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

[JumpersAway]

In the end it won't matter. You'll pick your version of PBS for the ERJ, and we will have what we like for the CRJ. In a year, there will be a better foundation for comparison. However, I suspect that the ERJ folks will complain and whine that it sux, and instead of blaming it on crap software, will blame it on PBS as a whole.

The reason the legacy XJet guys don't like our bidding system is because it was on property at ASA...........you guys don't give us credit for $hit, and we're inferior in all aspects, in your eyes. Gimme' a break.......

 

[79%N1]

Gotta agree with Jumpers.....XJT wanted no part of PBS, but their MEC was made to know that they were not getting a contract without it.....so they say 'fine, we're not taking your pbs, though'. It's like, we can't have our way - so you can't have yours. Nevermind that all the XJT guys were so against pbs because of what they heard from the CAL guys, who use a globalized system. So, what are they backing? A globalized system??? Makes no sense. Now they are backing this unproven system to be petty over a system used and liked on this side.....Maybe they can use smartpref on their side and we can compare notes at the next section 6 in a few years.

 

[Nevets]

Gotta agree with Jumpers.....XJT wanted no part of PBS, but their MEC was made to know that they were not getting a contract without it.....so they say 'fine, we're not taking your pbs, though'. It's like, we can't have our way - so you can't have yours. Nevermind that all the XJT guys were so against pbs because of what they heard from the CAL guys, who use a globalized system. So, what are they backing? A globalized system??? Makes no sense. Now they are backing this unproven system to be petty over a system used and liked on this side.....Maybe they can use smartpref on their side and we can compare notes at the next section 6 in a few years.

Most ERJ pilots are AGAINST PBS! But at least the ERJ MEC is open minded enough to look into PBS. They moved from their original position on keeping line bidding. But the crj MEC on the other hand is opposed to even looking at anything else. Who is being unreasonable? Has it occurred to you that maybe the ERJ MEC researched all PBS platforms and came to the conclusion that smartpref is the one platform that can at least retain our QOL, especially considering that they have published the research and taken the risky political stance of even being open to PBS. They have said why each system wouldn't work, including flightline. What has your MEC published? NOTHING! This has nothing to do with petty arguments like, just because you have it we don't want it or our contract is way better than yours so just get on board. In reality, it sounds more like something your MEC would do since they don't seem to want to take their fingers out of their ears and just listen at a differing idea.

 

[79%N1]

. Who is being unreasonable?

You and your MEC!

In fact, I think the push for smartpref is a way to convince us to just take your line bidding. Lesser of 2 evils.

I think our MEC has heard the message loud and clear from their membership......No to smartpref.

And you never answered my question from before......how does a bidding system improve anyones QOL??? It just builds you a schedule. Give me the difference in QOL from flightline and smartpref!

 

[sweptback]

For crying out loud already, Nevets, please get a hobby. One that doesn't involve repeatedly badgering ASA pilots over nonsense.

We have a working PBS that we like. There is no reason for us to change.

Please repeat the above statement until it makes sense to you.

Thanks.

 

[Nevets]

Why hasn't the CRJ MEC communicated anything? Why are they keeping you in the dark?

 

[Redan]

Most ERJ pilots are AGAINST PBS! But at least the ERJ MEC is open minded enough to look into PBS. They moved from their original position on keeping line bidding. But the crj MEC on the other hand is opposed to even looking at anything else. Who is being unreasonable? Has it occurred to you that maybe the ERJ MEC researched all PBS platforms and came to the conclusion that smartpref is the one platform that can at least retain our QOL, especially considering that they have published the research and taken the risky political stance of even being open to PBS. They have said why each system wouldn't work, including flightline. What has your MEC published? NOTHING! This has nothing to do with petty arguments like, just because you have it we don't want it or our contract is way better than yours so just get on board. In reality, it sounds more like something your MEC would do since they don't seem to want to take their fingers out of their ears and just listen at a differing idea.

Talk about not taking your fingers out of your ears. Tell you what brother, how do you fly with them permanently affixed to your external auditory canals? How do you get your headset on? So many of us have provided you with a litany of reasons why this Smartpref does not bear consideration, yet it's like presenting a case to a bar stool. You apparently aren't capable of getting it. Allow me to once again, as succinctly as possible, summarize.

Our MEC is not considering an alternative PBS system because:

1) You NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER change bidding systems during section 6 negotiations. EVER. This is an extremely basic concept. Anyone who cannot grasp is not qualified to be a part of this conversation.

2) ASA already has a proven, tested and effective bidding system. Therefore there is no imperative to waste time considering an alternative, particularly a completely untested product. Or to muddy the waters by presenting such a product to the pilot group. Is this difficult to grasp?

