Give it a break Carl
Pleaseeeeeeeeee

 

Not if you can't operate them profitably due to an inefficient/outdated operation. Some savy newcomer will come in and clean our pockets if we can't adapt.

 

The DAL-S guys aren't knocking those with a "fresh look", it's that Delta, like any big company has lots and lots of computer systems that are very integrated. You can't just switch one part of the system and think everything else is going to work.

The software that us pilot use (Icrew, ACARS, whatever they use in scheduling, and TravelNet) is just a few of the *hundreds* in use at this company. We can't just unilaterally switch from one scheduling software to the other without making sure that it's cost effective, doesn't disrupt the operation and can still talk to all those other systems out there.

It doesn't work if they pick the ex-NWA ACARS system so that pilots can look up their commuter flight home if the engine parameters can't be automatically sent to the computer system that MX uses.

 

On a different note has anyone seen the artists rendering of the "new" JFK ter-minal?

 

Some of the many issue that come with being as big as we are. Recognize is and then deal with it as best as you can. Alfa gave a great synopsis of the issue with the programs and what we choose. Read it again.

I also believe that our management as recently as yesterdays weekly update is not just hearing you, but telling you how they are working to fix the issues. They used the fuel for determining etp's to illustrate the decisions involved to get to the end user product, which in this case is less fuel on arrival. As you can see, from this one little example. It is not just a plug and go fix.

I say identify the issues you see, report them, and as with the extra fuel being carried they will fix them as quickly as they can. Yes, the list is long, but each issue involves a complicated decision tree and many answers. They are looking for not just the best answer but the least costly. I expect that of my leadership, don't you?

 

Firstmob, yes it looks nice.

 

Yes, provided the cost structure is based on long term analysis.

 

It almost always is. I think you know that.

 

I am talking about the actual database structure and set-up. It isn't as simple as adding a few more subsets and datafields.

IT had to be an adopt and go strategy because you can't just make the two systems talk to each other (it would take nearly as long to do this as to just develop a new customized it backbone and reporting structure). I don't really like SAP, (very limited experience) and would prefer a customized wholly owned solution but this is very expensive to develop and maintain.

I agree that it is about usability and productivity and flight ops is not the only user of the system.

 

Yes, SAP is ridged, but it costs a lot less to develop and patch existing software than to design, develop and implement a new it backbone. It costs less and actually takes less time to do it the way they have decided to do it.