Originally Posted by Washout

After using SP for months I actually like it. I've rarely had any surprises once the bid closed in comparison to what the live bidding was showing beforehand.

I have many friends on the ASA side who really like FL and have observed and played around with it when they were bidding. SP is far more intuitive than FL but they both get the job done.

The globalization argument is pretty weak considering FL is manually selected and tweaked after it's run. With SP you get to see immediately if you're in the restricted group, pairings available, what you'd hold live etc. The software is quite robust but has been made out to be the boogeyman for some reason. Since it doesn't have to be set up run to a 0 open time solution unstacking looks to be quite rare as long as the pairings aren't terribly uneven.

The FL lockout period is a huge sticking point. I think we'd all agree that the time between bid closing to the schedules being final should be minimal.

Saying that the software hasn't been tested is disingenuous at best. Yes XJT is the only current customer, but it's been working just fine for our phase 2 bidders. The reserve vacation bidding has been greatly improved.

The work rules are the most important part and I know in the past you commented on it's apparent lack of support for CDOs etc. All it would take is a little reprogramming to reflect the negotiated work rules.

I hope we can get this done. I don't really care which system we go with, I only hope that we can get some solid rules for both line holders and reserves.