|
[QUOTE=highfarfast;3091199]
Originally Posted by shinydiscoballs
(Post 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. 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]
Originally Posted by highfarfast
(Post 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=But seriously;3091497]
Originally Posted by UncreativeUser
(Post 3091484)
He already said he’d refund you if you asked. 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 |
Originally Posted by AV8R72
(Post 3091442)
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.”
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. |
Originally Posted by dera
(Post 3091521)
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]
Originally Posted by UncreativeUser
(Post 3091484)
He already said he’d refund you if you asked. Edit: looks like some APC issue because it did the same to this post. |
Originally Posted by dera
(Post 3091521)
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.
Originally Posted by UncreativeUser
(Post 3091549)
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=highfarfast;3091568]
Originally Posted by But seriously
(Post 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. Yeah I don’t know how I did that, I’m sorry! Probably just an APC glitch. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
Originally Posted by AV8R72
(Post 3091616)
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
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 |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:23 AM. |
User Alert System provided by
Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Website Copyright ©2000 - 2017 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands