XJT MEC declares war on ASA pilots.

[OCP]

Vendor: Flightline (a subsidiary of Sabre Airline Solutions)
Program: PrefBid (A product of Flightline)
Currently in use at: ASA, Republic, GoJet, Virgin America, and AirTran

I don't think anyone but ASA is using the PBS part. The others are using Flica, but not the PBS. Doesn't Airtran still bid hard lines?

 

[pilotnbr1]

You clearly don't have a true handle on globalization. Globalization says that a senior pilot can bid exactly what he wants right down to a specific trip. Then, the system can take that trip away from that senior pilot and give it to a junior pilot in order to make the overall bid run work better. "sacrifice one for the greater good" concept. So say you're a commuter from OKC and you pick out a trip that has a long OKC overnight. How are you going to feel when the system gives your trip to a more junior pilot?

Its all how "globalization" is defined the contract. Your version of it where a senior pilot can lose a specific trip they wanted is a poor execution of globalization.

I am in favor of globalization where the senior pilots must be more specific in their bidding. For instance a senior pilot creates a preference that has multiple pairing matches and in the bid run process a pairing that meets all of his preferences is put on his award. Junior pilot's turn in the award system comes up and there is no unawarded trip available to meet a certain preference (lets say a 24 hour layover in a small city). At this point a globalized system examines previously awarded trips to find one that matches the junior pilot's preference. The pairing match happens to have been previously awarded to the senior pilot who had several other pairing options that in his eyes were equally desired. So a different trip that met all of the senior pilot's preferences is now awarded to the senior pilot and the junior pilot get the trip that had the long layover.

In a properly executed globalized system there is a greater degree of satisfaction. Relatively more pilots get exactly what they want. Senior pilots are not the victim. Their preferences are still honored and they get what they want.

The downside of globalization is that bid run solutions take significantly longer. The system tweaks everyone's awards many times before a final solution is reached. The exception is SmartPref which essentially is already running the bid solution as soon as bidding begins. At ASA many people have a misconception that Flightline takes several days to run a solution. That is not the case, it is fairly fast. What takes time is that both ALPA and the company can tweak parameters affecting the final solution. They tweak parameters and rerun solutions many times trying to come up with the best solution. Then they both have to agree on which solution to use... Long bid runs would be a real problem or the apparent lack of the ability to rerun Smartpref because it has created a final transparent bid solution at bid close.

 

[GeekMaster]

Its all how "globalization" is defined the contract. Your version of it where a senior pilot can lose a specific trip they wanted is a poor execution of globalization.

I am in favor of globalization where the senior pilots must be more specific in their bidding. For instance a senior pilot creates a preference that has multiple pairing matches and in the bid run process a pairing that meets all of his preferences is put on his award. Junior pilot's turn in the award system comes up and there is no unawarded trip available to meet a certain preference (lets say a 24 hour layover in a small city). At this point a globalized system examines previously awarded trips to find one that matches the junior pilot's preference. The pairing match happens to have been previously awarded to the senior pilot who had several other pairing options that in his eyes were equally desired. So a different trip that met all of the senior pilot's preferences is now awarded to the senior pilot and the junior pilot get the trip that had the long layover.

In a properly executed globalized system there is a greater degree of satisfaction. Relatively more pilots get exactly what they want. Senior pilots are not the victim. Their preferences are still honored and they get what they want.

The downside of globalization is that bid run solutions take significantly longer. The system tweaks everyone's awards many times before a final solution is reached. The exception is SmartPref which essentially is already running the bid solution as soon as bidding begins. At ASA many people have a misconception that Flightline takes several days to run a solution. That is not the case, it is fairly fast. What takes time is that both ALPA and the company can tweak parameters affecting the final solution. They tweak parameters and rerun solutions many times trying to come up with the best solution. Then they both have to agree on which solution to use... Long bid runs would be a real problem or the apparent lack of the ability to rerun Smartpref because it has created a final transparent bid solution at bid close.

