Does this sound fishy to anyone else? It sounds like ALPA is trying to take credit for this notam? That notam has been in effect from the minute these RNAV departures were valid.

I'm not sure why ATC doesn't want to use them. They make jobs on both sides of the radio 15 times easier. Is it due to lack of training on the controllers' part?

Why would they go through all of the effort to make these nice new RNAV depts then put the restriction on that we cannot file for them.

 

Anyone else notice those new RNAV departures looks awfully close to the departures out of ATL???

 

Most RNAV departures are going to this format. ATL is one example, but you can also reference CLT and DFW amongst others.

 

Concerning Maestro: ALPA is getting "in a tizziy" or "its panties in a wad" as some of you point out because it is a blatant violation of our contract to have implemented this without ALPA approval. The system clearly was not ready for full implementation, yet it was made live anyway.

People not able to check in, getting locked out of the system, Captains not able to verify their crews and their legality, inabliity to track reserves to verify if scheduling is giving out legal assignments, etc...

I think Maestro will be a great system, but it should not have gone live until it was fully up and ready and was agreed upon by both the company and ALPA per our contract. We have to hold them to our contract. If we let them chip away at one section, they will chip away at others. We have to stand our ground, otherwise our contract isn't worth the paper its written on.

 

There was absolutely no way for the product to be perfect when switched on. All new things have bugs in them. Look at the CRJ900s, look at the 700s when we were getting them new, look at EclipsX, look at the Saabs when we got them. That's why you start the system up and work the kinks out of it. It would be unreasonable to expect everything to be perfect. If you follow your same reasoning, a new pilot, or dispatcher, or scheduler, would NEVER be allowed to make even the smallest mistake their first day of the job. That would never be a reasonable request.

Not checking in/getting locked out: operator error. I had to help many guys the first day check in and out because they had no idea how or had no idea what the login was. Thats just ignorance on their part. We were provided all of the information on how to use the system with plenty of notice.
Not being able to verify crews/legality, etc: not true. You can bring up a fellow crew members' name and trip. If its first flight of a trip and you can't see if they worked late the night before, ask.

Guys, we're making this much more difficult than it needs to be. Contrary to what you may believe, I'm not some parade-marching Maestro supporter. I'm just saying give it time. When EclipsX was first introduced, it replaced ComNet which was a computer system designed in the 1980s, which was simple and worked fine, it just didn't have a whole lot of features. EclipsX came around and it could do a lot more....when it worked. But we ironed the kinks out of it. Trust me, there were several days that I came very close to walking off of the job because of that system.
About 2 years ago I was put on a project to test a new flight tracking software that they were planning on switching to. It was a Boeing/Jeppesen system that had so many bugs, was not user friendly, and just did the strangest things you could imagine (it would create Comair flights flying around the country out of its imagination). Myself, and a few others would not sign off on its use. So they trashed the system and upgraded what they already had, which was a perfectly fine system. The point is, if something new is going to be introduced, and it truely hampers the operation, it won't be put online. It will be tested, improved, and if that still doesn't work, it will be trashed. Maestro, so far, hasn't done anything horrendous yet.

 

CRJDriver,

Your current avatar looks like one of our JFK FOs. Did you take that picture yourself?

 

Ok. Gulp, gulp, gulp. What flavor is that kool-aid?

I'm not going to argue with you because it's pointless, but the main reason there is a problem is because it is a contract violation. Plain and simple. For the sake of harmony amongst my coworkers, I shan't say anymore about it. This is the last comment I make concerning the implementation of Maestro.

 

The biggest problem I have since maestro came out (not sure if its related) is I always get put on hold for 10 years with scheduling.

 

Haha...10 years? I don't think my cell phone battery would last for that phone call.

Kudos to the union for finally coming to an agreement on calling in FE. I'd think (hope) that if a pilot were to call in fatigued, it'd be a legitimate call and we'd just not feel safe to fly. The last thing we need is to get an earfull.

Someone please clarify something here. In the evars that we received today it says that ALPA has not signed off on "eMaestro." eMaestro is the web interface that the pilots use to access our schedule. Maestro is the actual software that scheduling uses to track pilots. Is this an ALPA spin trying to stir up trouble, or did they just screw up and not realize the difference?

Not laying down any flame bait, I'm just curious what they actually mean.

 

No no, please explain what you mean. Do you mean to say that my actual experience with this sort of thing in our company is your so-called kool-aid?