expense of MCO commuters who will no longer even be able to get the occasional layover at home.
--It also comes at the expense of everyone below the 757, since it's a productivity give so the company will require less pilots.

No guarantee that this is how it will will work, but no guarantee it's NOT either. If the company asked for it there was a reason, and it probably wasn't to INcrease their labor costs. Not saying that VB might not be a smokin' deal for some of us (like the guys from MSP and CVG in the above scenario), but overall it's net loss (productivity concession) for the pilot group.

So, how about we see how it plays out. If it sucks, we let it die.

Don't think I said going from NB to WB affects hiring rates. That doesn't make much sense. What will affect hiring rates negatively is the loss of DH (credit time). But with the amount of hiring Delta is doing now and for the foreseeable future due to new aircraft and retirements, I don't think it will be noticeable at all. I think VBs certainly will affect many and on many of those the affect will be positive. We are just going to have to see how the trial period goes (assuming this TA passes). If it doesn't go well, it gets pulled down. Easy Peasy!:)

Denny

Yes, this could happen. I'll bet it will be rare. That in base guy is giving up all his commute time for free and all the extra time at home. Probably at least a couple of days a month and the added stress of commuting even if it is on positive space.

Denny

So then those that commute TO MSP will hold better in base trips.

no. the block hours come out of where the pilots come from to my understanding.

?, reference please.

Don't think I agree with this. Some block hours will come out but each VB will require a certain amount of reserve coverage won't it? If so, this would mean more manning pulled out than lines of time associated with that manning. At least that's my thinking. It's all based on a reserve need at the VB.

Denny

I see a problem with the "we" let it die part... If "we" is the MEC, how many times can I count on the MEC to represent us all? What if more people don't like how it plays out than do like how it plays out, but the MEC can't see it that way...? Like when they settled the JV grievance for a few bucks and then gave the bulk of those bucks to the senior-highest-paid guys for whom the violation(s) didn't even affect?
Your vote is the only thing you can control, and what the MEC may choose to do later may not be anything you have much say about...

They are not going to cancel all that international flying out of MSO/SLC/NYC/ATL to do this. If senior bubbas take the deal, someone junior will then be able to hold one of those international trips. If not, then they would be deadheading someone from another base to cover that trip. What would be the purpose of that? I am not buying any of the Defcon 10 panic that is arising over this.

.
Are you certain that's always the case?

I fly RDU/PIT-CDG and PHL-LHR sometimes. We have no ER pilot base there, so I bet those would be ripe for VB assignments. My base does not have those trips every day...some days of the month the pilots for those flights come from at least 2 other ER bases. I have even flown transoceanic trips out of other ER pilot bases.

The "out-base" flying is decided by the rotation construction algorithm, not necessarily from where the trip originates. I believe its' primary goal in generating rotations is to minimize credit time. And the above examples seem to change from month to month, never a static base flying them.

So I doubt you could sustain your argument that the block hours would always come from the same base, since the bases doing specific flying seem to change so much.
.

From the MEC: "flight time flown in a vb must proportionately come from pilots' original base"


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ok, I should have said mostly agree. But my point remains, if reserve coverage is needed at a VB, there will be more pilots in the VB than time lost from the base they came out of.

Denny

The way I read it, can't start with ocean crossing. How would that rotation look?

There are so many things that we depend on the MEC for in between contract cycles. At some point you have to trust someone. For the majority of the time all we can do is give our input and elect reps we hope will fairly represent us. I'm glad there are people who want to do the union stuff, because I don't want to do it.

I think this VB thing is a lot like CDOs. Some will like it, some will despise it.