Ok that's not globalization. With flightline, Pairings that are considered equal by the pilot are put into a single preference on the front end. Now here's the beauty of flightline. Those pairings can be sorted on the back end using different criteria that the bidding pilot said he didn't care about. I.E. total credit, duty in time etc. This allows the administrator to improve the overall award without globalizing. It will NOT take a pairing which the pilot was very specific. Smartpref will. In fact let's talk about the award logic for smartpref now.

Whereas flightline considers multiple matches within a single preference to be equal, Smartpref does not. In fact the award logic for Smartpref is to basically rank every single pairin in the bid in a specific order. E.G. If there are 200 total pairings all pairings are put in order 1 thru 200. Then it gives the pilot his highest available choices with one GIANT exception. Say your number 1 choice is available to you and you are legal to fly it. If the system needs that particular pairing to give to a junior pilot to keep him off reserve, it WILL take it from you.

THAT is the system the XJT MEC wants to develop as your primary bidding system. Whereas flightline continues to run month after month satisfying an overwhelming majority of the pilots.

 

[enuffalready]

In fact let's talk about the award logic for smartpref now.

Whereas flightline considers multiple matches within a single preference to be equal, Smartpref does not. In fact the award logic for Smartpref is to basically rank every single pairin in the bid in a specific order. E.G. If there are 200 total pairings all pairings are put in order 1 thru 200. Then it gives the pilot his highest available choices with one GIANT exception. Say your number 1 choice is available to you and you are legal to fly it. If the system needs that particular pairing to give to a junior pilot to keep him off reserve, it WILL take it from you.

.

see above... this is very very important.... if you want that trip.. and you select it.... and you are legal ... you may not get it based on logic that you cannot program/sort/filter around.... it just does it. And if you are #100, then you get to watch pilot #200 fly the trip you requested...

 

[dojetdriver]

Its all how "globalization" is defined the contract. Your version of it where a senior pilot can lose a specific trip they wanted is a poor execution of globalization.

I believe the FULL description you want is here;

Some of the basic principals about flightline. As you indicate, if you want a pairing and no one senior to you has bid it...it's yours. Thats great....assuming that pairing will allow you to meet the set credit window. So lets say you really want 4 pairings but it will only bring your line to 83 hours. If the window is set to 85 hours you will be awarded different pairings because you're not inside the credit window. Because your system is not "globalized" it ends up being "socialized" causing everyone to have to work the same amount. Same thing would happen if the pairings you want are worth too much and the credit window is set very low.
The other issue it creates is this...
If you have 100 "line holders" it will randomly assign trips based on preferences until the pool of trips becomes very small. Once you get down to the last 10-15% some people have training or vacation which allows them to get into the credit window. Other more senior pilots who may not have that credit are not able to get into the window are assigned reserve. Thus the "lucky lineholder/unlucky reserve" concept. So how does that honor seniority.
In a globalize system it looks ahead at all the pairings to see how much credit can/should be distributed. It can compute ahead of time how many lineholders. The last lineholder is a lineholder and the next guy is a reserve. Done.
Now you are incorrect in generalizing all globalized systems. Carmen, which is designed to solve to zero open time, will take a trip away from the first bidder and assign it to a junior pilot to get rid of every trip. This is the system CAL uses and a big reason you, and us, did not/will not accept it.

Smartpref is different. It calculates a "global constraint" point. Anyone senior to this can have any trip they want, any day off they want and any credit they want. Only those in the constrained group would have any restrictions. I've been told the tests that were run with out pairings put that line around 35% from the bottom. Meaning 65% of pilots got whatever they wanted as of the trips that were left.

It globalizes based on several methods....SPLAT and stacking. SPLAT is Seniority Processed Line Average Trend. In other words, the average amount of time that people fly. Depending on what senior guys bid it will cause junior pilots to have to fly the converse. The line is dynamic and then too is the constrained line.
Stacking is the other issue. If you have 10 trips that start every day and people bid monday and tuedsay trips then trips start to stack on the weekend. At some point you have to require people to work. Thats why your system simply doesn't work. A globalized system sees this and will force some people at the bottom to have to work instead of just leaving it open or "unstacking" at the end. The smartpref system knows a pilot is constrained from the beginning and lets him choose his trips from the days he has to work instead of flightline going through after and "unstacking" and forcing it on that way.

