Absolutely not

Does PBS build pairings as it awards them, or does someone build the pairings and then load them into PBS?

 

Mudhen, thank you, my sentiments exactly. Also I applaud your liberal use of the word retard, glad to see someone working hard to bring it back to its rightful reign of awesomeness. Look forward to flying with you one day, first round is on me.

 

Second that, I'm just sittin back reading all like...

https://giphy.com/gifs/Zst1lWkcSgTEk/html5

 

Absolutely gotta have contract language re. software control and pairings with PBS. But if you have that, it can be pretty nice.

 

Every implementation I've seen pairings were hand-built (doesn't mean it couldn't be done). That's probably good, since an efficient pairing is probably good for both company and pilots. When it comes time to allocate pairings, that's where company interests and pilot interests diverge.

Global optimization means that PBS will need to disregard seniority to solve a Chinese puzzle to ensure rest/work rules don't create inefficiencies. Must have tight contractual language, otherwise your seniority will be respected only up to the point where PBS needs to give your trip to a junior in order maximize productivity.

 

We should probably start a new thread for this, but I'll bite.

I have quite a bit of experience with the pairing construction and PBS process at a large regional airline which I assume is close to what VX has.

First and foremost... Garbage in Garbage out! Alaska suffers from having a larger percentage of their block being shorter flights (like a regional). Virgin on the other hand has a higher percentage of the total block they fly as longer flights(Transcons, etc.). This will inherently make the pairings (and credit per duty/day) better for Virgin, and also allow pilots more days off. Listening to a VX crew member say (while true) the most junior line holder has 16 days off, isn't indicative of much. So It's a little hard to compare PBS vs Line bidding in their current forms.

That being said, there is complex software made by different companies that will build the pairings. The system works by creating a cost solution for each run you do. I am familiar with the Jeppesen System and It works by loading all flights into the system and then assigning penalties to whatever you want to avoid. You can assign a penalty for almost anything that has a cost to it. So a company will assign varying penalties to the system for obvious things like deadheads, hotel nights, soft time, or anything that costs the company they want to avoid. This gives the user the ability to assign penalties for thing they want to avoid. For example, we would assign penalties for four day pairings for some domiciles that didn't want them, or penalties for long sits to try to massage the system to not have 4 hours sits. From what I can tell looking at the Alaska pairings, it looks like they put little emphasis on anything and just let the system build the most efficient solution, possibly small penalties on pairings of certain lengths to get a good (subjective) distribution of pairing lengths. This is great for the company but not for a commuter. From my experience the most efficient solution if you assigned almost no penalties for the whole system would be five and six day parings that show early and end late. This, as one would know, would allow the system to work the pilot to absolute max and get the most work out of them. We, of course, limited the system to four days.

Looking at the Alaska lines it looks to me that they aren't built by hand. This would be an absolute waste of time when a program could build the lines. I'm also skeptical of your process. There are a few things that are quite suspect. The first thing is that theres a magic seniority in each domicile where you go from 14 to 15 days off a month which seems to be 50%. Also there seems to be the top few lines in every domicile where the best two days or most efficient pairings are hand picked to get 20-22 days off a month. The bottom end is absolutely dismal at 12 days off a month and the most inefficient trips all strung together.

There are other completely asinine rules in the contract that handicap ones productivity like having to have four 48 hours blocks off in a month. Which I understand, is protect the poor guy with only 12 days off a month, but wouldn't be needed if the lines were built by PBS.

Now on to PBS. The pairings are already built by the pairing optimizer and then put into the system for crew members to bid on. What PBS does is essentially allow you to build a line with preferences that you assign and not what someone who is cherry picking prime trips for the top 10 lines while leaving the crap for everyone else wants. Alaska system is pretty much PBS anyway except you have to spend have your month trolling the trade board looking for what you would have just bid for in the first place. It allows the person who can hold commutable trip have them, someone who wants two days have them, someone can bid two day back to back trips instead of 4 days, etc. From what I could gather the a line at Alaska is a hodgepodge of everything 4 days, 3 days, 2 days, three day back to back, there was no logic in it other than the program was screwed because it was allowing for the four 48 hour periods.

I am an advocate of PBS, as you could probably tell, but I must stress that there needs to be bullet proof language behind it. It can very easily be manipulated to the companies advantage and it is inherently better for the company, we should get something for it! I'm sure PBS is coming but there needs to be a group of people highly familiar with PBS, pairing construction, etc. that are making the rules behind it. The current scheduling group will be hard pressed to understand the nuances of PBS if their experience is with line bidding. Things like globalization, ability to manipulate the required average line credit monthly, days off between work blocks, etc. are very important.

The people who are calling for pilots to build the pairings are delusional, suspecting this would be better. What's good for you might not be good for the next guy. So careful what you wish for. Oversight yes, but a few senior people building pairings will be good for them, not you.

 

What leverage you speak of?
You guys already gave up on conflict bidding in your line bidding scheme, the one thing that made line bidding attractive!
You don’t even know apparently what you have or “really” don’t have... you have no leverage, you have a crap sandwich...😉

 

Don't blame me; I'm new here too. There's quite a lot of leverage when PBS will save the company around 10 percent in staffing requirements. I'm sure the senior guys can score an extra week of vacation for themselves with that in negotiations.

As far as conflict bidding there is one and only one thing in AS's CBA that makes you say, "wow that's cool." Pilots can trade away single vacation days to each other in order to conflict bid the days off they need. One week of vacation over xmas can be very powerful.

 

A sick call works just as well, too. It's amazing how much time off 1,600 hours will get you; not that I would know, of course.

 

We had PBS at the regionals. I can take it or leave it. In my short time at Alaska, I have learned that this management can't be trusted. It can be said of any management but these guys are the cheesiest. I remember BM saying PBS will require 10% less pilots. Tell me, how is that good for the pilot group? If history is an indicator, no solid language will prevent this management from violating the contract on a whim in order to move jets. Management wants PBS bad. Just say no.