I find that type of attitude a sad premonition for the future of your merger with XJT

[Whydoitry]

Sorry, but we are growing tired of being lectured about concessions from a pilot group that voted not once, but twice for concessions. The ASA pilot group has never voted for concessions. I'm growing tired of the broken record from your side.

We voted twice for concessions, can you elaborate on that? I only recall one.

 

[dojetdriver]

Sorry, but we are growing tired of being lectured about concessions from a pilot group that voted not once, but twice for concessions. The ASA pilot group has never voted for concessions. I'm growing tired of the broken record from your side.

I voted NO, BOTH times. That's OK, the broken record grows tiresome from your side as well. Listening to some of the CRJ guys that drink the kool iad are afraid for their jobs, and think the ERJ side needs to "get on board" are funny to read. For specific details of the two votes, see below.......

We voted twice for concessions, can you elaborate on that? I only recall one.

Version 1 of LOA 9 came out, and was voted on. Then later a small technical detail in the TA wording was discovered and fixed, causing a revote.

It was the SAME LOA, just with a small detail changed that in the end really didin't matter, but would have benefitted the pilot ground had certain scenarios played out IIRC. So it counts as two votes, although it really didn't matter much in the end. Even if the guy above wants to count it as voting for concessions twice.

 

[Whydoitry]

Well, the reason we voted the second time was because ALPA was afraid it was possibly going to fail the first time, but technically there was only one vote not two, so no it can't be counted. And really who the f cares? The only reason that it passed was because a bunch of us ( I voted Yes) were like these ASA cool aid drinkers and believed our ALPA reps and our mgt. So yea, we voted for concessions once, and that will be the last time. NEVER AGAIN!

 

[JustaNumber]

Sorry, but when a CRJ pilt says that fighting a concession is the wrong move I kind of have to stop reading their post. As well as stop taking them seriously.

Don't take it personal.

Agreed, not personal. But since this can of worms is open, can we discuss this rationally (without others calling names)?

Right now, the vast majority of airlines, both major and regional, are using PBS because it saves their company money. Airlines that don't use it are at a financial disadvantage. Fact: regionals are competing with one another for a rapidly dwindling amount of flying. Question: do we want our company to have a competitive advantage or disadvantage? I agree that one has to draw some lines in the sand, but is this the hill you want to die on?

I won't agree to a pay cut just to help the company out. But on the other hand, I believe it was the right thing to do to agree to PBS, as it is the way of the future for airline scheduling, and we can either get with the program now, or later after we've lost half our contracts.

I also respect others' opinions, and I also respect them enough to read to the end of their posts. How else can you exchange ideas if you don't take each other seriously?

 

[Nevets]

Nevets, this is part of a publication that was sent to ASA pilots several months ago. It clearly explains the problem we have with a globalized system.


There has been some misinformation spread that somehow this process is essentially globalization. This idea is factually incorrect. To understand why this is incorrect, we must explain what globalization is.



As you know, PrefBid never looks at a lower seniority pilot’s schedule to complete your schedule. Every pilot is evaluated based on their seniority, only looking to see what trips are unavailable because a senior pilot was already awarded that trip. If you bid for a trip that was not awarded senior to you, is legal for you, and does not conflict with trips for which you’ve assigned a higher preference or your pre-planned activities, it is yours. This is known as seniority-based or sequential awarding.



Global systems are designed to accomplish a specific goal. The goal is specific, pre-determined award parameters. The parameters are usually a combination of open time and reserve staffing. To control the outcome, a global system uses an algorithm to predict problem areas. The senior pilots are awarded what they are requesting. At some point, the system predicts there will be a problem in the total open time, a specific stack of open trips or the number of lines to create. At this point the system starts to manage the problem areas by going further down your list of requests to find a pairing that satisfies the overall solution requirements. Unfortunately, this process is not specifically traceable. In other words, the system cannot provide an audit trail for the pilots affected by globalization. It doesn’t have the ability to list exactly why you did or did not get a trip. It is constantly evaluating the final solution to prohibit problem areas from developing.



In a global system we have reviewed, about 30% of line holders will be under global constraints, every month, at the minimum. Any month there is a schedule change from the mainline partner, a holiday in the month, or a staffing constraint, this level of global constraints will move higher. It can move to the highest levels of seniority depending on the confluence of factors.



Unfortunately, global systems can have other impacts on a pilot’s quality of life. One of the reasons PrefBid was selected was its ability to honor seniority, but also to provide our pilots the same benefit we had in line bidding when a week of vacation would conflict with two trips. Even the junior pilot, who has fewer weeks of vacation to begin with, is able to protect his vacation. A global system is not limited in how far it can go to solve the final solution. If it has to place trips immediately before and after your vacation to solve a parameter, it will. Tighter constraints in open time or staffing require more adverse impacts on a greater number of pilots.

This is an explanation of prefbid flightline and how it's not globalized and why globalization is bad. Where is the communication about all the vast research on smartpref, their analysis, good and bad features, opinions, etc? In fact, this communication further proves that your MEC is unreasonable. They are so obsessed with globalization that they put out an entire book of why its bad. They see the word globalization and don't even give smartpref an honest hard look. They won't look at anything other than prefbid and instead put their fingers in their ears whenever someone mentions any other bidding system. It's all about work rules, right? Not the PBS software itself. That's what you guys say isn't it? Well there are work rules that can be put in place to counteract globalization of that's what you want to do. But I'm sure there will be an excuse on why that won't work either.

Look, most people over on this side are against any pbs. I dont think it would maintain our qol unless we get good work rules. My point: let's get the facts and opinions out and make an informed decision. Let the chips fall where they may, sort of speak. My point: your MEC is trying to stifle that and keep you in the dark. They are trying to control and dictate debate. You should be clamoring for information, not being patriarchal and circling the wagons. You should ask yourselves why!

 

[mckpickle]

This is an explanation of prefbid flightline and how it's not globalized and why globalization is bad. Where is the communication about all the vast research on smartpref, their analysis, good and bad features, opinions, etc? In fact, this communication further proves that your MEC is unreasonable. They are so obsessed with globalization that they put out an entire book of why its bad. They see the word globalization and don't even give smartpref an honest hard look. They won't look at anything other than prefbid and instead put their fingers in their ears whenever someone mentions any other bidding system. It's all about work rules, right? Not the PBS software itself. That's what you guys say isn't it? Well there are work rules that can be put in place to counteract globalization of that's what you want to do. But I'm sure there will be an excuse on why that won't work either.

Look, most people over on this side are against any pbs. I dont think it would maintain our qol unless we get good work rules. My point: let's get the facts and opinions out and make an informed decision. Let the chips fall where they may, sort of speak. My point: your MEC is trying to stifle that and keep you in the dark. They are trying to control and dictate debate. You should be clamoring for information, not being patriarchal and circling the wagons. You should ask yourselves why!

It also fails to mention the processes in place that they use to cover the schedule with prefbid. The other half of the email was a retort to information we had put out the use of sort bias. So they felt the need to put a communication out that told.....less than 1/2 the story. The bottom line is that since the system is unable to "think" and look ahead to make sure it's producing a viable solution that tactics such as the use of sort bias, setting of the credit window and unstack are used instead. This has the effect of socializing the lines, ie, making everyone fly the same amount which may be in the 85+ hour credit range.... Someone please explain how that honors seniority. One way or another the schedule will get covered. We find this approach to be the least desirable.

 

[sweptback]

Every pilot does not have to fly the same amount. However, every pilot must fall within a 30-hour window (aside from vacation months). The company chooses the TLV which the window is based upon, just like the company chooses how many block hours they build your lines to.

The current issue is that we have some categories that are overstaffed (CR7 ATL) while we have some that are understaffed (CRJ IAD). Better PBS workrules could fix this, but it would be better fixed by improvements to other areas of the contract. That is, assuming the JNC thinks that it is even an issue.

 

[enuffalready]

. My point: your MEC is trying to stifle that and keep you in the dark. They are trying to control and dictate debate. You should be clamoring for information, not being patriarchal and circling the wagons. You should ask yourselves why!

anyone that owns a business, been in military or just has common sense understands we need to keep this as simple as possible..

fact-- company will not do line bidding
fact--company will exploit any loophole in pbs system
fact-- asa pilots already know all the loopholes in our current PBS agreement
fact-- vast majority of ASA peeps like our PBS
fact-- it just makes sense to tweak what we have vs an entirely new system that is completely untested, nobody uses, nobody seems to want, and allows the company to discover an entirely new way to bend us over for the next 6 years


oh, and in reference to your comments. I am not elected union MEC guy and certainly not in the dark

 

[wms]

Every pilot does not have to fly the same amount. However, every pilot must fall within a 30-hour window (aside from vacation months). The company chooses the TLV which the window is based upon, just like the company chooses how many block hours they build your lines to.