From what I'm told of the testing data when the constrained group started at the 35% from the bottom this is considering there were no relief lines. The relief line pilots were lumped into the mix thus creating more bidders. Only around 20 of the original line holders were forced into the constrained group. What kind of line are the bottom 20 line holders getting anyway? Those in the constrained group can be a little constrained at the top end and have to fly 87 instead of 85 hours, or at the bottom end they might have to work all days they don't want to....which isn't much different than what they're at now. Your flightline system might not be globalized but it certainly socialized and can forces the company to run high windows make everyone fly 85-90 hours. So how exactly is that honoring seniority? How does it not globalize when the PWG "chooses" how to run the software to cover the time? I think I'd much rather allow a computer to compute the final overall solution instead of trusting the coin toss method.

Ok that's not globalization......

See the above. BTW, you didn't answer my question. First you said the current ASA PBS honors seniority ALL THE TIME. Then you said there's a flaw in the system as fat as that goes and needs to be addressed. So for the purposes of trying to educate people (funny for FI), which is it?

 

[GeekMaster]

I believe the FULL description you want is here;





See the above. BTW, you didn't answer my question. First you said the current ASA PBS honors seniority ALL THE TIME. Then you said there's a flaw in the system as fat as that goes and needs to be addressed. So for the purposes of trying to educate people (funny for FI), which is it?

The flaw is NOT globalization. The flaw is lack of a staffing formula. The company is very clear about wanting to run thin staffing. Therefore REGARDLESS of whether it's prefbid or smartpref, some type of staffing control is absolutely necessary.

 

[sweptback]

See the above. BTW, you didn't answer my question. First you said the current ASA PBS honors seniority ALL THE TIME. Then you said there's a flaw in the system as fat as that goes and needs to be addressed. So for the purposes of trying to educate people (funny for FI), which is it?

The Flightline PBS system does honor seniority all the time, as far as assigning pairings goes. If a senior pilot bids for a specific pairing and is legal for it, they will receive the pairing. No questions about that, at all.

Now if a senior pilot bids for a range of pairings, the PBS will assign the pairing that best fits the overall solution. But that is not abrogating seniority, because the pilot said that any one of the following pairings was acceptable to him. If he chose to be more specific, the preceding rule would apply.

With globalization, those rules don't apply. Globalization may fix some problems (senior pilots not receiving lines when junior pilots may have) but it (IMO) introduces worse problems. Now a senior pilot will never know with certainty what he can hold, because the rules change every time a bid is run.

Globalization only has one "correct" solution. You can re-run the bid awards several times and it will always come up with one solution. This takes a long time too; some globalization systems can take a day to run with a large crew class.

The Flightline system can be run multiple times, and different options can be set to tweak the outcome. The bid runs are fast and the PBS group can literally run it hundreds of times to find the best solution. Then, per our LOA, the company and PBS group compare notes and must mutually agree on one solution per crew class.

Having multiple options for the solution may sound incorrect to some, but keep in mind that if a pilot bids for a specific pairing and is legal for it, he will be awarded it. That is the core tenet of the Flightline PBS.

Now, onto the issue of a senior pilot not being awarded a line while a junior pilot was. One can look at it like, "the junior pilot got a line that a senior pilot should have received" -- but that is incorrect. Pre PBS that so-called "senior" pilot (and I'm going to continue to use that in quotes because this so-called senior pilot might be at 70% at best) would have probably been a relief line holder anyway, and relief lines are never guaranteed either (such as if they had vacation that conflicted with all the pairings left over). The core issue is that there are not enough pairings to complete a line within the credit window. People with preassigned activities, such as training or vacation, may give a junior pilot a bump that he needs to hold a line.

So what is the answer? A clause saying that no junior pilot will hold a line once a "senior" pilot receives a reserve line? What happens if that reserve line is due to a bidding error by the "senior" pilot? Should all junior pilots suffer? Is the right answer to deny a junior pilot a line just because he happens to "start" the month with a little bit of credit? Especially since this may happen only once or twice a year!

