PBS
12-24-2018, 10:40 AM
#23
On Reserve
Joined APC: Nov 2018
Position: 320 Capt.
Posts: 20
PBS
It will be interesting to see what schedules are produced by PBS and pairing software at a point to point airline with so little city frequency.
Since PBS seeks a "global solution" to cost savings, placing limits on unstacking simply hobbles a very expensive software package from doing its intended job. This is a mathematical fact. The same principal applies to the actual construction of the trips.
I can not see a favorable argument in arbitration which would put the pilots in a position to claim Delta or another more hub central airline does it, so Frontier must do it also. A company representative could simply run the solution and demonstrate the costs of unstacking limits, etc., for the arbitrator. The burden would then be on a pilot representative to argue the company must sacrifice money to keep pilot schedules more palatable. That's a tough argument to make.
As far as ALPA running the software, it may matter some as the interest would be hopefully more keen. From Crew Scheduling, if I were Pat Ryan I wouldn't care much. What matters in the end is that the company has hours to be flown and they will hand these hours to ALPA to make it happen. Then we are back to that tough argument.
Since flying FAR's is now a "given" for some reason in contract negotiations, and we don't really trust our crew schedulers to modify any software parameters except for FAR's and contractual exemptions, the trips and schedules produced by the most modern and therefore most powerful software ever used in the industry will be a matter of fascination to all those well versed in the cost saving discussions which take place at those industry seminars which pilot reps are never invited to attend.
An interesting experiment indeed. I can't imagine how pilots will argue against "operational necessity" and cost saving to an arbitrator.
Good Luck.
Since PBS seeks a "global solution" to cost savings, placing limits on unstacking simply hobbles a very expensive software package from doing its intended job. This is a mathematical fact. The same principal applies to the actual construction of the trips.
I can not see a favorable argument in arbitration which would put the pilots in a position to claim Delta or another more hub central airline does it, so Frontier must do it also. A company representative could simply run the solution and demonstrate the costs of unstacking limits, etc., for the arbitrator. The burden would then be on a pilot representative to argue the company must sacrifice money to keep pilot schedules more palatable. That's a tough argument to make.
As far as ALPA running the software, it may matter some as the interest would be hopefully more keen. From Crew Scheduling, if I were Pat Ryan I wouldn't care much. What matters in the end is that the company has hours to be flown and they will hand these hours to ALPA to make it happen. Then we are back to that tough argument.
Since flying FAR's is now a "given" for some reason in contract negotiations, and we don't really trust our crew schedulers to modify any software parameters except for FAR's and contractual exemptions, the trips and schedules produced by the most modern and therefore most powerful software ever used in the industry will be a matter of fascination to all those well versed in the cost saving discussions which take place at those industry seminars which pilot reps are never invited to attend.
An interesting experiment indeed. I can't imagine how pilots will argue against "operational necessity" and cost saving to an arbitrator.
Good Luck.
12-24-2018, 11:10 AM
#24
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2017
Posts: 453
Originally Posted by PorkandBeans
It will be interesting to see what schedules are produced by PBS and pairing software at a point to point airline with so little city frequency.
Since PBS seeks a "global solution" to cost savings, placing limits on unstacking simply hobbles a very expensive software package from doing its intended job. This is a mathematical fact. The same principal applies to the actual construction of the trips.
I can not see a favorable argument in arbitration which would put the pilots in a position to claim Delta or another more hub central airline does it, so Frontier must do it also. A company representative could simply run the solution and demonstrate the costs of unstacking limits, etc., for the arbitrator. The burden would then be on a pilot representative to argue the company must sacrifice money to keep pilot schedules more palatable. That's a tough argument to make.
As far as ALPA running the software, it may matter some as the interest would be hopefully more keen. From Crew Scheduling, if I were Pat Ryan I wouldn't care much. What matters in the end is that the company has hours to be flown and they will hand these hours to ALPA to make it happen. Then we are back to that tough argument.
Since flying FAR's is now a "given" for some reason in contract negotiations, and we don't really trust our crew schedulers to modify any software parameters except for FAR's and contractual exemptions, the trips and schedules produced by the most modern and therefore most powerful software ever used in the industry will be a matter of fascination to all those well versed in the cost saving discussions which take place at those industry seminars which pilot reps are never invited to attend.
An interesting experiment indeed. I can't imagine how pilots will argue against "operational necessity" and cost saving to an arbitrator.
Good Luck.
Since PBS seeks a "global solution" to cost savings, placing limits on unstacking simply hobbles a very expensive software package from doing its intended job. This is a mathematical fact. The same principal applies to the actual construction of the trips.
I can not see a favorable argument in arbitration which would put the pilots in a position to claim Delta or another more hub central airline does it, so Frontier must do it also. A company representative could simply run the solution and demonstrate the costs of unstacking limits, etc., for the arbitrator. The burden would then be on a pilot representative to argue the company must sacrifice money to keep pilot schedules more palatable. That's a tough argument to make.
As far as ALPA running the software, it may matter some as the interest would be hopefully more keen. From Crew Scheduling, if I were Pat Ryan I wouldn't care much. What matters in the end is that the company has hours to be flown and they will hand these hours to ALPA to make it happen. Then we are back to that tough argument.