The current issue is that we have some categories that are overstaffed (CR7 ATL) while we have some that are understaffed (CRJ IAD). Better PBS workrules could fix this, but it would be better fixed by improvements to other areas of the contract. That is, assuming the JNC thinks that it is even an issue.

Guarantee is 75 hours, we should be able to bid 75 hours, not 88 and 90.

 

[sweptback]

Guarantee is 75 hours, we should be able to bid 75 hours, not 88 and 90.

I agree with you. I'm just saying that in the world of line bidding, we had limited say over what block/credit time the company built the lines up to.

 

[Cpt Oveur]

Our system is every bit as globalized as what we fear of smartPref. How is it honoring seniority to award a line to a junior pilot purely because of preassigned credit and it forces a more senior pilot on reserve. Please, flight line cheerleaders, tell me how that honors seniority.

I encourage all of you to go watch a PBS solution run at the office. It is not pure seniority ruling. We left that when we swithe from line bidding. There are human inputs that can alter the solution, decisions made by the PWG, not your seniority.

 

[dojetdriver]

I agree with you. I'm just saying that in the world of line bidding, we had limited say over what block/credit time the company built the lines up to.

And the standard point applies. Under ERJ lind bid workrules, simply trade that high credit line you don't like down to something you'd rather fly via the LIW's.

Our system is every bit as globalized as what we fear of smartPref. How is it honoring seniority to award a line to a junior pilot purely because of preassigned credit and it forces a more senior pilot on reserve. Please, flight line cheerleaders, tell me how that honors seniority.

I encourage all of you to go watch a PBS solution run at the office. It is not pure seniority ruling. We left that when we swithe from line bidding. There are human inputs that can alter the solution, decisions made by the PWG, not your seniority.

Does Speedtape/www., as well as the others that preach it honors seniority know that?

 

[Nevets]

anyone that owns a business, been in military or just has common sense understands we need to keep this as simple as possible..

fact-- company will not do line bidding
fact--company will exploit any loophole in pbs system
fact-- asa pilots already know all the loopholes in our current PBS agreement
fact-- vast majority of ASA peeps like our PBS
fact-- it just makes sense to tweak what we have vs an entirely new system that is completely untested, nobody uses, nobody seems to want, and allows the company to discover an entirely new way to bend us over for the next 6 years


oh, and in reference to your comments. I am not elected union MEC guy and certainly not in the dark

Fact: your MEC has not put out anything in regards to this topic.
Fact is that I don't know if anything you say is true. Fact is that a communication from the MEC stating everything you just said holds more credibility. Which is my only point of this whole thread!

Why hasn't your MEC put anything out? Do you actually know? Why wont they state the facts and their opinions rather than forcing everyone to take the time to call them and have a conversation that they can deny? Why wont they stand for something in writing for everyone to read and be able to hold them accountable to it? Maybe you ought to find out so that you are not surprised?

 

[Nevets]

I agree with you. I'm just saying that in the world of line bidding, we had limited say over what block/credit time the company built the lines up to.

This is what is meant by socializing. You honor seniority so strictly that it's the only constant. You force the system to adjust other variables for the ENTIRE group. And EVERYONE gets stuck not being able to bid for 60 or 75 hours. But hey, there's no globalization.

 

[79%N1]

I agree with you. I'm just saying that in the world of line bidding, we had limited say over what block/credit time the company built the lines up to.

I agree with both of you. Again, this IS NOT a PBS issue, like Nevets, Pickle and some ASA want to believe. The company can (and will) build the lines to higher credit if needed - and since it is a staffing/cost issue, you can be sure they will. It would be great for those that want less credit to be able to fly less, and those that want more could. Those are work rules that could be negotiated, but line bidding DOES NOT solve that issue. I would suggest those that want less block, drop some trips into open time and see if someone picks them up..