I think the way the company has taken advantage of FAR 117 is concrete evidence of how "we never thought they would do that" is applicable. How about the way CS gives out trips to reserve pilots that leak into their following line-holder month at single pay. I bet you never thought they'd do that, yet in this contract we had to give up negotiating capital to get rid of that complete and utter BS.

I am trying to understand what your trying to say here but it makes no sense. This item has been a contractual step in trip coverage for at least 30 years. They use it when contractually it is required. How can you use that as a example of we thought they would never do that. The trip coverage ladder requires it per our contract. They have been doing it forever and it's mandated by the contract. Who would say we thought they would never do that??

See my above post. Your point makes zero sense. It's a contractually required trip coverage step. It's like step nine out of twenty plus steps in the ladder. If the company failed to do it any pilot assigned the trip from a lower ladder position would have a valid grievance. Our contract MANDATES the company to do it.

My real fear about VB Is simple. The company came to us, red flag!
The company is not stupid..... make VB a nice facet of the over all TA and when the proofing or vetting period is over and we sign off on it the the unexpected consequences that are money savers for the company will manifest itself and we will blame ALPA YET AGAIN that they should have seen it comming!

Just saying, fiig!

Of course when it comes time to negotiate the LOA we could always retain the right to terminate the agreement at any time.

Mike, I get your concern for this possibly affecting the better trips in the bid package. And I get your concern for the unknown. I don't know how this will shake out and I can't stand weak contract language, but by virtue of the fact that we can kill this thing if it doesn't go our way, I'm comfortable with at least giving it a chance.

We have a lot of commuters in our ranks, and if a VB in MCO or LAS improves their lives, even if it's only for a few months a year, I'm alright with giving it a chance. I live outside ORD and I know we won't see a VB, so I don't think it will affect me but Id be happy to know James Bond or Timbo (If he wanted to down bid) could take advantage of this to be home a few more nights. Let's give it a chance. If Timbo was tired of Joburg and downbid to the ER, that opens up a 777A position.

Like TED74 said, you'll never know what trips are/were affected by this. I bid the A320 Captain in NYC instead of the 717 A in DTW or ATL because, last January, when I looked at the different bid packages, the A320 trips in NYC were beautiful in comparison. Late sign ins for the most part, flying up and down the coast to Florida destinations, with early sign outs on day 4. Perfect trips for commuters. Now we have 1-3 day trips that are mostly un commutable with some 4-5 day trips that are commutable but it's a completely different mix than last January. I'm expecting them to get better in January again when they up gauge the NYC to FLA equipment. Delta is using historical data to "right size" the equipment on every route, not only for the time of day but the day of the week too. it didn't used to be that way. They like the flexibility, and this VB thing adds to that.

I feel that I've made a short post too long, but I think the main driver for this whole VB thing was so they could set up, for example, an A330 base in MSP or BOS for the summer to save deadhead costs, or a 777 base in NYC seasonally. We didn't agree to that so this is the first bite of the apple for them. They want even more out of this, eventually. I'd like to see how they use this but I don't think a domestic VB is their goal. I don't think they'll get much out of it, but if they do want more, maybe it will be a really good deal for some guys while they try to lure us deeper into the trap.

I'd love to not have to commute, even if it was for a few months a year, and while I know this won't help me personally, there are a lot of guys who might benefit from this. Let's at least give it a chance. You never know, the trips you like might actually get better. I doubt it, but there are a lot of commuters in ATL too, maybe your relative seniority gets better when guys leave ATL for MCO or wherever the VB's end up.

Sorry for the long and poorly worded rant, I'm trying to type this while watching the Cubs make history....

I'm just one voice and I made my opinion public but I can appreciate your counterpoint. Yes, we can kill this which is probably the tipping point that will let me vote yes on the TA; however, it is also my belief that once it is instituted we really won't know what harm it is causing. My guess is most people won't notice anything, yet that doesn't mean it will be harmless.

