Originally Posted by
1234
This same thing could be administered by the company under a monthly APA system (like at NWA). The company determines what and how many positions will be available on a monthly basis.
The more I think about, the better off we are under the current AE process during the realignment period. This forces the company to make bigger moves than if they did the monthly APA system and thus play their hand as to the future 9 months or more with basing and staffing. The monthly bid forced the company to make a relatively "accurate" forecast for a period 4 months in the future and that future can significantly change on a monthly basis. You could be awarded a position this month and then get displaced from the position on the next bid. Same can happen with the AE system but the AE system requires a little longer forecast, in my opinion.
What I really liked about the monthly bids was that you could basically bid your training to take place when you wanted. I don't like the idea of having no idea/input into when you go to training on a new award.
I agree with this. Great minds must think alike as I was going to post something like this earlier. But, since I don't have a dog in this fight anymore, I didn't.
I do think big AEs till all the dust settles allows better analysis by the company (think the flash in the pan GUM base thoughts). Maybe a monthly AE/APA could be kicked around with the company during the contract 2012 discussions, but I don't think it's worth it any earlier.
Yes, monthly bids allowed better sharp shooting for training, but now we don't always have to avoid MSP winters
What I also liked about it was, in good times you could swap bases and follow flying. I had several friends that flew out of DTW for Europe flying in the summer and then came back to MSP for Asia/HNL flying in the winter. Plus, if you WERE wanting to move, you could "watch the tea leaves" for a couple of months to see what the flying would be like (think the new SEA ER or SLC ER categories).
Ferd