3)The ASA MEC has practical experience with line bidding as well as PBS. They realize the XJT MEC does not. The ASA MEC is sophisticated enough to understand that this issue limits the perspective of the XJT MEC.

4) The ASA MEC completely grasps that it is not the bidding system which is primarily responsible for our quality of life. This comes from WORK RULES. Allow me to restate: QOL is a product of WORK RULES. Again, now listen very carefully sir. It's the WORK RULES dammit, NOT THE BIDDING SYSTEM!!!

5) The ASA MEC fully understand that this constant bickering over bidding systems is a distraction from focus on improving work rules and so is playing right into company's hands. They also realize that company is not willing to consider a return to line bidding. This is why my friend, they choose to downplay this superfluous issue.

Mr. NEVETS, my good friend, If we spent half as much time debating work rule improvements rather than bidding systems then we could really look forward to an improved QOL. However, I believe if we continue to focus on bidding systems, which are a dramatically smaller component of the QOL equation, then we can anticipate an actual retrenchment of QOL. And then we will be stuck with it until the next Section 6 negotiations. Is this what you desire sir?

 

[Nevets]

Talk about not taking your fingers out of your ears. Tell you what brother, how do you fly with them permanently affixed to your external auditory canals? How do you get your headset on? So many of us have provided you with a litany of reasons why this Smartpref does not bear consideration, yet it's like presenting a case to a bar stool. You apparently aren't capable of getting it. Allow me to once again, as succinctly as possible, summarize.

Our MEC is not considering an alternative PBS system because:

1) You NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER change bidding systems during section 6 negotiations. EVER. This is an extremely basic concept. Anyone who cannot grasp is not qualified to be a part of this conversation.

2) ASA already has a proven, tested and effective bidding system. Therefore there is no imperative to waste time considering an alternative, particularly a completely untested product. Or to muddy the waters by presenting such a product to the pilot group. Is this difficult to grasp?

3)The ASA MEC has practical experience with line bidding as well as PBS. They realize the XJT MEC does not. The ASA MEC is sophisticated enough to understand that this issue limits the perspective of the XJT MEC.

4) The ASA MEC completely grasps that it is not the bidding system which is primarily responsible for our quality of life. This comes from WORK RULES. Allow me to restate: QOL is a product of WORK RULES. Again, now listen very carefully sir. It's the WORK RULES dammit, NOT THE BIDDING SYSTEM!!!

5) The ASA MEC fully understand that this constant bickering over bidding systems is a distraction from focus on improving work rules and so is playing right into company's hands. They also realize that company is not willing to consider a return to line bidding. This is why my friend, they choose to downplay this superfluous issue.

Mr. NEVETS, my good friend, If we spent half as much time debating work rule improvements rather than bidding systems then we could really look forward to an improved QOL. However, I believe if we continue to focus on bidding systems, which are a dramatically smaller component of the QOL equation, then we can anticipate an actual retrenchment of QOL. And then we will be stuck with it until the next Section 6 negotiations. Is this what you desire sir?

Listen carefully, I'm saying this again for the 9th time. My only point is this: why hasn't your MEC put out ANY communications about this? If all that you and others like merchant and speedtape is true, then why havent they said it themselves in writing for everyone to read? I know your opinion and everyone else's worthless opinion on the subject, including mine. But what is the opinion of the CRJ MEC? You should be asking yourself why they don't make their opinion known? ESPECIALLY if it agrees with 99% of their pilots like supposedly people on this thread have said? Just a simple question to ask yourselves, why?

 

[IUSTACHECKEM]

Listen carefully, I'm saying this again for the 9th time. My only point is this: why hasn't your MEC put out ANY communications about this? If all that you and others like merchant and speedtape is true, then why havent they said it themselves in writing for everyone to read? I know your opinion and everyone else's worthless opinion on the subject, including mine. But what is the opinion of the CRJ MEC? You should be asking yourself why they don't make their opinion known? ESPECIALLY if it agrees with 99% of their pilots like supposedly people on this thread have said? Just a simple question to ask yourselves, why?

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!

 

[Redan]

Listen carefully, I'm saying this again for the 9th time. My only point is this: why hasn't your MEC put out ANY communications about this? If all that you and others like merchant and speedtape is true, then why havent they said it themselves in writing for everyone to read? I know your opinion and everyone else's worthless opinion on the subject, including mine. But what is the opinion of the CRJ MEC? You should be asking yourself why they don't make their opinion known? ESPECIALLY if it agrees with 99% of their pilots like supposedly people on this thread have said? Just a simple question to ask yourselves, why?

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.

 

[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.