I think his point was: What is stopping the company from doing exactly what you are suggesting only from an existing base? Answer: Nothing. We already do it out of PIT on a 757 to Europe don't we?

What's the difference between doing it from an established base vice a virtual one?

Denny

 

VB gives added flexibility. Here today, gone tomorrow. MIA, next month PHL, next month BOS etc. The MIA to FLL to EIN would work for the 7ER under the new VB rules. Need a 757 moved, add it to the front of a rotation. Report to VB and fly international out of the same VB.

The flexibility and loss of bid package reliability is the point.

 

So, let's say it does give the company added flexibility. How specifically does that really help them?

Flexibility and bid package reliability sounds good, but if that's what they were after, can you explain what specifically they are aiming to do?

 

Chase the rabbit that is NAI (or ME3) without added costs. I don't know, but they are creative and bid package flux is to our detriment. I don't think they know (completely) yet either but give them a few years to stretch the meaning of the PWA.

This can only help them play whack-a-mole. That isn't great for consistent trips or trip mix in all the bid packets. Remember the time comes out of the bases that bid and are awarded the VBs. If you thought bid packages were becoming less desirable, just wait.

 

You don't think they know completely?

They play chess, remember?

I think we need to stop assuming that Delta is just doing things off the cuff, just to screw us. They might screw us. But, it's not off the cuff and just like in the Godfather, it's not personal. As in, they aren't doing it just because they can.

Keep in mind that one of the things Delta needs is increased productivity (Ie., they need us to fly more.) That was readily apparent from where I was sitting last summer. If you don't know what I mean, go to JFK/LGA/or ATL in the summer time when thunderstorms are passing through -- which is just about every day.

If I were to guess, to figure out what Delta want's with these VB's, we should look no further than what they do with some of the flight attendants.

As you know, we have FA's bases in MCO, FLL/MIA, SAN, and maybe a few more places (TPA?). If you talk to the FA's that are based there, you will find that they are fairly senior, that they are probably flying a pretty crappy one day/4 leg trip, and that they almost never call in sick -- especially not late notice.

There's probably a few reasons for this: One, who doesn't want to fly from home? Two, who doesn't want to fly one day trips so you can be home every night -- even if it's a crappy 4 leg day? Finally, who calls in sick, when you personally know the reserve they will call out and might see them in the grocery store later that week?

I bet those senior flight attendants in those bases, are some of the most reliable FA's in the system -- at least that's the feeling I get.

If that's true, I bet Delta knows it and would love to set up VB's where we have a lot of pilots who commute to try to set up the same dynamic. Ie., I think it's probably an attempt to set up less sick calls.

I'd look for them to set up VB's in some of the same places they have unusual flight attendant bases. I'd also guess that they would set them up to do the same kind of 2-4 leg day's in and out of ATL/DTW/MSP/JFK's that the flight attendants do.

Like I said, it's just a guess and I like to play chess, too.

 

We agree they probably are seeking productivity, however VBs also provide flexible basing at no real cost. That will be exploited, and once they are on to something beneficial no matter what it is, they will expand it.

The fact that I don't know what that might be right now makes it an even more nebulous threat. (yes, I mean to QOL) Shut down VBs and this is a non issue for the next negotiation. Commuters gotta commute, sorry but that's the way I see it. Saves jobs and keeps the flying in base.

I only play chess against my 7 year old... because I can beat him, most of the time. If he gets better than me, the board goes back on the top shelf. Same with management. Why play their game when you know they are better at it? The sooner VBs are put back on the shelf, the better.

 

This right here.

 

None of that makes sense.

 

There is zero comparison with flight attendants and pilot VB's. I am surprised anyone knowing the differences would try and make that comparison. First the flight attendants can fly any equipment and any position. Second they are required to find a replacement if they sick out. If their number of sick calls is deemed excessive they are removed from the base. Third FAR's basically don't apply to FA's. The company has far more options to replace or even go one short in the event of a sick call then pilots.
All rotations for pilots are built by Carmine. Both the union and company ran numerous simulations using the last 12 months flying schedule giving carmine the latitude to place pilot bases anywhere she liked. The results were underwhelming. Keep in mind that small bases are inheritanly inefficient for pilots with reserve rules. Any reduction in credit has to be greater then required extra reserves.

 

The bottom line is that both VB and TDY cost pilots jobs in this TA. While they might benefit a few pilots, they hurt the group as a whole. Since they are on a test basis they need to be removed from the contract as soon as possible.