FDX Open Time
11-02-2012, 07:14 PM
#11
Line Holder
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: MD F/O
Posts: 45
"Open Time" -- Not Really
Company historically leads the industry with innovative IT solutions and Express spends significant time/effort/monies on gadgets such as HUDs, EFBs, new Webmail and possibly iPads to enhance the operation, yet Express refuses to garner open time (real time) trip trading capability to increase efficiencies that benefit both aircrew QOL and scheduling effectiveness/efficiency. CRS operates behind some Wizard of Oz curtain and is not seemingly accountable to Flight Management. From what I see, the SCP and Fleet Captains appear to have little influence with key scheduling processes—consistent VTO construction that ignores aircrew input, scheduling errors that violate contract provisions, scheduling actions that leverage contract ambiguity, et al.
When compared to the majority of other airlines trip trading standards, FDX open time “trip trading” is an inefficient, onerous, archaic process with limited credibility. Exactly what parameters generate “Insufficient Reserve” trade rejection? Why do I receive an “Insufficient Reserve” rejection when attempting a trade into the very same trip footprint or a longer trip that extends beyond the footprint? Wouldn’t the latter benefit the existing reserve situation? Why do I seem to always receive “Disapproved—Earlier Time Stamp” after an extended wait, and the trip was assigned to a make-up recipient vice someone trading between two trips? Did they wait for the make-up request to minimize the impact on reserves? How do you explain the unusual number of charter/XTRA parings that are consistent or repetitive in specific calendars? Where is the transparency in these processes?
Twenty years ago at a different airline, I hit the enter button and my trade was either immediately executed or immediately denied with a clear explanation. Exactly what control or manipulation is required to be maintained with the current FDX “trip trading” system? FDX really does not have “open time trip trading” available to aircrew; it is a bid line adjustment request lobbed over a nebulous curtain to be considered by a scheduler du jour without transparent auditing. The CRS stovepipe has not been read into the Just Culture apparently, nor are they accountable to the initiative advocates.
Not to worry though…we have been assured that it is a hot-ticket item on the NC’s radar—for the past few years I believe….
When compared to the majority of other airlines trip trading standards, FDX open time “trip trading” is an inefficient, onerous, archaic process with limited credibility. Exactly what parameters generate “Insufficient Reserve” trade rejection? Why do I receive an “Insufficient Reserve” rejection when attempting a trade into the very same trip footprint or a longer trip that extends beyond the footprint? Wouldn’t the latter benefit the existing reserve situation? Why do I seem to always receive “Disapproved—Earlier Time Stamp” after an extended wait, and the trip was assigned to a make-up recipient vice someone trading between two trips? Did they wait for the make-up request to minimize the impact on reserves? How do you explain the unusual number of charter/XTRA parings that are consistent or repetitive in specific calendars? Where is the transparency in these processes?
Twenty years ago at a different airline, I hit the enter button and my trade was either immediately executed or immediately denied with a clear explanation. Exactly what control or manipulation is required to be maintained with the current FDX “trip trading” system? FDX really does not have “open time trip trading” available to aircrew; it is a bid line adjustment request lobbed over a nebulous curtain to be considered by a scheduler du jour without transparent auditing. The CRS stovepipe has not been read into the Just Culture apparently, nor are they accountable to the initiative advocates.
Not to worry though…we have been assured that it is a hot-ticket item on the NC’s radar—for the past few years I believe….
11-02-2012, 08:45 PM
#13
Line Holder
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: MD10/11 Capt
Posts: 57
Originally Posted by Gunter
Great post.
One clarification - Scheduling is absolutely not accountable to flight ops. They are a different department. GOC and jumpseats are also not accountable to flight ops.
One clarification - Scheduling is absolutely not accountable to flight ops. They are a different department. GOC and jumpseats are also not accountable to flight ops.
Of the departments you have listed, only GOCC is not under the AOD umbrella. GOC was formed in the early 90s by combining Flight Control (aka dispatch) and Systems Control (aka service recovery). Systems Control was under the CSSD (Central Support Services Division), Flight Control was under AOD. Sr. VP T.W. that dealing with ALPA 1 was filling his plate, so when the reorg was approved he allowed the newly formed GOC to be assigned to CSSD Sr. VP M.A.T.
As stated previously, Crew Scheduling and Jumpseats remained under the AOD umbrella.
11-02-2012, 09:12 PM
#14
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: 767 Trunk Monkey
Posts: 562
Originally Posted by Kolohe
Company historically leads the industry with innovative IT solutions and Express spends significant time/effort/monies on gadgets such as HUDs, EFBs, new Webmail and possibly iPads to enhance the operation, yet Express refuses to garner open time (real time) trip trading capability to increase efficiencies that benefit both aircrew QOL and scheduling effectiveness/efficiency. CRS operates behind some Wizard of Oz curtain and is not seemingly accountable to Flight Management. From what I see, the SCP and Fleet Captains appear to have little influence with key scheduling processes—consistent VTO construction that ignores aircrew input, scheduling errors that violate contract provisions, scheduling actions that leverage contract ambiguity, et al.
When compared to the majority of other airlines trip trading standards, FDX open time “trip trading” is an inefficient, onerous, archaic process with limited credibility. Exactly what parameters generate “Insufficient Reserve” trade rejection? Why do I receive an “Insufficient Reserve” rejection when attempting a trade into the very same trip footprint or a longer trip that extends beyond the footprint? Wouldn’t the latter benefit the existing reserve situation? Why do I seem to always receive “Disapproved—Earlier Time Stamp” after an extended wait, and the trip was assigned to a make-up recipient vice someone trading between two trips? Did they wait for the make-up request to minimize the impact on reserves? How do you explain the unusual number of charter/XTRA parings that are consistent or repetitive in specific calendars? Where is the transparency in these processes?
Twenty years ago at a different airline, I hit the enter button and my trade was either immediately executed or immediately denied with a clear explanation. Exactly what control or manipulation is required to be maintained with the current FDX “trip trading” system? FDX really does not have “open time trip trading” available to aircrew; it is a bid line adjustment request lobbed over a nebulous curtain to be considered by a scheduler du jour without transparent auditing. The CRS stovepipe has not been read into the Just Culture apparently, nor are they accountable to the initiative advocates.
Not to worry though…we have been assured that it is a hot-ticket item on the NC’s radar—for the past few years I believe….
When compared to the majority of other airlines trip trading standards, FDX open time “trip trading” is an inefficient, onerous, archaic process with limited credibility. Exactly what parameters generate “Insufficient Reserve” trade rejection? Why do I receive an “Insufficient Reserve” rejection when attempting a trade into the very same trip footprint or a longer trip that extends beyond the footprint? Wouldn’t the latter benefit the existing reserve situation? Why do I seem to always receive “Disapproved—Earlier Time Stamp” after an extended wait, and the trip was assigned to a make-up recipient vice someone trading between two trips? Did they wait for the make-up request to minimize the impact on reserves? How do you explain the unusual number of charter/XTRA parings that are consistent or repetitive in specific calendars? Where is the transparency in these processes?
Twenty years ago at a different airline, I hit the enter button and my trade was either immediately executed or immediately denied with a clear explanation. Exactly what control or manipulation is required to be maintained with the current FDX “trip trading” system? FDX really does not have “open time trip trading” available to aircrew; it is a bid line adjustment request lobbed over a nebulous curtain to be considered by a scheduler du jour without transparent auditing. The CRS stovepipe has not been read into the Just Culture apparently, nor are they accountable to the initiative advocates.
Not to worry though…we have been assured that it is a hot-ticket item on the NC’s radar—for the past few years I believe….
11-03-2012, 03:23 AM
#17
Line Holder
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: MD F/O
Posts: 45
CRS Umbrage
Originally Posted by 9ESOCCFI
Hey folks. As a scheduler I am willing to trade jobs with you anytime. You name the date.
Interesting you choose to address a “job swap” vice counter/clarify the assertions made in previous posts highlighting CRS’ process deficiencies. Telling. Perhaps you can provide some insight into CRS open-time trading practices and VTO input consideration to provide clarity.
11-03-2012, 04:00 AM
#18
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,229
Originally Posted by 9ESOCCFI
Hey folks. As a scheduler I am willing to trade jobs with you anytime. You name the date.
11-03-2012, 04:34 AM
#19
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: moving target
Posts: 385
Originally Posted by Huck
OK.... the date that I start a four-leg PANC-KEWR trail of tears..... I'll sit in Memphis, drink coffee and say "no" and you can get 4 hours of sleep a day for a week.
now that's dang funny!!
11-03-2012, 05:33 AM
#20
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,931
Originally Posted by A300jetflyer
Gunter,
Of the departments you have listed, only GOCC is not under the AOD umbrella. GOC was formed in the early 90s by combining Flight Control (aka dispatch) and Systems Control (aka service recovery). Systems Control was under the CSSD (Central Support Services Division), Flight Control was under AOD. Sr. VP T.W. that dealing with ALPA 1 was filling his plate, so when the reorg was approved he allowed the newly formed GOC to be assigned to CSSD Sr. VP M.A.T.
As stated previously, Crew Scheduling and Jumpseats remained under the AOD umbrella.
Of the departments you have listed, only GOCC is not under the AOD umbrella. GOC was formed in the early 90s by combining Flight Control (aka dispatch) and Systems Control (aka service recovery). Systems Control was under the CSSD (Central Support Services Division), Flight Control was under AOD. Sr. VP T.W. that dealing with ALPA 1 was filling his plate, so when the reorg was approved he allowed the newly formed GOC to be assigned to CSSD Sr. VP M.A.T.
As stated previously, Crew Scheduling and Jumpseats remained under the AOD umbrella.
I was thinking about who is accountable to PC/BM, the only supervision that interfaces with us.
JP is head of AOD, right? I really don't think the other departments allow feedback from the System Chief Pilot / Overall Fleet Captain.
Last edited by Gunter; 11-03-2012 at 05:45 AM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
