Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

SWA took one step closer to being a regional carrier

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
Benhuntn said:
I have a buddy with American...He has had 367 days off straight...course the pay has been less than he would like. I think I can live with only getting 17 days off a month.

PBS would kill any flexibility we have in our schedules. I prefer to make my lines better through elitt or trip/trade. I don't want the company trying make my lines better.

American has given me close to 1500 straight days off. I agree with your buddy the pay is not great!
 
The thing that worries me about PBS is how it would handle vacations. Under the current rules at SWA I turned 1 week of vacation into 18 days off, and then I took 2 weeks of vacation in March and turned it into 31 days off. So for 3 weeks of vacation I had 49 days off, and I only lost 7 TFP. Could PBS do that? From everything I hear the answer is no..
 
737tanker said:
The thing that worries me about PBS is how it would handle vacations. Under the current rules at SWA I turned 1 week of vacation into 18 days off, and then I took 2 weeks of vacation in March and turned it into 31 days off. So for 3 weeks of vacation I had 49 days off, and I only lost 7 TFP. Could PBS do that? From everything I hear the answer is no..


It could, but likely won't... ;)
 
livingmydream said:
FlyBoeingJets said:
I hear you on the schedule. The side letter was not very clear and it was only a test. I think that's why few voted on it. We definitely don't want PBS.

Unfortunately, I have spent alot of time debating the pro's and con's of PBS and I would say PBS may be what both sides are looking for. PBS would allow management to gain more productivity by eliminating most of the month to month integration and scheduling problems (saved heads like LOA 31), and it also would allow pilots the ability to build a schedule that has high credit and lower days off or lower credit and more days off.

Their are some potential hidden surprises in PBS and it would take a lot of testing to work out the hidden surprises and to ensure that PBS is the solution is really what the pilot group wants.

Dude, I am a SWA guy and I used to fly for a company with PBS. You *don't* want PBS, it will kill QOL for 90% of us. While you can make a PBS system give you similar benefits to what we have now, that negates the whole purpose of using PBS from the companies standpoint... so if and when we get PBS it will result in the loss of vacation time, scheduling conflicts that benefit the pilot, the extreme flexibility to change your schedule after you get it etc.
 
radarlove said:
PBS is unrelated to vacation. It's just a way to pick the trips you want to fly and put them into your monthly schedule.

Vacation is handled differently at different companies. Bid your line on PBS, then overlay vacation pn top, what's wrong with that?

With PBS you get the month of trips you want, instead of the month of trips that some guy who doesn't know you puts together.
the *whole point* of PBS from the companies perspective (and it will be expensive so they need a positive) is preventing vacation and monthly overlap issues. you will not get the company to overlay vacation on top of a PBS line... ever. as someone who flew a PBS system, i can't imagine ANYWAY you get a PBS system to produce the cash advantages and flexibility to change your line post receiving it... short of simply gutting the core of the PBS system that saves the company money... why they want it.

now if we decide the sacrifice in pay (vacation) and flexibility (tons of options to drop, elitt, trade etc. will be reduced by PBS) after the fact is worth the benefit to the company (due to poor industry conditions etc.) and the ability to get slightly closer to the line you wanted in the first place (in terms of trip density and destinations, a/c type etc.) that is a different story. just don't think you can have your cake and eat it too.
 
Last edited:
I have never worked with PBS, but the guys that I have flown with who have say that it is nothing like what it is being made out to be. What is it about PBS that would make trip drop, trip trade, elitt, and other flexibility issues go away? Those are net zero items for the company now and they are happy as long as the trips get covered. Wouldn't all those items work independently from any scheduling scheme that we have and continue status quo whether we had PBS or anything else?
Personally I don't like having to spend a lot of time bidding and then a whole lot more time trying to make what I get acceptable through Elitt which I have never been able to connect to on the day it opens anyway. Regardless, if Elitt is so flexible to fix things wouldn't it be just as flexible under PBS especially if there were fewer things to fix?
 
For SWA people who don't read the SWAPA forum:

The only true way to know how PBS will affect us is to test it side by side with our current system for several months to a year. We would bid with the old method and the PBS method to see how PBS would turn out, but not use it. Just a real time test bed. This is how I tested systems at AT&T back when IT depts. were called CIS depts. I don't understand why we wouldn't do that here.

This way we can work out the details with actual use of the product and determine what is good for us and the company. I would like to think there would be a give and take from both parties.

Short of this, I'm voting no on PBS. That decision is purely based on the loose language of the current contract and the animosity toward the union I see each day from the people I meet and fly with. There needs to be more union trust out there and it's all in the details. Additionally, there are too many loopholes for the company to get us on and us to get the company on. If PBS isn't tested properly before going live with it the company will take advantage and the pilots who "work the system" will also take advantage. That leaves idealists like myself taking it from all sides.
 
Last edited:
GuppyWN said:
Radar, The one thing I will NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, consider is PBS if it turns my 7 day vacation into a 7 day vacation. Last month I had 18 days off with a 7 day vacation bid.

Can you get 3 weeks off with a one week vacation award if you have PBS?

Gup

Last year I got 24 days off in a row with one week of vacation with PBS.
 
Well there you have it. Who do you work for because I'm sure PBS is a very hot item for the company and I'd like to know who to reference as a comparison.

Thanks,
Gup
 
canyonblue737 said:
livingmydream said:
Dude, I am a SWA guy and I used to fly for a company with PBS. You *don't* want PBS, it will kill QOL for 90% of us. While you can make a PBS system give you similar benefits to what we have now, that negates the whole purpose of using PBS from the companies standpoint... so if and when we get PBS it will result in the loss of vacation time, scheduling conflicts that benefit the pilot, the extreme flexibility to change your schedule after you get it etc.

I can't believe that you used to work for a company that had PBS, because you clearly don't understand it.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top