This is why DALPA needed to utilize C19’s full API access to feed data to an automated enforcement tool yesterday. ACE 2.0 would have enabled this, but the MEC chose to trip over dollars to save pennies.

 

Just heard about this from a buddy who includes his FO’s and was told they have to make their own case for it now.

 

STS is ours, ACE was not.

STS will have much more capability then ACE could have had

 

Future potential of an app is like runway behind you and altitude above you. The current capabilities of ACE were worth the price of admission until STS was capable.

 

ACE was all manual.

Well ACE 2.0 was going to have... Well it didn't

 

I’ll just be the witch- ACE sucked.

STS is getting there. Never liked ACE from the start and 5S was a pain to send bug reports to.

I just got used to using it.

ACE was not ready for prime time in the auto features. Not sure who your contact is that thinks ACE was awesome but they didn’t use it much I would guess.

 

The MEC turned down purchasing ACE outright for far less than they have spent ‘developing’ STS.

You sure about that?

Look this horse is dead, so not trying to ‘pull off the sc@b’. It will forever pizz me off how absolutely dirty the MEC admin did ACE. And how they lied to us about what it was capable of, and when. Auto ID was turned on as a middle finger on the way out the door, and had been available for over a year.

 

Buried in your posts are some good points. RR pay is complicated and it would be nice if it was easier to calculate. Waiting on hold for 2-3 hrs during an IROP to talk to a live scheduler is a burden.

However, if you had a rotation go from 3 to 4 days and you're not happy with the RR pay you got might want to recalculate (I know, the horror) and check the Co's work. Even the most basic RR going into another day should pay handsomely. And, I too, sometimes bid for a trip for a specific layover. It's nice to fly a trip as built. It's also nice to earn an additional 5-10 hours of pay to often do less work but not go where I bid. That's one, two, etc. less days I have to work the next month.

Being upset that it's 'hard' to make the Co follow our contactable and noncontactable provisions seems like you're missing the forest for the trees. At a previous carrier we were on a constant 10 hr leash with a Co provided device while on a layover. It was certainly easy. They sent a message at any time saying, you're going into rest now and you had to acknowledge.

Our rules protect our layover QOL and are hard fought and we should not give them up out of a desire for convience. New ideas and perspectives are good, but maybe take a minute to listen to those pilots that have been here for a bit longer than you.

 

And there's a reason that happened.

 

icrew should have a check box allowing for exactly this type of volunteerism when reporting for a trip. If the capt also checks the box then to the top of the reroute volunteer list you go! Skeds could then abide by a new coverage step that says use this crew first if able. Enjoy your rrpy and the others can enjoy their planned layover. Winning.

(Yes yes of course Sked’s (or rather tracking) will want to consider downstream effects of using this volunteer crew but at least it’s another useful layer of schedule protection)