The fact that this was a company ask should send chills up your spine. They are going to reap unknown benefits at our expense. Because those benefits to the company and harm to the pilot group may not be easily identifiable in a paycheck or even your schedule, they may not generate the type of angst required to get rid of the program once it's instituted because of a vocal minority of pilots who will likely reap significant benefits from having their commute pains lessened.

No hidden agenda here: I left a place I liked living to move into a base I really don't like. So yeah, to me this is a kick in the junk. I have personal reasons for not liking this, but they don't invalidate my professional reasons.

That might be just a bit dramatic. Just because the company asks, doesn't necessarily mean they have fully envisioned their "evil master plan. "

I direct your attention to the Company's sick leave "must have" of C2012 which proved to be a raging flop as evidenced by their sick leave "must have" in these negotiations.

LOL, you've definitely got me there! No argument sir.

If negotiations are going to yield both give and take (I know that itself is debatable), these are the gives I'd like to prioritize.

I think we notice. I also think we'll be paying particular attention to any adverse effect from VB.

The key will be whether or not enough of us perceive any of the effects as adverse, and whether or not we're collectively apathetic about them.

This has a been a good thread.

Can't speak for pre-merger Delta, but at NWA we sought VB (it was called "satellite basing") at least 3 times. We had a high percentage of commuters, and the MEC looked at VB as an option to improve QOL.

The biggest impediment we had to making it work was the "Advance Position Award" system we used. The company was required to tell every pilot where we'd be 3 months in advance, with a systemwide "AE" conducted every month.

Nope, but they can't staff an airline properly for more than 3-4 months at at time! I don't think ANY airline can be properly staffed for very long. VB is a new tool. We'll see if it's useful, or ends up getting tossed away.

Just a thought, what if we use the VB position as capital. If we keep it permanently we get a DH policy that puts us immediately first in line for an upgrade and if we are in any middle seat or anything less that comfort we get paid? Just a thought.

As I have posted many times if we decide to keep VB's a LOA will have to be written. It can take any form we want and we can ask for anything we want. We are in the drivers seat.
You should already however be basically first in line for a upgrade. PSUP's come ahead of all non revs.

Well I agree, and my original concern is after the "honeymoon" we will see the negative side of VB. Once in the PWA it will be much more difficult to rid ourselves of it and be forced to accept a lot more negatives based on it. Still am voting yes, but this is my major concern with this TA. Delta wants this and will make it rosey, just be careful of the thorns.

We simply write into the LOA that we can pull it down at any time with 90 days notice.

A lot of people keep saying if we don't like it we can just pull it down. I don't know how they'll turn out, but I'm skeptical we'll be able to convince our representation to cancel VBs if we end up not liking them.

I predict they'll have data showing how great the VBs are for the pilot group and will permanently enshrine VBs into the PWA.

Since they'll have access to data which we can't see or judge (like, say, contract polling data), they'll know more than us. Or maybe they won't be willing to rock the boat with the company.

sailingfun is exactly correct.
We should never make it permanent. Just extend the "test".

As long as we keep the option to pull it down then we never have to hear ALPA saying, "Sorry. We didn't think they would do that."

>>And frankly, cause and effect between VBs and good/bad experience will be difficult to establish for anyone but those who are awarded VB assignments. <<

That is true. So the guys who "win the VB lottery" will be singing in the streets.

I'm wondering if there IS any reliable source of information on the effects of VB on the pilot group as a whole.

To my knowledge, our national union has a roomful of analysts (E&FA) who are ACTUALLY as smart as many of us on the forum here THINK we are. Did they provide us with any information??

Yes, I think they did..



Pragmatically, assuming the contract passes we will see some VB. I see three possible outcomes:

1. Complete disaster for the company. In this case they won't use VBs. Game over.

2. Complete disaster for (most of) the pilot group. In this case, we can terminate the VB program. Game over.

3. (Most likely). Parties wish to continue the VB. Parties meet and concur to finalize a VB LOA. As in any contractual arrangement, there should be an exchange of considerations. If we've gotten to this stage, we know the company sees a benefit. As mentioned before, the pilots bidding VB obviously see a benefit. So who's left in the cold and what can be done to give them a little sugar and get a deal done?

