The one thing QT did really well that's sort of non existent now was P2P trading and pickups.
ATTOT window is so much better now when we don't have that 12:00:01 DECS CAPACITY OVERLOAD fiesta as it used to be.

R.I.P. QuickBid, QuickTrade
 

[QUOTE=shinydiscoballs;3091046]
@shinydiscoballs ; The eLogSite guy, the QT team, this is why I do not trust pilots who are develop as a hobby. Glad you agree, hopefully a good chunk of the group does too so we can start seeing better improvements if we actually start talking about it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You were right. That is an unpopular position with me. I couldn’t care less how much the guy who created it is making. QT was a useful service that I found to be worth my money. It’s not essential or life changing, but it was worth the $5.99 (or whatever it was). I’m certain there are trips I managed to trade or pickup who’s value far exceeded any money I’ve ever paid to QT.

I don’t think the company has any contractual obligation to make CCI useful for schedule changes (I don’t think CCI is contractually required at all, but I could be wrong about that).

[QUOTE=UncreativeUser;3091050]I agree that everything that QT does IS company business and should be provided by the company. They have DECS and CCI which is horrible. Improving the way it is done would benefit the pilot and FA group, NOT the company and those improvements would have to be done by the company and paid for by the company. ENY doesn’t do ANYTHING to make employee life better, even if completely cost neutral. They sure won’t PAY to make DECS and CCI better for pilots an FAs because it won’t benefit the COMPANY.

[QUOTE=pitchattitude;3091075]MobileCCI and MobileFOS ARE improvements that the company made at their own expense. MobileCCI certainly has some benefits to the company, but there are plenty of functions on there that are purely for our benefit and do make life easier.

You never had to pay. You never had to use the app. When asked how much I made, I said she didn't have to work right now. It was nice that she could stay home with the kids. Not that she'd never have to work again. I agree that the company should make it work through CCI. Since they never did, I made it work.

This is not true. Though my refund policy has always said I'm not responsible if the company shuts it down, I have still been doing refunds if asked.

[QUOTE=But seriously;3091086]Yes, but they didn’t improve them out of the kindness of their hearts for us. They did it because they wanted to “harmonize” with AA and to help the operations and that happened to include a few useful things for us. The guys *****ing about QT costing a few bucks are ridiculous. You don’t have to use it. Quit your *****ing and move on. QT provided a service that proved very useful for the people that used it. The fact that the company killed it out of spite is what should **** everyone off. We didn’t do what they want us to and they went after us for it. What happens now that QT and such are pretty much dead? What else can they take away from us as punishment for not making changes they want? They already took away our ability to get Uber’s or taxis at airports after waiting 15 minutes. I personally know of several crews who had long waits while trying to call scheduling for a plan B. And guess what, that’s contractual and they still took it away. So it’s big picture. I’m mad and annoyed these things got taken away, but I’m even more ****ed why they got taken away.

Why has no-one complained about this then?

[QUOTE=shinydiscoballs;3091046]For one, you never HAD to pay for QT. It was always purely optional. So I don't understand the negative attitude toward QT. That said, I do agree that what QT does should be done through the company. But given the quality, or rather lack of quality, of the company apps, I have a feeling that a LOT of pilots would still pay for QT for $5 per month even if something like Mobile CCI did mostly the same functions.

FWIW, one of the biggest things I miss from QT was the email notifications (like when a new trip hits OT). I bet even if the company came up with their own version some day, it will never have that. The quick notification lets you grab the trip before someone else does. You do that once and you've paid for several years of the app with the one trip.

99% of the time, by the time you see the notification, someone else had already taken that trip. The good 6-7 hour day trips used to go in seconds, and with the way QT cached things, it was not real time anyway.

Picking up OT has been much easier lately without QT.

I know several who have said they submitted crew cares. GSO was one. They sent a single cab for 2 crews. They came back for the second crew, but not before they waited 30+ minutes.

this may be an unpopular opinion but you’re jealous at mh. Why do you care if his wife has to work or not? Good for him, too bad you probably can’t do that with your wife. If you’re really concerned about saving the company’s dime, you should probably be taking an unpaid leave of absence.

Crew Cares are not the method to dispute a contractual issue.

Anytime a hotel has told me that it’s going to be more than 20 mins, I’ve just told them I’m getting my own cab. 90% of the time the hotel pays it. The CPO has always covered the other 10%. I try not to be unreasonable. If their van is 2 minutes away, I’m not making a fuss. I’ve never had a CPO under any regime question my reimbursement.

The problem with all that was a blanket HI6 denying all reimbursement unless we have it approved via CPO or in the case of hotels, scheduling. By the time we wait the 15 and then deal with scheduling it’s 30 minutes and someone finally shows up.

HI6 does not take precedent over the contract.

^^^^ This. Neither does the company arbitrarily changing FM1.

get your cab, submit for reimbursement, and if it doesn’t get paid then submit a contract dispute in DTS. The clincher here is to make sure you have good evidence for DTS ie screen shots of when you arrived curbside with a date/time stamp, and screenshot when you called for a cab after 15 mins with your call logs showing you made attempt to contact the hotel curbside.

Where disputes fall over is lack of good evidence.

Where disputes fail is people not submitting them.

this is the unions BS line. If they weren’t sucking up, they would file a grievance that QT was the status quo. It would be easily backed up when dozens of junior pilots would affirm that the schoolhouse taught “don’t worry about it, you’ll do it all in QT.”

