PBS
 

I saw the note about PBS Captain award delay.

What exactly was the issue with PBS this month?

"catastrophic failure" -- MEC blastmail

Had to be rerun.

I don't get it.

How can there be a catastrophic failure? Did we get new software?

Did the staffing formula (if one really exists) need to be re-done?

Was there too much flying and not enough pilots?

I think more info would be great.

I really don't trust PBS, or those that "tweek" it behind the scenes. it's not transparent enough for the pilots to monitor.

Just pulled mine up and it is identical to the first one.

"The error involved is the new pilot selectable “credit range” command. In certain specific selected ranges, the error allowed lines to be built and published outside the UPA 5-B-1 line credit ranges, affecting the accuracy of the overall solution. Therefore, these awards were neither accurate nor in compliance with the UPA and UPA section 20-C-1 had to be invoked. The error was not caused by the change in the build range in widebody Categories."

My first and second run lines are different. Not sure how that came to be. I got the days off I asked for on the first, but not the second. Not sure how that happens....

Mine didn't change either. I had 21 days vacation and I thought I'd get a line instead of reserve like I normally get. In the past, when I had 14 days of vacation, I was given a line but I guess they don't automatically do that if you exceed 14 days

If you agree that having your schedule only 11 days from the start of the next bid month, or that this PBS software is needlessly complicated, unacceptable at producing the lines that reflect your seniority or produce an undue burden on your time and family:

Please join my in filing PDRs, requesting help from the union to improve our quality of life.

:mad:

PBS is BS. It's great for computer geeks. it's neat-o for the junior who can figure out how to make lemonade out of lemons. it reduces over-all pilot bodies on property and at the end of the day, it's just a scheduling tool for the company to put a butt in the seat.

Filing of PDR's wont' work. As long as ALPA LOVES pbs and they staff the help department with gung-ho computer code-loving - management friendly helpers it ain't going anywhere.

When PBS starts to crash hard in November and December and it affects the ALPA reps, then you might get some attention. it crashed 4 times at Continental, and then the CEO Larry Kellner was ready to throw in the towel and give us our 750 million dollar concession back, but hey count on the weak-knee'd Cleveland and Guam reps to cry like babies and throw the company another pitch. Should have been a four pitch walk, instead we swing 3 and 0 and end up flying out.

I'm not sure if you're saying that you're too dumb to figure out PBS, or too cheap to pay one of several available services to bid for you each month.

....or read the instruction manual. I will read it to anyone junior to me for $3 and two beers.

We are just reshuffling the RJ system. The Company cannot get any more 76 seat RJs unless they buy some SNB jets.

Why pay again for PBS? We already "pay" since we could have had a better PBS, but we got something in the contract to keep this POS. Having to "pay" again for someone to help sharp shoot the system isn't how it should work.

Right on.

A software system that requires a 24hr hotline is a fail. And unacceptable.

No, someone that uses a 24 hour hotline is a failure.:confused:

The other option is read the PBS manual, it's all in there.

The fact that it requires a thick manual certainly says something negative about the systems opacity and gymnastics required to successfully use the program. After all, we live in a time when smart phone apps are immediately intuitive and require minimal input. Yet many of them contain complex programs. Our previous (also crappy PBS) system was much easier to use and didn't require either a hotline or Prefbid.

To think that we used to bid lines of flying AND enjoy both the big dump and vacation override! I'd wager that the average line pilot now flies 20-24 more days per year, at least. What else can we give away for pennies on the dollar?

Don't like it? Read the manual.
Don't like it? Don't be junior on your equipment.
Don't like it? Quit.

What great solutions.

I agree, our time reading manuals should be about flight manuals... not bidding manuals.

How about reading the contract, when do you do that?

You want a simpler PBS you will get less flexibility. It is your quality of life that you leave on the table by not taking the the time to learn something as important as your schedule. Hard to justify you want the results sooner because it affects your quality of life, yet you will not use the resources to learn the system to improve your quality of work/life.

You have all kinds of tools available to get help, if you want it.

1. Can only help you.
2. Is mostly out of your control.
3. Doesn't help you.

Like many things in life, you get out of it what you put in.

El10 nailed it.

How did he nail it? How is this system any better than the last one, which was far easier to use? Because we have all kinds of tool available to get help? I'm pretty sure that's the topic here, or at least where it has veered off to.

I wasn't on the property when the last PBS system was in effect. I've used other PBS systems, and there are more user friendly ones out there. But:

Taking the time to learn the current system will reap benefits far sooner than dialogue on an anonymous message board. I agree that this system isn't easy to use and there are better ones out there. Maybe next section 6 something better can be implemented.

Much of the IT has gone full colo-evac here, from ticketing, training issues, expense reimbursement, PBS, the iPad, you name it. That's why we carp so much. If PBS were but one example, you'd read less. But our IT comedy problems have incorporated the whole pie, all five pieces. Apparently, expecting things to work better is no longer in vogue. Yet, we get the full monty regularly WRT our performance and behavior.

I read the manual, and I bid using multiple techniques to drive a solution that works for me. If I run onto that rare problem where I need help, there are several resources to get help quickly.