We would be agreeing to permanently surrender a finite, no-zero number of pilot jobs (as per our own expert's analysis) when we have the clear option NOT to do so. It's simply a business decision that will be made by our bargaining agent. I would expect clear and substantial quids that would accrue primarily to those who lose the most from VB (insomuch as we are able to target that subset).

There will be those of us voicing loudly our displeasure. Some us bid our equipment when we established a minimum position which we would be willing to occupy once converted. Now, that position has been put at risk with time which may be removed from our base which will knock back to reserve, knock some back to red eyes, or weekend flying. While doing that, we allow the company to subvert the seniority system passively approving of such behavior for future reference. Oh and by the way, some are locked so if they get sent back to reserve, they can't even bid out of category.

Too many unknowns for a trial, a TA, or a permanent move. Kill it.

What is with all of the pantie wadding over this?

EITHER party can terminate the 1 year test ANYTIME.

After the 1 year test, both parties must sign an MOU to allow VB to continue. No MOU, no VB.

We have no idea how this will be mechanized. How about we focus on something else and wait til we see what this looks like before we waste heartbeats on an unknown. If it turns out to be heinous, THEN kill it.

.

It should not actually have that effect because as you pull time from a category for a VB you also must remove a equivalent number of pilots. The kicker will be if they are junior or senior to a specific pilot. If you have a bunch of senior pilots living in MCO who bid a MCO VB the pilots still in Atlanta would move up in relative seniority. If all junior people bid it they move down. In the end it should average out.

Not necessarily. It's safe to assume the company wants this to reduce credit time. So if they build 10 lines for VBs, it could remove 12 lines from the bid package. But it will happen in such a way you won't be able to tell what happened. Like Brakechatter said, he'll just gradually find himself flying weekends.

You know that's not the forum way. C'mon man!

Overall domestic credit is around 6%. If a VB were wildely successful and cut that rate in half to 3% your looking at the loss of one line out of 30.

Well said my fellow Herk flyer.

If it's a negative for 80% of us, great deal for 5%, and 15% are keeping the dream alive they may get to use it soon, most of the calls to the reps will be from the 20%.

Once this is in, it won't be taken down. And the company will want to modify it to include international legs, because that's where the big credit can be saved. This is getting the camel's nose under the tent.

I think you can also expect some reduction to manning (not lines) with the contractual changes to OOB Greens and Yellows.

Within a year the company will ask to include international ops.

>>If you have a bunch of senior pilots living in MCO who bid a MCO VB the pilots still in Atlanta would move up in relative seniority. If all junior people bid it they move down. In the end it should average out.<<

Except for the loss of jobs (substantiated by our own EFA experts), right? You alluded to that in a subsequent post.

All coming out of of the same airplane's time, probably. The more junior it goes, the worse it is for the senior. The more senior it goes, the worse for the junior. Regardless, it will reduce the positions in category, which is always a bad thing from a standpoint of variety. Say what you will about the -88, but it is a large category which in and of itself allows flexibilities and variety not available on fleets with smaller numbers.

...and folks, this isn't a "panties in a wad" thing. Pretty discouraging to see the dismissiveness of a constructive thread discussion on one factors of the TA. The destructive attitudes within the union are not limited to DPA zealots or the people who always vote no. Combine this with the sick loss of voluntary verification, OOB yellow slips on days off, [I]merit[I] based extra vacation, alv change and a host of others--there are plenty of "no" issues in the agreement. They are not sufficient to warrant a no vote on my end and put at risk that which was achieved IMO, especially if VB gets killed immediately. At the same time, I can certainly respect an informed no vote without having to denigrate the voter.

Thug behavior...doesn't just exist with DPA supporters :rolleyes:

FIIG,

That street goes both ways. As in, we came to the company, too. We wanted increased pay AND credit for vacation. We wanted increased training pay AND credit, too.

