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

[Nevets]

LISTEN....We CRJ guys like PREFBID. We are very happy with it compared to line bid. We have driven the car....we own it.....you didn't like the idea of prefbid...we heard....it is coming anyway....you know....so you don't like anything we have. One day when you can get off your butt, go to your VCR and stop it from flashing 12:00 you may get it.. Until then shut up!

Here is how forums work. I post, you reply, then I reply. If you want me to shut up, then don't reply to my post?

Like I've said countless times here, I know how you guys on this thread feel about smartpref. Why isn't your MEC stating their opinion? I dont know, maybe it's because you might be surprised? Who knows? Because they won't put ANYTHING out for anyone to read their research and opinions!

Mr. NEVergETS it, When you are ready to begin discussion of what we need to focus on to make the most of our JCBA going forward, i.e. work rules improvements, then I will be ready. However, until that time I have not one more word to say to you.

By all means, feel free to say or not say whatever you want or even start your own thread. And I'll reserve the same right.

 

[asayankee]

Our MEC has expressed their opinions on SmartPref. It's in the meeting minutes available to any ASA pilot. They voted 9-0 against it.

 

[79%N1]

Yea, but why haven't they communicated anything? Where is the communication? The XJT MEC communicated! What is the ASA MEC hiding with their lack of communication?

BROKEN RECORD!!!

 

[asayankee]

It makes you wonder if McPickel has some sort of financial incentive to this....

 

[Fishpaw]

It makes you wonder if McPickel has some sort of financial incentive to this....

That's funny. We hear that same rumor about your mec members and your PBS system.

 

[mckpickle]

It makes you wonder if McPickel has some sort of financial incentive to this....

Let me stop you right there jackas$. You can say I'm stupid and I don't know ********************. Thats fine. But don't you for one godd@mn minute question my integrity. Crewing solutions hasn't gone so far as to buy me lunch! Nevermind me being on the take. I've heard these "rumors" started by some on your committees and MEC and it's false and spread by people with a personal addenda. They don't like what I have to say. They don't like that I won't support their sub par system and they don't like that I may threaten their 6 hours of alpa credit per day. So I suggest you get your accusations right out of your mind.

 

[ASADriver]

Nevets, our MEC has done their research and has communicated their problems with Smartpref. We agree with them. Sorry you don't like that.

 

[79%N1]

They don't like that I won't support their sub par system .

So I ask you for like the eleventy billionth time.......HOW THE F=== IS FLIGHLINE SUB PAR TO PREFBID??????? GIVE ME A GODDA*#D ANSWER TO THIS!!!!!

You flat out refuse to reply to this. My MEC has told me their trepidations to this system. You have nothing?!?!?!?!?!

Give me a damn example!!!!

 

[crazy8]

So I ask you for like the eleventy billionth time.......HOW THE F=== IS FLIGHLINE SUB PAR TO PREFBID??????? GIVE ME A GODDA*#D ANSWER TO THIS!!!!!

You flat out refuse to reply to this. My MEC has told me their trepidations to this system. You have nothing?!?!?!?!?!

Give me a damn example!!!!

Here it is..... Taken directly from the research paper the XJT scheduling committee prepared:

Also, why hasn't YOUR MEC shared this with YOUR pilot group?

The format is off because it's a copy and paste.

Vendor: Flightline (a subsidiary of Sabre Airline Solutions)

Currently in use at: ASA, Republic, GoJet, Virgin America, and AirTran

Source of Research: Meeting with the Flightline development team Discussions and interactions with the ASA PWG In-depth evaluation of program using ExpressJet schedule and pairing data.

Basic Description:
Flightline is a non-globalized system. Pilots input their preferences, and the person who is running the builder can sort pairings within those preferences to create better results for the entire solution. Because the system is non-globalized and considers only each pilot individually, fast run times can allow many runs to be done with different sorting to obtain the best possible results.