Well this was a weird comment, yikes...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[QUOTE=highfarfast;3091199]
Yes perhaps it was a bit harsh but at the end of the day it’s just another pilot hobbyist developer that ran off with our money. Case closed.

Getting specific, yes you never HAD to pay for it. The notifications were good but as dera said, the way it caches it wasn’t really live as most of the time those trips were gone, ATTOT has been a dream lately. However that is a good point, if one notification got you a trip it did pay for itself.

My bitterness comes from the fact that once again, I’m out X amount of dollars because the developers didn’t do research as to the consequences of what their apps were doing. They were great apps, but they started out without the blessing of the company, which means they were doomed from the start unfortunately


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[QUOTE=UncreativeUser;3091484]He already said he’d refund you if you asked.

[QUOTE=But seriously;3091497]
He never got back to me, I paid through Pay Pal so maybe apparently it’s a done deal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

BS line, really? You are clueless man.
You can not file a grievance over a "status quo" violation over something that has a) never been status quo and b) that is not in the scope of the contract. You need to read some RLA before you spew that garbage in here.
The company allowing an unauthorized app to sneak in DECS is not, and never was, status quo, nor is or can it be protected by the RLA. This is not a contractual dispute, this is AAG data security. An arbitrator would laugh at this grievance. That would be $20k of your dues money well spent. Not.

100% agree. Also, the guys in the school house always told me to learn the Sabre guide, not to rely on QT.

QT was a conduit between the user and Sabre, a system that they never truly had access to. Which means, while AAG pays for each employee to have their login info, QT piggybacks those credentials and was making money off of AAG. That’s how they’re going to view it, regardless if it had great intentions for the pilot group. It was never official.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[QUOTE=But seriously;3091497]I don't know why my username is tied to that post. I never said any of that.

Edit: looks like some APC issue because it did the same to this post.

I think you miss what defines the term status quo in this context. Even things outside the contract can become status quo, which is the reason the company wants pilots to grieve things the company does that violates that contract, so it doesn’t become the status quo

[QUOTE=highfarfast;3091568]
Yeah I don’t know how I did that, I’m sorry! Probably just an APC glitch.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You are getting things mixed up pretty badly.
You are talking about past practice. Status quo is something completely different.

QT is not past practice, because it has no contractual role. Past practice is for interpretations and applications of the CBA. QuickTrade did not even exist when the CBA was ratified.
QT is not status quo, because removing it did not materially change pay, hours or working conditions.

I flew with MH a lot back in the day before my upgrade. Even though I could never understand why he sat weirdly cross legged in the seat at cruise, I did see him busting his hump on overnights putting out fires, replying to troubleshooting questions, and rewriting code x 500 instances a trip (exaggeration for effect) to make the app work causing undo stress to himself and his family for the betterment of the entire pilot group. That’s what the $5.99 a month paid for.

Perhaps if said individuals were more worried about satisfying their wife than jody’ing up on someone else’s the matter of budgeting for $5.99 per month would not be a issue. Where was all this whining pre covid when you were gobbling up OT trips via the app while your misses was gobbling up Jody? Stay frosty. #GwotTrapLordz

I am pretty amazed at some of the responses in this thread. I mean, some of you are actively bashing the guy for being an entrepreneur and doing something good for the pilot group.

As for the status quo comments, I mean for me it changed the status qua because it has fundamentally made my job harder, less financially rewarding and far more of a hassle. I understand what you are saying dera but I can see why people would get it confused.

Sabre and Decs are antiquated systems and QT simply did what AA has done to all the gate computers, put an easy to use graphical interface over top the ancient sabre. I get it, you can learn it, but there are certainly better things I would rather do in my free time.

Thanks to MH, I for one greatly miss your product and really appreciate not only your hard work but also your drive to better yourself, your family and our lives. Good on you.

Im just trying to point out the union doesn't have an official leg to stand on with this. Calling the reps names or saying it's a BS line won't change that fact.
No. The NMB wont let you strike over QT. Thats what status quo violation would mean. And since it operated outside the scope of our CBA, it is not a past practice violation either.
Would I like to see QT back? Yes. Can I live without it? Absolutely. Do I like getting crap for it's removal? Couldn't really give a damn.

Actually if you go back through DTS, there’s quite a few past practice disputes won in the pilot group favor that don’t appear in the CBA.

This issue is like a hacker suing Microsoft when they patch a bug, claiming in the past they allowed unauthorized access.
You can't arbitrate unauthorized access and claim it must be allowed.
Like I said earlier, the first official opportunity to discuss this is during the limited reopener.
It does not seem to be very high priority for our pilots.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. There’s enough company material pushing the use of QT the last few years to make a case.

Point out to some, I can't find anything official.
Only things I can find are the exact opposite.

You’re not looking hard enough.

Probably harder than most.

Ask anyone hired within the last 12 months. The schoolhouse answer in our 10 minutes DECS class was “don’t worry about all of this, you’ll use QT anyway”. Maybe that doesn’t meet the threshold of status quo in your opinion, but that was being taught in the schoolhouse...and there were only a couple of instructors “teaching DECS”. Teaching in the schoolhouse, at least to a new hire, gives the impression of company approved

Status quo violations mean major disputes serious enough that the NMB would authorize a strike over it.
It is not my opinion. It is a fact.
There is also a Supreme Court case saying effectively that status quo does not apply to things that weren't there when the CBA was negotiated.
QT wasn't there when CBA was negotiated.
But this is just a BS line while you know, sucking up.