Originally Posted by
Nevets
Thanks for making my point. That book is written in complete, cohesive, English. It's not like we are talking about DOS here. We have apps for everything that are intuitive. Yet we are stuck with people having to ask how to get a line awarded! When is the last time flight line was revised to make it easier for the user to interface with it, you know, so you can simply put a bid in in simple English? It's not a ridiculous point at all? Wouldn't you want it in plain English so that its more intuitive to bid? I think it's ridiculous that you wouldn't want it better! And that's all I'm saying, why can't these PBS software programs have a better interface? If you really are against that, then you sound like those pilots that don't like any change because it makes them uncomfortable, you know, like those people who didn't want to use the Fms.
Hey, I'm all for writing my bid out in plain english. It would be awesome if I could just tell some minion "Weekends off, Duty in after 1000, release before 19:30. 3 day trips or longer credit at least xxx with overnights in XYZ cities preferred. As far as I know, I don't think any companies have these minions to read pilots' wish list and award lines/trips accordingly. 'Plain English' is a relative term. Give a layman instrument procedure handbook; they may not think it's written in plain English. I do admit FLICA user interface may be intimidating to use at first. There are some improvements I wish to be implemented. However, it's doesn't take rocket scientist to figure it out after using it for couple of months. The biggest problem I see here is that some ASA pilots are asking questions they should be asking the scheduling committee here.
Besides, terms such as credit window, TLV are widely used term across many different PBS bidding systems. Unless you think you can stay with 1960s relic line bidding system forever, you may have to learn those big words.