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

[ASApuppy]

And our line bidding can do that as well, so I'll ask again, what do you propse as the compromise since the research has proven your system to be a major loss for us. Not EVERYTHING about a bidding system revolves around vacation, though it is a huge factor.

Your line bidding WILL NOT grant that. You can only drop conflicting trips. You guys have no idea what your missing with our vacation low option. I have a vacation week and only need to build 37.5 hrs of credit (not block) for the rest of the month. Usually, its two 4-day's, but this last time I played carryover smarter. worked only 7 days in that month with 21 consecutive days off and a 75 hr paycheck.

All this talk is for nothing though. We are not being polled like '07 contract as to what is more important to us. MEC is rouge. I understand that the ERJ side wants a bidding system that degates seniority. I cant blame them as we have more longevity at the top of our list and nobody knows how that will settle out. But, I don't think that will matter much, because I think there will be very little base migration.

Personally, I think we are more in the driver seat than we think. ASA has virtually zero qualified resumes on file to call. More than 3 A-tech peeps have told be this. Delta and United both want us to do more flying, but we are turning it down because of fear to staff. Its on mainline and management to make this job more attractive so people apply.

 

[Redan]

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.

 

[www.]

So you advocate screwing me, my family and all of my co-workers over in QOL by trying to force your PBS on us and all of a sudden I work for Smart Pref? No, in fact I'd really like to keep our line bidding system, but I realize that's most likely not a possibility.
Just like your side should come to the conclusion that your system is not a possibility for the combined group and try to figure out a compromise like our side is at least attempting to do.

The fact that it's all about you?

Remove the emotion and look at it as a business transaction. We are not trying force PBS, didn't the company say something in so many words that line bidding is outta here? So you rather reinvent the wheel? How about taking the time to list the items that PBS would have to have for you and adjust OR negotiate a current system that IS in the industry with more than 4 airlines, has a large staff and support and has actual offices?

As for the looking into SmartPrep, been there done that 2 years ago and in the last year too. The only way you can have a true side by side is have all the work rules loaded in, have a full bid of all the pilots not just a few hundred and sit back and way watch it fly.

IMO, our people, along with ASA management which had the same concerns at the time, looked at SP and saw a very small company with no customers and staff with no ability to support 1800 pilots, much less than 4600 after the SLI. After seeing the CMR computer system crash shortly before the PBS vendor research, would you put your eggs in that basket, as a pilot OR a CEO of a airline? If it's such a great product why is no one else knock SP doors down?

 

[www.]

And our line bidding can do that as well, so I'll ask again, what do you propse as the compromise since the research has proven your system to be a major loss for us. Not EVERYTHING about a bidding system revolves around vacation, though it is a huge factor.

Has SM taken the ASA PBS and loaded all of your work rules, or the ones that are TA'd currently, and done a full run? Not just a sampling? Once again, what do you want the PBS to do for you? Start with what is the end result THEN work it backwards and build the rules and language around that.

When someone is telling you it has all these bells and whistle ask him what the final results look like in hardcopy. It's about the end results! If you want "X" then fine, write the rules and language to get you "X" as the result.

 

[j3tdr1v3r]

Has SM taken the ASA PBS and loaded all of your work rules, or the ones that are TA'd currently, and done a full run? Not just a sampling? Once again, what do you want the PBS to do for you? Start with what is the end result THEN work it backwards and build the rules and language around that.

When someone is telling you it has all these bells and whistle ask him what the final results look like in hardcopy. It's about the end results! If you want "X" then fine, write the rules and language to get you "X" as the result.

Yes, that is the exact thing our scheduling committee has researched for the last year+ and discussed, at length and in detail, in the numerous page report distributed to it's membership. Hence my posts above.

(oh, and claiming our line bidding will not come close to what was said for vacation is absolutely false. When I was an FO and bidding 100ish out of 400ish before upgrade, I used 1 week of vacation and worked a day trip on the 1st and a 3 day 4-6 and had the rest of the month off, so don't tell us it's not possible.)

 

[dojetdriver]

Your line bidding WILL NOT grant that. You can only drop conflicting trips. You guys have no idea what your missing with our vacation low option. I have a vacation week and only need to build 37.5 hrs of credit (not block) for the rest of the month. Usually, its two 4-day's, but this last time I played carryover smarter. worked only 7 days in that month with 21 consecutive days off and a 75 hr paycheck.

So you've bid under the ERJ line bid/work rules?

To say it another way, YES, it can DO that. You don't know what you're talking about. My 1 week of vacation usually averages the 21 days off, that's JUST the vacation period. I've staggered 2 weeks before and got 45 consecutive days off.

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.

And the management doesn't really want to keep the current form of the CRJ PBS, do they? You really think they want to keep the vacation low feature? That's probably just the most obvious. They probably want more control over the sort/solution, when unstack can be used, etc.

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.

See above.

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.

That's like saying a battered wife went from being punched occasionally, to just being slapped occasionally. Sure, it's better than BEFORE, but still sucks.

How many times does it need to be covered? The current flightline system is a square peg in a round hole for the ERJ CBA. As well as QOL decrease. What don't you guys understand about that?

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.

The management wants to get rid of vacation low, what are you willing to "tweak" in exchange for that?

All this discussion of one bidding system versus the other totally ignores the vastly more important point. That is GARBAGE IN, GARBAGE OUT.

Agree with everything you wrote past this quote, so don't need to copy the WHOLE quote.

But another very basic principle that the CRJ side just simply can't seem to grasp is this; YES, garbage in = garbage out. With PBS, yep, crap pairings can make for a crap line award, regardless of seniority level. Never mind having to meet a credit window, etc. For a junior guy getting unstacked, well, better luck next month. With the XJT line bid, guess what? Crap pairings make for crap lines as well. Only thing is, the LIW's make that crap more palatable in the garbage in = garbage out scenario. It gives pilots recourse, where the PBS DOESN'T.

 

[79%N1]

And your system requires MANY more pilots to be on reserve! No thanks! Under your line bid, 10 year crj capts will be on reserve in ATL. I pass......

 

[dojetdriver]

And your system requires MANY more pilots to be on reserve! No thanks! Under your line bid, 10 year crj capts will be on reserve in ATL. I pass......

Sigh........how quickly some forget......

Last year when the medium efficiency solution using the Xjt pairing generator was used on the CRJ, what was the the percentage of pilots on reserve? I'll help you out, it exceeded ERJ reserve numbers. BTW, erj and crj reserve numbers aren't that far off.

And that was the medium solution, the higher efficiency solution would have resulted in MORE CRJ pilots on reserve.

Try not to let some facts get in the way.

Also, I guess a system that could lead to downgrades and furloughed is good, right? (sarcasm)

That's OK, it made JoeMerchant happy then when he had high value trips. And as long as he got what he wanted, that means EVERY other crj pilot got what they wanted too.

 

[j3tdr1v3r]

And your system requires MANY more pilots to be on reserve! No thanks! Under your line bid, 10 year crj capts will be on reserve in ATL. I pass......

Out of curiosity, what percentages are you running as reserve with your system? (honest question). After the SLIW and relief Line awards we have 16-20% per base according to recent history. The impression I've gotten by the constant complaining on these forums is that your not far from that even with your PBS.

 

[sweptback]

Two different airlines: one is hiring like mad and is adding airplanes. Another is losing airplanes and is overstaffed on some fleets. Who do you think has the higher reserve percentage?