Finally, if reading a manual and learning the software is too much of a burden (hey, it's only days off), there services that for a fee will turn your days on/off requests into bid groups.

It's not a perfect system, but it's certainly usable. The current system offers more options, which if used incorrectly can cause more problems. I'd rather have more tools to use, not less.

If you do not understand the difference in having one bid group (Adopt) and now having multiple groups, how is it possible to have an educated discussion on the differences?

What I do and don't understand about PBS has little to do with what I posted. "The fact that it requires a thick manual certainly says something negative about the systems opacity and gymnastics required to successfully use the program"

Pointing the finger at me is nice though. If you'd like to begin a thread about my cranial density, I'm game. I can offer numerous examples of my inabilities.

Don't sweat it oldMako....maybe your detractors need a manual for "personal interactions" as well. Just cause it's more complex doesn't mean it's "mo-betta"

Remember that a lot of us didn't use the "last one" so in our minds its the same complexity as this one, but we have to re-learn a brand new one. The devil you know...

Point taken, but is that really a negative? Would a "close-and-play" interface produce better results?

Take Adobe's Photoshop as an example. It's a very complex program that's capable of producing amazing results for those who resolve to learn the program. It can also be useful to novices, but without fully learning the program they'll be somewhat limited in what they can do.

There's also MS Paint that's about as dumbed down as it can get. Everyone can learn it, but no one will produce anything remarkable.

So which one is better?

Yes, it actually does. If I have more ability to nuance my bid with the end result being me getting the schedule that I want. To me, that IS better. If you take away complexity, you also take away options.

You are confusing something that is feature rich, with a poor interface. I think the LUA guys are saying their old PBS was much easier to use, even if it was only 95% as powerful. They are saying to me "its worth it, it was that much easier"

If I gave you a TV with a remote that you had to push a button to get the channel you wanted NOW plus a super nice Guide with all the channels, would that be less powerful than a TV you had to program in a separate website to show you certain channels.

AWARD Sports H++
AVOID Notre Dame L
AWARD Action Movies H+
AVOID ChickFlicks L--
Etc.

Yes this would be "powerful" because you could customize the TV, but why not just point and click and get the same thing? And guess what? Guys would say "I don't want to learn how to use a remote" and we'd be stuck where we are.

I'm not confusing features vs UI at all. The PBS UI is severely lacking; it's not intuitive, it's slow, and the overall layout is crap. No argument there.

My point is that taking away features and input controls under the guise of improving usability is not actually an improvement.

I'll agree that the UI can should be improved, but removing features to do so is not moving the ball forward. Still, even with an "improved" UI there would be the need for a manual, help, etc. Some guys still won't bother to learn it which will bring us back to a thread like this.

There are about 30 videos around 5-7 minutes long made by alpa on flying together. They progress you step by step through PBS. Instead of putting so much effort on here to post how bad the product is, maybe use your time to review the videos. They are dry but are well done and help tremendously.

The fact that there are "about 30 five to seven minute videos" would seem to bolster the argument that the system is (what many feel is) unnecessarily cumbersome, as does the existence of the hotline. I was merely posting to add to an opinion already inserted into the thread. What makes you think that I haven't already watched them? Look, I just think its a lousy system that is tilted heavily toward the company and those who have invested an inordinate amount of time trying to learn its subtleties. I crossed an ocean with a PBS instructor. Needless to say we had some time to kill. He couldn't answer many of my questions about bidding and he shared many of my (negative) opinions on the system.

I've also got a future brother in law who has a great job in developing PC based tech systems. I showed him our PBS system and he just laughed.

I'm not belittling any of you who are satisfied with the PBS system. Yet blame the messenger shows up pretty damn quick here. And since its the intewebs, I can post about whatever I like. :)

Have a nice bid.

Nope.......

Only 3-5 HOURS of videos to learn the system? Well that's not really learning the system. That's more like the introduction to the system. And its a waste of time. Its more like 10-12 hours of teaching people where to find everything because its all hidden in unlabeled buttons and a counter-intuitive interface.

And you don't need to worry about it changing because the decade we've been using it is proof it isn't going anywhere. Just goes to show we are totally willing to put up with a substandard product.

I have no problem calling the UAL PBS "substandard" if I knew what the standard was and if other PBS programs met it. I came from the lUAL side and the previous PBS wasn't any better or worse than the current one.

It would be a whole lot easier to understand these type of complaints if the poster would just inform us readers what the better PBS products are out there. We could then let our leaders know and see if we could switch to that one.

One that doesn't take 5 days to put out the FO bids for starters.

I'm not sure you'll find anyone who's satisfied with PBS, my points were only that it does follow garbage in-garbage out if a.) you know how to ask, and b.) you're senior enough to be granted the request.

The other point was that taking functionality away from the system in order to make it less confusing isn't the path to success. I know you didn't make the claim that it would, but hey, I'm on a roll.

I'm with you in that any PBS system we use needs to be intuitive and predictable. We have a long way to go in that regard.

Only thing I don't like about PBS is the fact that I can't bid a reserve line as a back up to a line if above the g line. Example....I want specific trips and if I don't get them I want to be on reserve. Above the g line you will get the reserve line for some reason, even if the trips you want are available.....seems to be an abrogation of seniority.