Fdx alpa q&a
09-03-2015, 08:49 AM
#61
Banned
Joined APC: Mar 2009
Position: 757 Capt
Posts: 798
Originally Posted by Adlerdriver
Got it now. I don't claim any PBS expertise, but I'll offer my opinion based on buds at other airlines that use it and what little info I've picked up over the years.
First, IMO, PBS isn't a specific item that could be evaluated in a way to answer your question. PBS simply refers to a method of building schedules. An airline that builds schedules using that method may buy a software program from a third party that accomplishes the task or develop their own.
So, the answer to your question depends on the quality of the program FedEx might choose to replace what they currently use for secondary lines. Is it easy to use and understand? Does the resulting schedule correspond to the seniority and requests of the pilot? Impossible to answer without a specific program to evaluate.
Removing vacation buffers from the contract would obviously have to be negotiated like anything else. I'm not sure removing them from the contract would be something the company would see as a big gain. After all, the secondary pilot is only getting a one-for-one return on his vacation days and the planners have the rest of the month to use. Maybe there's more to that I'm missing.
Frankly, anything developed in the last decade would have to be better than what we currently use. A big part of the problem is there is so much mis-information out there about how to use our current system. Many pilots don't understand how it works because it's not very clear and there's very little information available. Did you know the planners actually still input each line of our secondary worksheet manually and assign an arbitrary point value to each line? Then the program runs and builds each line in order based on the point ranking. Total points for each pilot's worksheet is 1000. Oh, and it doesn't try to give everyone their number one choice. I've heard that one thrown around a lot.
Anyway, that's my .02
First, IMO, PBS isn't a specific item that could be evaluated in a way to answer your question. PBS simply refers to a method of building schedules. An airline that builds schedules using that method may buy a software program from a third party that accomplishes the task or develop their own.
So, the answer to your question depends on the quality of the program FedEx might choose to replace what they currently use for secondary lines. Is it easy to use and understand? Does the resulting schedule correspond to the seniority and requests of the pilot? Impossible to answer without a specific program to evaluate.
Removing vacation buffers from the contract would obviously have to be negotiated like anything else. I'm not sure removing them from the contract would be something the company would see as a big gain. After all, the secondary pilot is only getting a one-for-one return on his vacation days and the planners have the rest of the month to use. Maybe there's more to that I'm missing.
Frankly, anything developed in the last decade would have to be better than what we currently use. A big part of the problem is there is so much mis-information out there about how to use our current system. Many pilots don't understand how it works because it's not very clear and there's very little information available. Did you know the planners actually still input each line of our secondary worksheet manually and assign an arbitrary point value to each line? Then the program runs and builds each line in order based on the point ranking. Total points for each pilot's worksheet is 1000. Oh, and it doesn't try to give everyone their number one choice. I've heard that one thrown around a lot.
Anyway, that's my .02
The quality and integrity of the schedules produced is entirely dependent upon who controls the many switches and parameters within the program.
Anytime the word control is introduced into the FDX discussion, I think we know how that turns out for us.
Pipe
09-03-2015, 08:57 AM
#62
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
Originally Posted by pipe
I have worked under a PBS program. My spouse has worked under two of them.
The quality and integrity of the schedules produced is entirely dependent upon who controls the many switches and parameters within the program.
Anytime the word control is introduced into the FDX discussion, I think we know how that turns out for us.
Pipe
The quality and integrity of the schedules produced is entirely dependent upon who controls the many switches and parameters within the program.
Anytime the word control is introduced into the FDX discussion, I think we know how that turns out for us.
Pipe
09-03-2015, 09:35 AM
#63
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: 767 Captain
Posts: 3,988
Originally Posted by pipe
I have worked under a PBS program. My spouse has worked under two of them.
The quality and integrity of the schedules produced is entirely dependent upon who controls the many switches and parameters within the program.
Anytime the word control is introduced into the FDX discussion, I think we know how that turns out for us.
Pipe
The quality and integrity of the schedules produced is entirely dependent upon who controls the many switches and parameters within the program.
Anytime the word control is introduced into the FDX discussion, I think we know how that turns out for us.
Pipe
Simply attempting to answer a previous question. Maybe you need to go back a few posts.
I don't know enough about the secondary changes in the TA to have an opinion about that. I need interpretation because at first glance it looks like lots of stuff is TBD which doesn't seem like a good idea with this company historically.
Our current secondary process has always been AFU. If they can make it better, great. I'd just like to know exactly how before I agree to anything.
09-03-2015, 09:38 AM
#64
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2012
Posts: 711
Originally Posted by FDXLAG
But our current VTO system is 100% controlled by management.
Company: we want this and we are not going to budge.
Us: we don't like it
Two months later......
Company: we still want this and we're not going to budge, but we will give you visibility on the PBS, errrrr, secondary line program. And, anything you don't like, we will let you take it to the system board (where we get to rule on it).
Us: where do we sign, since you didn't budge, this is the best we can do.