Another potential solution would be to allow those "senior" pilots to have a lower credit window (say 75 hours) to allow them to get a line. If the goal is to drive close to zero open time, this would help because it would eliminate some pairings from the left over pot. This is not a feature of the Flightline PBS, but I'm sure it could be added (or manually overridden by the PBS group). This would be no different than the bottom 35% of pilots being put into a constrained class with the SmartPref software. Unfortunately in PBS, it tends to magnify seniority, and if you don't have it, you're not going to be as happy as if you have it.

For the top 1/4th of pilots in a crew class (or whatever percentage), if the goal is to get these pilots to hold a 3 on 4 off schedule, then there are a couple solutions as well. Either force higher credit 3-day trips, by instituting a higher min day, or allow a certain percentage of senior pilots to have a guaranteed lower line value, say 75 hours. The company will hate both ideas, but it's really no different than them building a 3 on 4 off line, like they did before.

To me, a complete outsider, it sounds like the XJT MEC has already decided to allow PBS in the JCBA. If that decision has been made, I don't see how you can use any product other than Flightline. For one, we have experience with it and we know its flaws. We can fix these problems in the JCBA. If the software programming does not allow it, we can have Flightline add support for it. In addition, there is a lot the software does right. We take that for granted with switching to a new software product, because we'll just end up with another learning curve.

 

[dojetdriver]

The flaw is NOT globalization. The flaw is lack of a staffing formula. The company is very clear about wanting to run thin staffing. Therefore REGARDLESS of whether it's prefbid or smartpref, some type of staffing control is absolutely necessary.

Help me out here, because your argument is slightly off. You said it honors seniority, yet has the flaw. The ASA pilots here (and elsewhere), the ones I talk to, and the XJT committee say it doesn't honor seniority 100% of the time. All systems are flawed, it's about finding the system with the LEAST flaws, as well as at a minimum keeps the current XJT workrules intact. Because as it stands, the current PBS system does NOT do that. It's a square peg in a round hole. The problem is it may require so much parameter change that it may not even be possible to preserve current XJT work rules. Which at the end of the day means a concession.

The Flightline PBS system does honor seniority all the time, as far as assigning pairings goes. If a senior pilot bids for a specific pairing and is legal for it, they will receive the pairing. No questions about that, at all.

Now if a senior pilot bids for a range of pairings, the PBS will assign the pairing that best fits the overall solution. But that is not abrogating seniority, because the pilot said that any one of the following pairings was acceptable to him. If he chose to be more specific, the preceding rule would apply.

With globalization, those rules don't apply. Globalization may fix some problems (senior pilots not receiving lines when junior pilots may have) but it (IMO) introduces worse problems. Now a senior pilot will never know with certainty what he can hold, because the rules change every time a bid is run.

Globalization only has one "correct" solution. You can re-run the bid awards several times and it will always come up with one solution. This takes a long time too; some globalization systems can take a day to run with a large crew class.

The Flightline system can be run multiple times, and different options can be set to tweak the outcome. The bid runs are fast and the PBS group can literally run it hundreds of times to find the best solution. Then, per our LOA, the company and PBS group compare notes and must mutually agree on one solution per crew class.

Having multiple options for the solution may sound incorrect to some, but keep in mind that if a pilot bids for a specific pairing and is legal for it, he will be awarded it. That is the core tenet of the Flightline PBS.

Now, onto the issue of a senior pilot not being awarded a line while a junior pilot was. One can look at it like, "the junior pilot got a line that a senior pilot should have received" -- but that is incorrect. Pre PBS that so-called "senior" pilot (and I'm going to continue to use that in quotes because this so-called senior pilot might be at 70% at best) would have probably been a relief line holder anyway, and relief lines are never guaranteed either (such as if they had vacation that conflicted with all the pairings left over). The core issue is that there are not enough pairings to complete a line within the credit window. People with preassigned activities, such as training or vacation, may give a junior pilot a bump that he needs to hold a line.

So what is the answer? A clause saying that no junior pilot will hold a line once a "senior" pilot receives a reserve line? What happens if that reserve line is due to a bidding error by the "senior" pilot? Should all junior pilots suffer? Is the right answer to deny a junior pilot a line just because he happens to "start" the month with a little bit of credit? Especially since this may happen only once or twice a year!

