Wouldn't need to be. It could start as a domestic leg and bounce around, end up in FLL and hop the pond the next day, right?

It could but why would it be any cheaper then doing that with a ATL, DTW or NYC crew verses a VB crew.

chitchat misses you. Besides, the tears are so much sweeter over there.

You are stuck on cost. This is about unchecked flexibility and the current version is not the desired end state.

What you stated though is neither outside of the box nor highly flexible. They can do that now.

So is the company.

Someone had his safe space violated...hope your play dough and coloring books are close by.

not me. I'm a happy camper. Misery resides elsewhere.

It only would if doing so reduced credit and therefore pilot jobs.

I'm against VB's regardless of if they do international legs or not. Either way they cost pilot jobs.

Huh? We have a south FL base? I must have missed an AE.

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. :D

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. :o 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.

Any chance someone can post your new rates in the Airline Profiles section of this site?

Just go to taprocon.com

So, you're saying you know for certain how the company is going to set up the VB's? Because, if you notice in my post, I admitted that I was just guessing.

It seems to me that the most likely place's they will put VB's are cities where there are lots of overnights/flights for a specific airplane and a lot of pilots who fly that airplane who live there.

It's not like they aren't paying attention. Don't you remember that chart/map the company put out a few years ago that showed where NYC base pilots commuted from?


Like I said though, it's just a guess.


But, since you seem to know what they are and aren't going to do, what are they going to do? :o

There is no cost savings to put a VB into a city with lots of flights unless they generate credit. A city with lots of flights generally gives the company plenty of options to schedule with minimal credit. In the simulations they ran the two cities mentioned as saving some cost were MCO and SFO.
What I am really saying is like nearly every forum crises this will turn out to be almost a non issue. If it is a issue we pull it down.

Would it make more sense if they put a VB in a city where a lot of commuting pilots lived?

So they're reporting that the AS/VX deal is approved pending the pulldown of the AA code share. Nothing was mentioned about the DL code share. That's very interesting.

I think they only care about cost. They could care less about QOL improvements for commuters. The only way it comes into play is if they are concerned there will not be enough bidders.

Or if they wanted to try and operate it with an unrealistic number of reserves based on the enthusiasm factor. You know, since sooooo many sick calls aren't legit, etc.

Hey DFW guys, y'all got a really nice VB going on here. Be a shame if anything were to happen to it...

Hey commuters, before bidding a new VB bid to ATL so the bid package time comes out of that base. ATL has the most commuters anyway. You will have a better variety of trips to chose from if everyone bids ATL first. :p

Do you think it's possible they could reduce the amount of sick calls if they were to put a VB where a lot of pilots live?

Thanks.

filler

Everyone seems to be thinking of virtual bases in terms of the routes and planes currently in use. It seems to me that virtual bases are another tool the company can use to re-imagine new routes and ways of changing old routes without the cumbersome contract making opening and closing bases so costly.

The c series, with the ability to fly long thin routes could be another tool to re-imagine the way the base structure works.

Right now, lots of flights out of Dfw are on RJ's on longer routes. C series vb to upguage seems to make sense.

They could do all of that without VB's by adding a single DH leg from somewhere else, usually for 1-2 hours of credit max. The viability of routes will have nothing to do with an hour of credit inside of a 4 day trip. None whatsoever.

This is about reducing pilot jobs, period.

while a real potential byproduct.....im thinking it is not the primary objective of management.

in a word? Demming. continuous product improvement. improved efficiency is part....but so is improving the production process we are engaged in....and in the product delivered to the consumer....our customers.

they are driving this company to be the Japanese car maker equivalent in the airline industry. oh....except for the air bag thingy..:D

But why would they have deadheads on every trip when they can add a vb for free?

It's about efficiency, and increased efficiency means less pilots required, which means a company makes more money, which is the reason they exist.

I'm just thinking that they probably have a way to use vbasing to be more efficient that we have not yet effectively identified, otherwise they wouldn't have put it in the contract at all. This thought that vbasing will be useless to the company does not pass the sniff test. Does that mean we should pull it down? How about we see how we feel in a year?

It's not useless it just has a very limited application much like domestic augmented ops.

LOL exactly. Less credit, less pilot jobs. That's all this is about.

I'd say with the new admin, we may have significantly increased the chances of killing VB/TDY right off the bat.

Of course its about efficiency. But we're already highly efficient. I'm reasonable. I know hard lines, bow waves and 6 weeks of touch drops ain't coming back, etc. Not only that, but they freely choose to decimate efficiency further with their addiction to any and every fleet type on earth. Fine, not our problem. But don't tell us at today's levels of productivity that we need to give them more in that regard.

As for the VB's, I don't think we can evaluate it in a year because even then we can't and won't know the full effects and all their unintended (to us) consequences. We have to look at this in the worst possible case scenario, regardless of how they choose to handle the closely watched evaluation period.

The only purpose of this is to reduce pilot jobs. Period. That is the ONLY reason this exists.