Since flying FAR's is now a "given" for some reason in contract negotiations, and we don't really trust our crew schedulers to modify any software parameters except for FAR's and contractual exemptions, the trips and schedules produced by the most modern and therefore most powerful software ever used in the industry will be a matter of fascination to all those well versed in the cost saving discussions which take place at those industry seminars which pilot reps are never invited to attend.
An interesting experiment indeed. I can't imagine how pilots will argue against "operational necessity" and cost saving to an arbitrator.
Good Luck.
12-27-2018, 01:04 AM
#28
Hold my beer, watch this.
Joined APC: Aug 2012
Position: Airbus Pilot
Posts: 246
Originally Posted by Wheelswatch
I've thought a lot about this too, I think these concerns are extremely valid. Do you think a future 200 some odd airframes makes PBS work any better, point to point notwithstanding?
12-27-2018, 01:05 AM
#29
Hold my beer, watch this.
Joined APC: Aug 2012
Position: Airbus Pilot
Posts: 246
Originally Posted by PorkandBeans
Since PBS seeks a "global solution" to cost savings, placing limits on unstacking simply hobbles a very expensive software package from doing its intended job. This is a mathematical fact. The same principal applies to the actual construction of the trips.
12-29-2018, 11:13 AM
#30
On Reserve
Joined APC: Nov 2018
Position: 320 Capt.
Posts: 20
I think it is important not to mix terms regarding PBS. The software companies sell the idea of "all of the airline trips will be covered". No trips will be dropped away from the needs of the airline. This is important and was the original wording of a "global solution" to crew scheduling.
As the concept developed and an alarming number of software vendors
"got into the act', so to speak, there came a more refined glossary of terms. There's not much need to differentiate the below description, except to realize the obvious imperative under "Pilot Centric" (a tricky sales term which really does not amount to much more than that), which is
"Bid importance takes a back seat to system needs."
As described by the ALPA explanation below, the PBS software covers all the airline needs, but the way the line is awarded to each pilot has been narrowed in a different way, making it more important to bid your schedule with more details in mind.
Pilot-centric vs. Global Solution
The NavBlue PBS system is designed around a pilot-centric bid philosophy, as opposed to the global solution philosophy of some other products.
Pilot-centric (seniority) philosophy: The software works a pilots bid in order, attempting to honor as much of his/her bid as possible. Bid order is important. The higher up a bid preference is placed, the more important that item is to the individual pilot.
Global solution philosophy: The software works by taking the pilots bid as a whole and places pairings based on the needs of the software over the importance of the bid order of the individual pilot. Bid order is less important.
Bid importance takes a back seat to system needs.
Because the NavBlue PBS system is pilot-centric based, it is very important to structure your bid properly to achieve your desired results. The system is 100% computer operated with no human interaction. As such, there is no room for interpretation or “what I meant” types of bids.
Bid Categories
Every command within PBS falls into 1 of 4 categories.
1. Global Commands: Global commands are overall commands geared toward the month as a whole.
Minimum days off in a row.
Minimum base layover requirements.
Waive instructions.
2. Negative Conditions: Negative conditions tell the software the types of pairings you don’t want it to award you.
Prefer off dates.
Avoid commands.
3. Positive Conditions: Positive conditions tell the software the types of pairings you want it to award you.
4. Instructions: These commands provide additional instructions to the software on how to process your bid.
Forget / Redo conditions.
All or Nothing date requests.
Start next bid group commands.
As the concept developed and an alarming number of software vendors
"got into the act', so to speak, there came a more refined glossary of terms. There's not much need to differentiate the below description, except to realize the obvious imperative under "Pilot Centric" (a tricky sales term which really does not amount to much more than that), which is
"Bid importance takes a back seat to system needs."
As described by the ALPA explanation below, the PBS software covers all the airline needs, but the way the line is awarded to each pilot has been narrowed in a different way, making it more important to bid your schedule with more details in mind.
Pilot-centric vs. Global Solution
The NavBlue PBS system is designed around a pilot-centric bid philosophy, as opposed to the global solution philosophy of some other products.
Pilot-centric (seniority) philosophy: The software works a pilots bid in order, attempting to honor as much of his/her bid as possible. Bid order is important. The higher up a bid preference is placed, the more important that item is to the individual pilot.
Global solution philosophy: The software works by taking the pilots bid as a whole and places pairings based on the needs of the software over the importance of the bid order of the individual pilot. Bid order is less important.
Bid importance takes a back seat to system needs.
Because the NavBlue PBS system is pilot-centric based, it is very important to structure your bid properly to achieve your desired results. The system is 100% computer operated with no human interaction. As such, there is no room for interpretation or “what I meant” types of bids.
Bid Categories
Every command within PBS falls into 1 of 4 categories.
1. Global Commands: Global commands are overall commands geared toward the month as a whole.
Minimum days off in a row.
Minimum base layover requirements.
Waive instructions.
2. Negative Conditions: Negative conditions tell the software the types of pairings you don’t want it to award you.
Prefer off dates.
Avoid commands.
3. Positive Conditions: Positive conditions tell the software the types of pairings you want it to award you.
4. Instructions: These commands provide additional instructions to the software on how to process your bid.
Forget / Redo conditions.
All or Nothing date requests.
Start next bid group commands.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
