ERJ XJT PBS Questions

[Tarzan]

Whatever makes you feel better. What was researched was how the logic worked in the software. You can't write rules to usurp software logic unless the entire base code is rewritten. I don't think the the guy who wrote it (retired in France) is going to do that.

But you're right. Our MEC didn't research anything. By the way, the way you research software in an unbiased manner is researching the what the base code does, not what you HOPE it can do once you add "work rules" to it.

 

[Nevets]

Whatever makes you feel better. What was researched was how the logic worked in the software. You can't write rules to usurp software logic unless the entire base code is rewritten. I don't think the the guy who wrote it (retired in France) is going to do that.

But you're right. Our MEC didn't research anything. By the way, the way you research software in an unbiased manner is researching the what the base code does, not what you HOPE it can do once you add "work rules" to it.

All of you always say its about the work rules. Our guys used our current work rules to show that QOL can be at least the same as our current line bidding and work rules despite using PBS. That is how you compare the logic, through the scientific method. And you need a control subject for an unbiased scientific method of comparison. In this case the only control subject available is the existing work rules and bidding method currently used. That is how you test a PBS software!

Your research compared your current PBS AND work rules to a generic PBS software logic with no programmed work rules or even real pairings. And I'm talking about your work rules and your pairings, not ours. That is not a fair or scientific comparison. It seems like it was not an unbiased way of researching. They were probably looking for an answer that was already preconceived, kind of like the global warming crowd. And that doesn't make me feel better either.

 

[enuffalready]

All of you always say its about the work rules. Our guys used our current work rules to show that QOL can be at least the same as our current line bidding and work rules despite using PBS. That is how you compare the logic, through the scientific method. And you need a control subject for an unbiased scientific method of comparison. In this case the only control subject available is the existing work rules and bidding method currently used. That is how you test a PBS software!

Your research compared your current PBS AND work rules to a generic PBS software logic with no programmed work rules or even real pairings. And I'm talking about your work rules and your pairings, not ours. That is not a fair or scientific comparison. It seems like it was not an unbiased way of researching. They were probably looking for an answer that was already preconceived, kind of like the global warming crowd. And that doesn't make me feel better either.

We want our PBS. You can research yours all you want....I say keep your line bidding, or take whatever PBS you want....keep the groups separate.

 

[Nevets]

We want our PBS. You can research yours all you want....I say keep your line bidding, or take whatever PBS you want....keep the groups separate.

In other words you are doing the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and saying, "lalalalalala I can't hear you."

 

[ASADriver]

Nevets is the LXJT version of General Lee.

 

[dojetdriver]

Nevets is the LXJT version of General Lee.

What does that make JoeMerchant?

 

[www.]

What does that make JoeMerchant?

Your man crush!

 

[enuffalready]

In other words you are doing the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and saying, "lalalalalala I can't hear you."

I'm saying I'm happy with our pbs. Devil I know is better than devil I don't. Especially when I'll be stuck with her for 5+ years.

You are right. What was I thinking. It's makes sooo much more sense to scrap everything in favor of a completely new and non real world tested PBS, rather than just tweak one that has a history being used in our actual contract and work rules. Yeah....that makes complete sense.

 

[Nevets]

I'm saying I'm happy with our pbs. Devil I know is better than devil I don't. Especially when I'll be stuck with her for 5+ years.

You are right. What was I thinking. It's makes sooo much more sense to scrap everything in favor of a completely new and non real world tested PBS, rather than just tweak one that has a history being used in our actual contract and work rules. Yeah....that makes complete sense.

It's not completely new though. And it has been tested real world and continues to be. But my real point was that your side hasn't even done real scientific method non-bias research. Our guys did a scientific method comparison of your PBS and concluded that without significant work rule improvements (including keeping vacation low as is, which the company has said is not gonna happen so get on board), it would be a decrease in QOL. Obviously your guys will do what they want to do regardless. Just pointing things out, that's all. No need to take it personal.

 

[enuffalready]

It's not completely new though. And it has been tested real world and continues to be. But my real point was that your side hasn't even done real scientific method non-bias research. Our guys did a scientific method comparison of your PBS and concluded that without significant work rule improvements (including keeping vacation low as is, which the company has said is not gonna happen so get on board), it would be a decrease in QOL. Obviously your guys will do what they want to do regardless. Just pointing things out, that's all. No need to take it personal.

Personal would imply I care....I don't. As long as we are left separate. I have yet to talk to a single Asa pilot that wants your line bidding or PBS option.... You want it.... You keep it. Leave us out..

Back to cocktails