And, there will be no LOA to vote on. We will live with a split crew force PBS system without any of the things other pilot groups have gotten. Some pilot groups control the "keys"...they can adjust the parameters.
I've seen predictions that a full PBS system is worth 40-50 productivity improvement. Rumor had it the company was offering a big raise to get it. Now we put that camel's nose under the tent for about 20% of the crew force with no vote, and no chance to fix anything for nearly a decade.
We must have gotten a giant raise to give this away with weak protective language. Oh wait, we got a COLA raise.
Vote No!
Last edited by Raptor; 09-03-2015 at 10:09 AM.
09-03-2015, 10:06 AM
#65
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
Originally Posted by Raptor
Let's be a fly on the wall in the secondary line working group:
Company: we want this and we are not going to budge.
Us: we don't like it
Two months later......
Company: we still want this and we're not going to budge, but we will give you visibility on the PBS, errrrr, secondary line program. And, anything you don't like, we will let you take it to the system board (where we get to rule on it).
Us: where do we sign, since you didn't budge, this is the best we can do.
Company: we want this and we are not going to budge.
Us: we don't like it
Two months later......
Company: we still want this and we're not going to budge, but we will give you visibility on the PBS, errrrr, secondary line program. And, anything you don't like, we will let you take it to the system board (where we get to rule on it).
Us: where do we sign, since you didn't budge, this is the best we can do.
09-03-2015, 01:34 PM
#67
Part Time Employee
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Dispersing Green House Gasses on a Global Basis
Posts: 1,918
Originally Posted by TheBaron Deux
Wow! I'm gad you're here to set us all straight. So I should ignore the email I received from my "No" voting LEC chairman about him being at our roadshow and explaining to us why he voted NO. I never trusted that guy. While I have your attention oh great seer, what is the stock market (BP Plc in particular) going to do on Monday.
Originally Posted by MaxKts
Well, I don't know what email you have been reading. I can only go by what my rep has said and he stated they are not part of the show!
To answer your question: I am unable to provide you with insider information - sorry.
To answer your question: I am unable to provide you with insider information - sorry.
You must be so important that your rep feels the need to send a personal email to you.
Are you sure your rep said he was attending or was he just mentioning the date of the roadshow?
09-03-2015, 02:50 PM
#68
Line Holder
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: MD F/O
Posts: 45
The SLR question was addressed this AM during the webinar, but it was a very vague attempt to explain a three-phased implementation plan. I know there is good intent to improve the existing VTO process, but as folks are highlighting, we should keep a watch on this LOA. We need some more fidelity from the Assn here.
09-03-2015, 05:17 PM
#69
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Position: B777
Posts: 564
Here's one you won't notice unless you read all the way thru the TA because the implementation schedule is at the end (devil details 
).
In the CBA 2006, the company was 'allowed' 6+ months for automation/implementation of the increased Rigs and many of the hidden $$ clauses. In that 6 months, they figured out how to effectively neutralize our 'gains'. How many $$ did we lose in that 'implementation' ?
In this TA, there are several areas where the company is allowed up to 18 months for automation/implementation and there are several TBDs. While many areas (notably new disruptions) will be handled manually (Bravo NC!), there are several areas where we will still be severely disadvantaged/delayed-- including several Trip Removal penalties, the new Deviation Bank Allowance, Established fare fix and 130% upgrades. Why couldn't these important QOL items also be handled manually until automated?
).In the CBA 2006, the company was 'allowed' 6+ months for automation/implementation of the increased Rigs and many of the hidden $$ clauses. In that 6 months, they figured out how to effectively neutralize our 'gains'. How many $$ did we lose in that 'implementation' ?
In this TA, there are several areas where the company is allowed up to 18 months for automation/implementation and there are several TBDs. While many areas (notably new disruptions) will be handled manually (Bravo NC!), there are several areas where we will still be severely disadvantaged/delayed-- including several Trip Removal penalties, the new Deviation Bank Allowance, Established fare fix and 130% upgrades. Why couldn't these important QOL items also be handled manually until automated?
09-03-2015, 05:48 PM
#70
Line Holder
Joined APC: Aug 2015
Position: Counting down the bid packs
Posts: 96
Originally Posted by MaxKts
Update: TBD, I have gone through all the LEC emails and I haven't found one that said they were attending a roadshow!
You must be so important that your rep feels the need to send a personal email to you.
Are you sure your rep said he was attending or was he just mentioning the date of the roadshow?
You must be so important that your rep feels the need to send a personal email to you.
Are you sure your rep said he was attending or was he just mentioning the date of the roadshow?
He said...
I was one of the four that voted against it believing that the cornerstones weren’t adequately met. Now, it is your turn! You should be receiving an electronic version early next week, followed by a hard copy. Please read it thoroughly. The ANC road show is scheduled for Sept. 16th 1200-1430, details to follow.
In my quick read, I thought he said details of his "no" vote to follow. Guess I'm not as smart as I think. At least I have my good looks.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
