Hey, 2 days prior to Bid close and no BIDX ac
09-10-2014, 10:40 PM
#21
done, gone skiing
Joined APC: May 2005
Position: Rocking chair
Posts: 1,601
Originally Posted by bidxguy
Ok, here's the deal. Had a new email from someone in IT today. Seems they had a problem with the Fare Data system over the weekend. Partially due to a large number of requests for full data....................
09-11-2014, 06:21 AM
#22
Ok, No more sleeping Dog
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: MD-11, F/O
Posts: 889
Well, since getting accepted fares was historically never a problem (but it is now), and since the accepted fare data weighs heavily in most of our monthly bids, perhaps its time to let Management know how displeased we are with yet another layer of hassle and "Un-Transparency" THEY have laid upon us. If this issue means something to you (as does the termination of the travel link for booking deviations) then send a pilot ops report expressing your displeasure. I am......
09-11-2014, 06:59 AM
#23
Line Holder
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Posts: 83
Not that I don't disagree that they have some serious IT issues, as this was never a problem in the past, I am hesitant to recommend anyone create a huge issue over this. A person in IT emailed me (proactively), explained the problem (likely not within his control), and said a solution was in the works. Furthermore, he asked me to weigh in on what my requirements were so that BidX could continue to utilize accepted fares in the future. In short, at least one small branch of IT is being very cooperative. I'd hate for any action to hinder that cooperation.
09-11-2014, 07:45 AM
#24
Organizational Learning
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: Directly behind the combiner
Posts: 4,948
Originally Posted by FLMD11CAPT
... perhaps its time to let Management know how displeased we are with yet another layer of hassle and "Un-Transparency" THEY have laid upon us. If this issue means something to you ...
Should we apply the "What affects one of us affects all of us" rule, or the "It only happened to two guys" rule?
.
09-11-2014, 08:08 AM
#25
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
Originally Posted by TonyC
I'm trying to decide if I should get as worked up about this as you did about 2 Flex Instructors being denied wide-body pay when they were awarded wide-body R-24 lines. Since this doesn't directly affect me ...
Should we apply the "What affects one of us affects all of us" rule, or the "It only happened to two guys" (this month) rule?
Should we apply the "What affects one of us affects all of us" rule, or the "It only happened to two guys" (this month) rule?
09-11-2014, 08:51 AM
#26
Ok, No more sleeping Dog
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: MD-11, F/O
Posts: 889
Originally Posted by TonyC
I'm trying to decide if I should get as worked up about this as you did about 2 Flex Instructors being denied wide-body pay when they were awarded wide-body R-24 lines. Since this doesn't directly affect me ...
Should we apply the "What affects one of us affects all of us" rule, or the "It only happened to two guys" rule?
.
Should we apply the "What affects one of us affects all of us" rule, or the "It only happened to two guys" rule?
.
09-11-2014, 10:00 AM
#28
Organizational Learning
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: Directly behind the combiner
Posts: 4,948
Originally Posted by FLMD11CAPT
Tony, nowhere have I said I'm not "worked up" about the flex guys situation. Thread creep aside, you are kinda creeping me out by your off thread topic post here.......
The hypocrisy is rich -- I didn't think I'd have to explain it to you.
For the record, I think we all should be concerned about the capricious changes made to the system we use to obtain information critical to monthly bidding. As much as it affects any of us, it affects all of us.
In addition to PORs, we should be e-mailing our Block Reps, Local Council Officers, and Contract Enforcement and the Negotiating Committee to voice our concerns.
.
