Denny Crane

Would someone like to attempt to explain exactly how a PILOT virtual base would work? Wouldn't the company also have to staff it with reserves? Any idea how many flights a day (on the same equipment) are required in and out of a possible virtual base to make it feasible? For you Delta guys, if the company really is looking at virtual basing, when do you think it would be announced, before or after the bid post SOC or a year or two down the road? What cities look like possible virtual bases?

On the surface a virtual base sounds like a good idea but would manning the airline be affected negatively or positively? If there has to be a certain number of reserves, this might have a positive effect. Just looking for opinions and we all know what opinions are like!

Denny

iaflyer

I don't know how a virtual pilot base would work, but here at DAL, the virtual FAs bases make it seem like a bad idea. The FAs based in Florida say that there are no reserves: if you get sick or whatever, you have to find your own replacement. The limited size of the bases make them very senior, with almost no movement. Also, FAs can fly any airplane that transits the base, while we cannot. Thus, it limits marketing's ability to change aircraft month-to-month. So, there are costs to closing a base if they decided the aircraft isn't serving that city enough to have a virtual base (costs like training, moving, etc).

Personally, I don't see virtual pilot bases as useful to us or the company. Our contract requires certain time off in base that you don't have to have on a overnight. Second, we already have "Regional" chief pilot offices, so there isn't the cost of a full base anymore.

Sink r8

Denny,

What makes you think this is being considered?

I've speculated that virtual bases might be a natural solution if laws are changed to restrict commuting, but I've not seen any concrete info to suggest Delta is looking at this.

Can you expand as to why you bring up the topic?

Thanks.

Sink r8

I agree with the above, and I don't think virtual bases would be good overall, and certainly not good for me. However, they might be the lesser of two evils for those that commute, and for the company, if laws are changed to account for time spent commuting. The company won't want to build rotations that pay us to rest before a flight. And commuters won't want the time and expense of demonstrating some sort of non-travelling rest.

The sheer number of commuters means their interests cannot be overlooked. If the law changes, there will be changes on our side. I don't foresee massive moves towards a base, so I assume some other solution will be implemented. The only solution that comes readily to mind is to reduce or eliminate commutes to the extent possible.

Perhaps there will be simpler options affecting HOW one commutes, such as requiring a short period of rest in base before the flight proportional to the length of the commute, better facilities to rest when arriving in base. Changing break patterns in augmented crews, etc.

Pandora's box was opened with a push for new flight/duty time requirements. Not everything that results will be pleasant for us.

Denny Crane

Sink r8,

For the most part I'm just curious how the operation would work. I just don't see how it would be feasible for pilots. If you are wondering, I'm the last guy who would have any "inside info" on anything. But there have been a couple of posts on different threads that made me think about this so I decided to ask the questions. This one is from the "Latest and Greatest" thread (point 7):

"Rumors during training:

1. Look for the company to approach union to allow a bid to encompass up to two years, ie.. award during advance entitlement will be good for up to two years possibly longer, but plan is to move all the pieces continously over the next five years, so it will be awhile before we see the final results.

2. Dependant on the above, could see up to 1200 positions up for bid right after SOC. followed by another large bid during the summer

3. 15 DC9s coming into Atlanta--this one might not happen

4. A group is in negotiations/familiarizations with a 100seat supplier

5. up to 15 777s to be delivered in next 2 years

6. A fleet of up to 60 MD90s

7. New basing methods(virtual) are being looked at (cost/benefit analysis)

8. New base will be opened"


/////////////////////

Denny

Sink r8

Thanks Denny. I hadn't seen that post. My only comment is that both items 1 and items 7 would have a huge impact on our lives. I would hate for significant changes to our AE process, and basing, to be effected without polling, and MEMRAT.

Above all, these changes should be looked at very, very carefully, slowly, and professionally. Item 1 in particular implies great benefits for the company, and is frought with perils for those who have to sit and wait. There will be great shifts post SOC. I don't want us to be penalized for them. They will be painful enough if we follow our contract as it is now.

Denny Crane

I totally agree with all your points, especially the bolded ones! Like I said, I'm just curious, if virtual bases were agreed to and implemented, how would a virtual base work? Looking at it from a laymans stand point, I just do not see how it would be cost effective for the Delta, or any company, to have virtual bases for pilots.

Denny

Sink r8

Well, right off the top of my head, it would be cost-effective if you could reduce overnights. Second, it may not be about cost-effectiveness, but about providing a solution to a new problem. Again, if laws change to make it punitive to commute, then there is a problem which cannot be solved entirely on the backs of commuters, or the company. But that's speculation based on laws that haven't yet changed.

What I think the company would really be after is to create an alternative to massive shifts between North and South bases. Instead of having a senior North guy go to NYC, and a junior South guy be pushed off to DTW, why not give BOTH a new alternative? Why not, for example, take a little flying out of both, and create (I know some will soil themselves at this example)... a BOS base? I think anything that causes movement based on AE's is good for the company. So they reduce DTW a little, NYC a little, but anyone with the seniority can get in to BOS. Since the flying "moved" no backfill is needed in DTW or NYC. Take a little bit of the flying away from existing bases, and cover new bases, and you've probably taken care of many of the people who wanted to adjust their commuting pattern, and move into the opposite base. You actually shifted them to something better. All that's left are people who live in each other's pre-merger base, i.e. the South guy that lives in DTW, and the die-hards that have some other reason to need that particular base. I don't know if I'm explaining this well. Simply stated: I suspect that creating new options reduce the problem of cross-training, and moving expenses in between existing bases.

Again, none of this suits me very much, because I drive to a current base, but these are some of the motivations that I think are at play.

Denny Crane

Hotel costs would definately be a savings. The company could possibly save on DHing costs. But on the negative side you now have to man a virtual base with a certain number of reserves over and above the regular lines.

I get your point in the second paragraph and it seems plausible. I can see where the company, after SOC, would try to mitigate any mandatory displacements occuring from transfering flying from one base to another. Offering AE bids to virtual bases would do that and lock bidders into their seats for two years. We are just going to have to see what happens with any new duty time and rest requirement regulations that may affect commuting. Myself being a commuter, I will be very interested!

I would think, from a company standpoint, that having more pilots live in their bases would desirable. Hence maybe they are considering it even if it might cost a little extra although it could be scheduling nightmare. One of the problems with it I think was brought up earlier is: What if equipment is downsized or upgauged into one of these VB's? Now you don't have the right pilots there.

I'd still be interested if anyone has any answers/opinions to my lead off post!

Denny

Sink r8

Maybe you end up with a few more bases large enough where there is enough mix for this not to matter, i.e. BOS, and then maybe some smaller satellite bases. Maybe you structure it so that you're (for example) NYC based, but BDL gets to be a satellite. You design a process so that guys can bid BDL on a monthly basis, a little bit like the NW bidding process (I think they call their monthly "AE"'s APA's, so something like an APA). As I bring up this example of BDL, it occurs to me you could have a small satellite serving two larger bases. You could be a BOS or NYC based person, and fly BDL trips.

So the company could have a variable amount of flying from satellites if they are attached to a base rather than a permanent pilot base.

Again: this isn't what I would want, but it shows one possibility for dealing with the problem. There should be a lot of intelligent negotiation if we ever tried to implement such things.