Analysis:
Flightline has a number of issues that would make it difficult to implement for the pilots of ExpressJet. Some of those issues are:

• Inability to create viable solution in challenging months
• Necessity to “game the system” to maximize days off
• Pre-assigned events result in “lucky lineholders/unlucky reserves”
• Excessive amount of time, resources, and manual work to complete bid runs by both the union and the company

Explanation:
A dichotomy exists in our pilot group; there are some pilots that want the maximum time off possible (including those with vacation), and those who want or need to maximize their hours. In addition, because there is such a wide variety in the pairings at the regional level (4 days ranging from 28 hours to 10 hours of credit, etc.) it can be difficult to build schedules conforming to a narrow credit window. Therefore it is necessary for the PBS to have a wide range of acceptable credit times. The ASA pilot group has negotiated that the acceptable credit window will be no less than 30 hours. The use of the “vacation low” function further expands the bottom of the credit window. The wide credit window, coupled with the non-globalization creates a difficult problem. Because the system only looks at each bidder individually and not the overall solution, there is no way to make adjustments in the middle of the seniority list during a bid run; crew members at all seniority levels receive equal treatment. In a high flying month, this means that rather than senior bidders having the option to fly a lower time schedule, everyone is forced into a high credit line except those with vacation. The 30 hour credit window is meaningless when the bottom of the window is set at 90 hours. The system as implemented at ASA preserves time off for vacation, at everyone else’s expense.

Another undesirable aspect of the Flightline system is the need to “Game the System” to get extra days off. The Flightline system is fundamentally a pairing sorter, and at the risk of oversimplifying, assumes that pilots want to work. There is no way for a pilot to tell the Flightline system that they would like no less than 15 days off. They would instead have to bid only the pairings that when combined will give 15 days off. The pilot must foresee not only how those pairings will combine, but also what will be available at their seniority to have success. This problem is particularly accentuated for bidders seeking day trips, and even more so during vacation months. This also results in additional days off being awarded not in seniority order, but by those who “gamed the system” best.

Additional seniority issues exist within the Flightline system. As the program approaches the junior lineholders, there are fewer trips to work with. At times, because of a vacation, training event, or other leave, it will be impossible to combine those trips and “pre-assigned credits” into a legal line, so that bidder will be forced into reserve. Conversely, a bidder with the same event at a different time during the month may be awarded a line, even though numerous senior bidders were forced to reserve. This creates the concept of “lucky lineholders/unlucky reserves”, which directly violates seniority.

Finally, one of the aspects that Sabre touts in the Flightline product is that fast run times allow the company and the union to be able to rerun the bid to get better results. In practice, however, run times have been long enough that multiple people have been using multiple computers in an attempt to create additional bid runs before lines are due to be awarded. The ASA PWG has reported, and this committee has observed some run times in excess of 7 hours, severely limiting the opportunity to create additional bid runs.
Additionally, the committee believes the rebuild process is fundamentally flawed. In between bid runs, nothing changes. There is the same flying, the same number of pilots, the same pilot requests. When you put all of those variables together, there is a single solution which best meets as many of those requests as possible. The Flightline process counts on the company or the union trying to find that ideal solution. In each bid run, some requests are better met than others. The committee’s preference would be to use an award logic that best meets as many requests as possible, a single optimum solution instead of one that meets the goals of the person running the software.

The software, logic, and seniority issues inherent with the Flightline PBS are not likely to be surmountable. Although the Flightline development team worked with the ASA PWG to create a system that worked for their pilots and contained significant improvements over their previous scheduling arrangement, the committee does not feel that it would be possible to repeat those gains or even maintain the current quality of life for the ExpressJet pilot group with this software.

Ok 79%N1? Is this enough of an explanation for you?

 

[79%N1]

Thank you!!! If you (nevets,pickle) are going to keep beating us over the head, YOU can post some info instead of keeping this mantra of "why my mec has not shared the info". Remember, that is the synopsis or evaluation under the eyes of how it works for you at XJT. The ASA side may see those parameters differently.

You didn't have to put the glib comment at the end, but yes.....thanks.