To play devils advocate:
"First, the ERJ MEC and plots have the perspective to realize this is not the time to even consider employing an entirely new bidding system. We have been granted a golden opportunity to tweak the current (line bidding) system. That scenario will not be available following this contract's implementation. Therefore it would be foolhardy to even entertain any PBS system under these circumstances. With that in mind, all this discussion regarding Pref Bid (or any other form of PBS) is just blah, blah blah."
So, you guys don't want our line bidding for whatever reason, and LXJT has done extensive research and testing and proven that your version of PBS is a severe decrease in our QOL.
So, what then do you propose? Are you seriously telling all 2800 of us to get bent and take a hit in QOL? If so, then F U! If not, then realize that we are at least TRYING to find a viable alternative. Because we've obviously reached a point where we have said no to your PBS and you have said no to line bidding. So, I'll ask again, what would YOU propose to get this section passed and get to a kick arse overall contract?
What we're seeing here is the most unfortunate development possible: the focus on bidding systems with either side firmly entrenching themselves in the bunkers claiming "our system is better and yours is so awful we are not going to even consider it." And people becoming so animated that they begin to take it personally with victory for their side as the only acceptable outcome. It's becoming vendetta.
Captain, allow me to attempt to break it down into the most elemental basics as to why ASA feel the way they do:
XJT has an enviable line bidding system. ASA does understand how nice you have it. We also understand that ASA management, now YOUR management BTW, is not going to accept the XJT line bidding system. At least in its present form, if at all. The volume of negotiating capital that would be required to preserve your line bidding system in its current form probably does not exist. With that in mind we here at ASA realize that this is not going to be a possibility, unfortunately.
Additionally, ASA previously had line bidding. Our PBS system has proven to be an improvement in QOL for most of us. This makes it difficult for us to entertain a return to line bidding, particularly when we understand that simply adopting the XJT line bidding system in its present form is simply not going to happen. The concept of giving up our PBS for a watered down version of the XJT line bidding is not very palpable. I'm afraid that XJT persons would most likely not find that outcome to be very desirable either.
The ASA PBS system is generally considered to be one of the better versions in current usage. The mechanics of the system are quite sound. ASA persons are able to grasp that the opportunity to tweak this system after such a short time in implementation is very rare indeed. Typically the only possibility to do this falls on Section 6 contract negotiations. Our last time frame for this was at about 6 years. We are also able to grasp that the only true test for any bidding system comes with implementation. No amount of modeling, testing, or conceptual trial running will present a totally accurate picture. And likely a very inaccurate picture. We know this from actual experience. Allow me to repeat that: WE KNOW THIS FROM ACTUAL EXPERIENCE! Therefore kind sir, please understand that the proposal to implement a new untested bidding system in any form at this point in time is going to be an extremely hard sell. And frankly, this letter from the alternative PBS vendor is not enhancing the prospect.
Personally I would vastly prefer to go forward with either the current XJT line bidding or the current ASA PBS rather than a new untried product. The prospect of dealing with the unintended consequences or unknown weaknesses of a totally new bidding system until the NEXT CONTRACT is unfathomable. Management will exploit every weakness to the extreme limits. We know this, we have had to deal with them forever. Our MEC and our pilots know this management and so therefore we also realize how unlikely they would be to accept the XJT line bidding system. The best we could hope for after they got done with it is but a shell of the current form. This is why dear sir, that this is not considered a viable alternative.
Lastly, with the experience that we here at ASA have in dealing with the implementation of new bidding systems, let me state the most important aspect of our situation:
All this discussion of one bidding system versus the other totally ignores the vastly more important point. That is GARBAGE IN, GARBAGE OUT.
The type bidding system we utilize won't make a damm bit of difference if the pairings are junk. We all must come to understand that we have to secure more control over the pairings created by company if we are truly concerned with QOL. Here at ASA we have seen management exploit their excessive latitude in pairing construction to extreme levels. The crap trips, the 7 leg days, the scheduled reduced rest overnights, the huge swings in trip and schedule quality from month to month and their refusal to run for QOL versus cost ARE NOT THE FAULT OF PBS. Again, THESE ISSUES ARE NOT THE FAULT OF PBS,
at all. These items fall outside of the PBS mechanisms. The caliber of pairing construction we're currently experiencing are not going to be favorable under any bidding system. The stipulations in the contract which control these factors, credit windows, TLVs, open time, trip swaps for example, must be our primary focus to protect or improve our QOL.
All the bickering over bidding systems is playing right into management's hands. They are probably watching all this with winks, smiles, and nods as they sit back and let us do it to ourselves yet again. If people on all sides of this issue cannot come to focus on exactly what the truly important points are before it's too late, we are going to end up taking what we're given and having to live with it for indefinite years.
