Scheduling Committee?????
05-30-2005, 10:24 AM
#5
Guest
Posts: n/a
Scheduling Committee
There is a movement to move pairing construction (the AOS program) from the committee, where it is run by Kevin Kelly, to Crew Services. CS would run the program with input and oversight from the committee. Not sure if that is what will happen. Probably will be some changes in the composition of the scheduling committee soon.
05-30-2005, 08:45 PM
#6
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2005
Position: A320 FO
Posts: 157
So far, I have not been very happy over the last few years with the pairing construction from KK (remember he's in charge of the pairing construction). But I also don't want Crew Services running the pairing construction either. KK has been too bias toward FLL and Crew Services would build the most unproductive pairings seen to date.
Why do I say Crew Services will build the worst pairings seen to date? Well, you see, the perfect schedule for Crew Services would be for each pilot to only 4-5 hours per day, with everyone working 16-18 days a month. Why? Everyone will still fly 80-90 hours per month (because they have to, to survive on our pay scale). This will not require more pilots, but it will result in more pilots being at base each day (because it will take 30-50% more pilots to fly the same number of hours each day). Each and every one of these pilots will have lots of duty day and rest and never time-out early or go illegal for the next days trip. Every pilot will then be available to be "junior manned" to help with IROPS for 1 or even 2 legs (depending on the leg). It is the perfect schedule for Crew Services and a nightmare for pilots! Plus we have no rig or daily guarantee to force productivity in the schedules. We will become servants with no quality life. Plus, it will solve the reserve problems we currently have. No need to increase reserves, just junior man as many pilots you need to fix the schedule. Just plain scary!
I would much rather have a group of pilot(s) building the pairigns than Crew Services. However I think this group of pilots should be like our Asst Cheif pilots. Removed from the bidding process, so that they are not influenced by the fact that they are directly affecting their own schedule. They should not have a dog in the race if they make the schedule. They should get their 90hrs per month (just like Asst Chief Pilots), but fly a minimum number of trips/days per month with trips assigned by Crew Services from opentime the day prior (like a reserve augmentee). That way no bias on the pairings, and we keep pilots in charge of the pairings.
If Crew Services starts building the pairings, watch out!
Just my opinion....
FNG
Why do I say Crew Services will build the worst pairings seen to date? Well, you see, the perfect schedule for Crew Services would be for each pilot to only 4-5 hours per day, with everyone working 16-18 days a month. Why? Everyone will still fly 80-90 hours per month (because they have to, to survive on our pay scale). This will not require more pilots, but it will result in more pilots being at base each day (because it will take 30-50% more pilots to fly the same number of hours each day). Each and every one of these pilots will have lots of duty day and rest and never time-out early or go illegal for the next days trip. Every pilot will then be available to be "junior manned" to help with IROPS for 1 or even 2 legs (depending on the leg). It is the perfect schedule for Crew Services and a nightmare for pilots! Plus we have no rig or daily guarantee to force productivity in the schedules. We will become servants with no quality life. Plus, it will solve the reserve problems we currently have. No need to increase reserves, just junior man as many pilots you need to fix the schedule. Just plain scary!
I would much rather have a group of pilot(s) building the pairigns than Crew Services. However I think this group of pilots should be like our Asst Cheif pilots. Removed from the bidding process, so that they are not influenced by the fact that they are directly affecting their own schedule. They should not have a dog in the race if they make the schedule. They should get their 90hrs per month (just like Asst Chief Pilots), but fly a minimum number of trips/days per month with trips assigned by Crew Services from opentime the day prior (like a reserve augmentee). That way no bias on the pairings, and we keep pilots in charge of the pairings.
If Crew Services starts building the pairings, watch out!
Just my opinion....
FNG
06-01-2005, 07:40 AM
#7
Guest
Posts: n/a
Pairings
FNG,
I agree with most of what you say, especially with regard to how the committee should be paid/constructed. New e-mail out today on volunteers, I wonder if anyone will be knocking down the doors? Any volunteers out there?
If crew services ran the AOS, the committee would still set the parameters, so productivity, sit time, etc would still be controlled by the committee. CS would simply run the software. Would avoid the bias charge while still allowing the committee to control the results.
I agree with most of what you say, especially with regard to how the committee should be paid/constructed. New e-mail out today on volunteers, I wonder if anyone will be knocking down the doors? Any volunteers out there?
If crew services ran the AOS, the committee would still set the parameters, so productivity, sit time, etc would still be controlled by the committee. CS would simply run the software. Would avoid the bias charge while still allowing the committee to control the results.
06-01-2005, 06:34 PM
#8
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2005
Position: A320 FO
Posts: 157
Originally Posted by Meworry?
FNG,
I agree with most of what you say, especially with regard to how the committee should be paid/constructed. New e-mail out today on volunteers, I wonder if anyone will be knocking down the doors? Any volunteers out there?
If crew services ran the AOS, the committee would still set the parameters, so productivity, sit time, etc would still be controlled by the committee. CS would simply run the software. Would avoid the bias charge while still allowing the committee to control the results.
I agree with most of what you say, especially with regard to how the committee should be paid/constructed. New e-mail out today on volunteers, I wonder if anyone will be knocking down the doors? Any volunteers out there?
If crew services ran the AOS, the committee would still set the parameters, so productivity, sit time, etc would still be controlled by the committee. CS would simply run the software. Would avoid the bias charge while still allowing the committee to control the results.
As long as our scheduling committee has the final approval of the pairings, then I would think that would be ok. I'd also like to see the committee made up with a few more involved in the pairings with their makeup consistant with the pilot basing sized
FLL 14%
LGB 11%
JFK 75%
That way a small base rep doesn't control the pairing construction of the larger base (like it is done right now).
So a comittee of 1 from FLL, 1 from LGB and 5 from JFK make it fair. Again assuming that all have approval of the pairngs. If only one or two have approval authority, then it should be a JFK based pilot. I know I may be bias right now, but history of the parings produced by the "committee" has borne this our. Only time will erase this shadow. We will have to wait and see.
Just my opinion....
FNG
06-02-2005, 08:48 AM
#9
Guest
Posts: n/a
Until we have a body that can be elected and recalled, I would personally prefer to see the optimizer in the hands of management with pilot input.
We're already optimizing to Nth degree - so what will change? Cost has been our number one concern - what would change?
On the other hand we've seen clear evidence of bias from pilots and even memos stating as much.
Pilots are greedy (for instance, The "crack *****s" in SAN will tell you that LGB pilots want to get into the hotel business) which is why there must be some mechanism to make aspiring pilot-managers answerable to the pilots they serve.
We're already optimizing to Nth degree - so what will change? Cost has been our number one concern - what would change?
On the other hand we've seen clear evidence of bias from pilots and even memos stating as much.
Pilots are greedy (for instance, The "crack *****s" in SAN will tell you that LGB pilots want to get into the hotel business) which is why there must be some mechanism to make aspiring pilot-managers answerable to the pilots they serve.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