The one thing that has been constant is that the company has a staffing problem. Some people might not see how severe it is, because it doesn't affect their fleet, but look around.

This past summer it was the 717 fleet. Summer before that, 7er fleet. Before that, it was the MD89 and before that it was the 320's.

With the retirements we have coming up and the airplanes we have that are yet to be delivered, their problem is only going to get worse.

I admit, it is THEIR problem. But, we need to understand that the company isn't going to agree to anything that exacerbates that problem.

This VB concept is a concession. It's a tradeoff for gains we achieve in staffing in other parts of the TA and there are two things that are good about it for us:

1.). It might actually be helpful for some pilots, &

2.) If we don't like the way it's being used (i.e., too many positions are being lost), we can give notice and back out. There is no such provision for the company to back out of our credit for vacation and training.

Think about it. If the company "acts up," we could back out and have a net gain of positions from this.

As a guy on the bottom of the list in NYC, I recognize that VB's will probably adversely affect me, but it doesn't change my assessment for us as a group:


..because we can back out, this part of the TA is either a push, or a win.

I don't understand. You don't trust the union and don't trust the company. But, this is a contract negotiated between the union and the company. Your default position on any issue is going to be that you don't trust it.

My opposition to last years TA was because the language in it screwed us majorly. It was so bad that most of us insisted that our MEC and reps be recalled.

In this TA, I see language is good for us, and language that protects us. You seem to admit that the language is there, but you say ALPA won't enforce it.

So, what's the point in negotiating for the language?

No contract is perfect. But, if you can't believe simple words and phrases will be enforced, why negotiate at all? If you don't trust that you can influence your representatives through a vote, or a DPA card, why read the TA at all?


I think you guys have more of a problem with DALPA than you have with this TA.

International is where the real money in a VB is at. Domestic is chump change. We just turned them down flat for using it. Why do you think we will approve it in a year?

The only reason for the company to open a VB is to reduce credit time and hence manning. Overall however this contract as a package has worst case a handful of jobs lost. With the size of the raise I plan on flying less. Others say they will also. That may have a bigger impact then any work rule changes.

Really do not remember anytime that the NWA MEC ever sought VB or satellite basing, I remember the company wanting it.

Too many years of watching the Moakies roll over has turned me into a cynic.

MEC Memo in a year -

"The company came to us and wanted to make permanent the Virtual Basing concept. They offer an mid-contract raise of 2% on top of the 3% we were scheduled to get. In exchange, they wanted to add international operations as the current agreement limits the use of Virtual Bases to mostly domestic. As this gives all Delta pilots a 2% additional raise, we decided to agree to their request".

Do you think the MEC would turn down a raise like that when 8000 pilots say yes and the 4000 international pilots (or whatever number) say "nooooo!"

That makes two of us. I like the way you think.

I would suspect the company wouldn't run VB to it's fullest potential the first year. They would hold back on what They "really want to do" until it was voted in and established. Then we would see how bad things could get with VB and the company pushing things to the max.

This kinda reminds me of regionals with multiple bases. It was not a good thing. Bases under staffed, junior manning taking effect in waves never seen before, and vacations cancelled. My gut says stay away from VB as far as you can, unless you have an iron clad agreement governing details on numbers and staffing. Yes, I know we don't sell back vacation or cancel it, but what can of worms could this start?

Again my point really is the company in the first year making it look like a good thing. It gets voted in and then the company decides to really optimize it to the max. What is the Max??? I don't want to find out.

If the company is willing to pay for it like that why not offer it now. I would also consider that a major contract change requiring member ratification. Your scenario is somewhat meaningless with regard to the TA. The company can always approach the union with any contractual change they want.

As I have posted probably 10 times there is nothing that keeps us from retaining the right to terminate the agreement at any time. Solves the issue you mention. It's also fairly easy to predict where the company can apply a VB and what the cost savings would be.