Originally Posted by
BlackKnight
Yeah- we're running circles. My original question came from a post by Kolohe:
(shortened) "... planned to sell us PBS as the secondary line replacement vehicle".
My question isn't how PBS works- I think I already understood, and why we don't want it as our primary/only way of bidding. My question is, keeping our current primary system of bid lines, how would PBS be different if used for our secondary system?
BlackKnight, subsequent responses to your good question are reflective of my concerns--Raptor packaged it nicely above.
BL: In concept, the SLR would be an automated version of our existing secondary line process containing improvements that improve company efficiency more than it would our QOL.
My rub is that the company gains their desired efficiencies with SLR PBS yet we have little/no commensurate gain with IT tools to garner OUR desired QOL efficiencies through real time trip trading and other bid line adjustment venues. If the scheduling parameters are tweaked heavily in their favor (probably a viable assumption) and we lack the effective mechanisms to adjust fire, I see a degradation in QOL ( even from the existing psuedo-PBS process). The SLR will automate--therefore potentially exacerbate--the current deficiencies of the existing secondary line process if the parameters are not favorable...yet our mitigation remains the same.
It is a trust issue. The company is clamoring for PBS (probably not for our benefit), looks as if they will introduce it via the SLR MOA, we lack the appropriate tools to adequately improve our schedules/defend against prejudiced parameters, and I am not confident that the SIG involvement as crafted in the LOA will effectively mitigate company desires coded in the software.
I look forward to the union explanation of the SLR LOA.