Another potential solution would be to allow those "senior" pilots to have a lower credit window (say 75 hours) to allow them to get a line. If the goal is to drive close to zero open time, this would help because it would eliminate some pairings from the left over pot. This is not a feature of the Flightline PBS, but I'm sure it could be added (or manually overridden by the PBS group). This would be no different than the bottom 35% of pilots being put into a constrained class with the SmartPref software. Unfortunately in PBS, it tends to magnify seniority, and if you don't have it, you're not going to be as happy as if you have it.

For the top 1/4th of pilots in a crew class (or whatever percentage), if the goal is to get these pilots to hold a 3 on 4 off schedule, then there are a couple solutions as well. Either force higher credit 3-day trips, by instituting a higher min day, or allow a certain percentage of senior pilots to have a guaranteed lower line value, say 75 hours. The company will hate both ideas, but it's really no different than them building a 3 on 4 off line, like they did before.

To me, a complete outsider, it sounds like the XJT MEC has already decided to allow PBS in the JCBA. If that decision has been made, I don't see how you can use any product other than Flightline. For one, we have experience with it and we know its flaws. We can fix these problems in the JCBA. If the software programming does not allow it, we can have Flightline add support for it. In addition, there is a lot the software does right. We take that for granted with switching to a new software product, because we'll just end up with another learning curve.

Thanks for the explanation. Yet here, other places, the XJT analysis, as well as the ASA pilots I talk to say that seniority is NOT honored. Massive flaw. When you say that any other product besides flightline can't be used, have you specifically researched the others, and their capabilities? The MEC has done theirs, and knows the flaws of what they've looked at.

As far as the "learning curve goes", imagine the one the majority of the combined list will face IF the current system is the prevailing, as well as the concession taken.

 

[sweptback]

Thanks for the explanation. Yet here, other places, the XJT analysis, as well as the ASA pilots I talk to say that seniority is NOT honored. Massive flaw. When you say that any other product besides flightline can't be used, have you specifically researched the others, and their capabilities? The MEC has done theirs, and knows the flaws of what they've looked at.

I have not personally researched the others, nor is it my job to do so. However, the ASA MEC did research the other systems on the market about two or three years ago. During that research period, it was decided that if the MEC was going to negotiate for PBS that it would not be a globalized system. Unless the landscape of PBS vendors has significantly changed, I don't see a need for the ASA MEC to research everything again. I'm sure the XJT MEC guys have access to the report if they want to look at it.

Also, I dispute your assertion that seniority is not being honored with the assignment of pairings. It's not the PBS vendor's fault if the credit window is set too high for pilots to get a line -- that's a whole other issue. That's why it's so important that ALPA have more control over the credit window and TLV.

 

[dojetdriver]

I have not personally researched the others, nor is it my job to do so. However, the ASA MEC did research the other systems on the market about two or three years ago. During that research period, it was decided that if the MEC was going to negotiate for PBS that it would not be a globalized system. Unless the landscape of PBS vendors has significantly changed, I don't see a need for the ASA MEC to research everything again. I'm sure the XJT MEC guys have access to the report if they want to look at it.

Fair enough, but we ALL owe it to ourselves to get educated and see if there's a better system out there if it comes to it.

Also, I dispute your assertion that seniority is not being honored with the assignment of pairings. It's not the PBS vendor's fault if the credit window is set too high for pilots to get a line -- that's a whole other issue. That's why it's so important that ALPA have more control over the credit window and TLV.

Ok, if that's the root problem.

I can't help but note the irony here. It used to be the XJT line bid vs. the ASA PBS. The XJT MEC has researched the vendors, and found a system that's the most compatible with the current XJT work rules, SHOULD IT COME DOWN TO IT. If you want to debate CBA's and work rules, I can go into a whole different discussion on that if you wish. I've read BOTH CBA's side by side and offered to do point by point comparisons with ASA guys multiple times. Here and elsewhere. NOBODY seems to want to do it.

So now we got a pi$$ing contest over PBS systems. If, and that's a big if that the XJT has agreed to a PBS system, it's STILL not good enough for the ASA side of the house.

Again, the current ASA PBS system is a concession, PLAIN AND SIMPLE. And again, current ASA PBS with XJT contract = square peg in a round hole.