Next Contract wish list!
07-27-2015, 03:31 PM
#11
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2013
Position: Gets weekends off
Posts: 1,168
Originally Posted by El10
I do not want to go back to the old lines of time. One or two guys making the lines decided for everyone what was a "good" or "bad" line. Lossing the vacation conflicts was worth being able to provide the input to the schedule I want.
There is no secret decoder ring to PBS, you just have to actually want to learn how it works.
There is no secret decoder ring to PBS, you just have to actually want to learn how it works.
Additionally there is resistance to going to an easier, more user-friendly system because people who routinely get good schedules because they have mastered this PBS software don't want to use another one. You'll hear them say "Its more powerful", "You just have to learn it", "You just don't know how to bid properly". But many of them have only used this system and I've used two and this is by far the most cumbersome.
I never had a problem with AdOpt PBS. I could do my bids in 15 minutes every time. Got exactly what I wanted.
07-27-2015, 05:23 PM
#12
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2012
Posts: 1,083
This is straight from the ALPA SSC during the PBS transition period. Apparently, nobody read it.
System Schedule: Comments on Jeppesen PBS
Many of you have probably seen or wrote some of the emails and forum posts decrying the change from AD OPT PBS to Jeppesen PBS for l-UAL pilots. The SSC would like to address some of the issues raised in these discussions. First, let us say that if we had a choice, we would prefer that all pilots be able to stay on the system they’ve been used to for the last several years or, even better, go back to pre-built lines. Unfortunately, that just wasn’t going to happen. Most UAL decisions are based on cost. Contrary to popular belief however, Jeppesen PBS was not chosen because it’s the cheaper option. While the company does not share financial details of their contracts with third-party vendors, the PBS Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) for both legacy carriers are familiar with the general costs of these (and other systems). Since all the vendors compete in the same marketplace, they keep their costs pretty aligned. What makes more of a difference is the amount of resources the airline is willing to put into bringing the system online and supporting it. That cost would have been about the same for either system.
When evaluating the systems three years ago at the beginning of negotiations for the UPA, the JNC and SMEs considered many factors. It was a given that whichever pilot group had to learn a new system (or if both groups had to due to choosing a third system) that group would be less than pleased. We’re pilots, and many believe change is bad. From a technical point of view, both programs use the same optimization engine (CPLEX) and generally get to the same solution. The terminology and emphases are different but they produce similar results. The programs have differences in methodology that affect their ability to solve large problems. That fact became one of the big factors in Jeppesen’s favor: Jeppesen PBS has a demonstrated ability to solve the large (600+ pilots) 737 categories on the l-CAL side. Due to other work the l-UAL SMEs had done in evaluating PBS systems from many vendors, there was serious doubt that AD OPT could solve these problems without some major changes. That’s not to say that it couldn’t be made to handle those problems, it’s just the SMEs weren’t sure how hard it would be to get there and were concerned as to how it would affect solution quality.
Another factor in selecting Jeppesen was customization and interface. If you’ve been able to use the system you’ve seen one example of this: the Bid Analysis Tool. The Bid Analysis Tool provides a near real time analysis of your bid and shows an example line from your bid groups. This is an invaluable tool for all pilots. The l-UAL PBS SMEs have tried to get a feature like that in AD OPT PBS in the develop stage well before the system was implemented. Despite over 7 years of trying, we were unable to get AD OPT to add that feature. At one point, the company and AD OPT agreed in principle to add a comprehensive “legality checker” only to have AD OPT increase the cost well beyond what they had originally told the company. We took this as an indication that they were not really interested in creating a better interface and began looking at other vendors. Jeppesen PBS has customization features far beyond what’s available with the AD OPT system and, more importantly, that customization can be done in-house, eliminating the need to go to the vendor for changes. The company has dedicated support from within Flight Operations to make these changes. In fact, that dedicated support was able to identify and fix a few minor bugs “on the fly” during the practice bids 1 & 2. It has taken AD OPT months to fix those types of bugs in their PBS program. That doesn’t mean that we will get every little thing we want changed in the system but it’s much better than what we were able to achieve with the old system.
Much of the discussion decrying the change to Jeppesen PBS centers on the difficulty of changing to a new method of expressing preferences and how much more difficult it is to use. Some of the discussions express a love for the old system that really leaves us scratching our heads. It seems that as a group, we pilots have slightly selective memories and more than a little denial of the facts. The l-UAL PBS SMEs remember the hundreds and hundreds of complaints we fielded in the early years of PBS and the great frustration borne by the l-UAL pilot group until getting the system going. We have reviewed pilot bids for every category for every month since PBS’ inception. There are still pilots who, for no lack of trying in some cases, still don’t “get” bidding with points. Although to read some of the current discussions, one would think that AD OPT PBS is the most intuitive, easy to use system ever invented; our review of the bids shows otherwise. The PBS SMEs have a saying, “a number one bid is a terrible thing to waste”. Due to the difficulty in expressing preferences with points and lack of the tools we feel are needed (see the discussion on the Bid Analysis Tool above) there are too many pilots who are unable to express what they want in a line using AD OPT PBS and there are a lot of number one pilot positions being wasted. While Jeppesen PBS has its own set of problems when it comes to bidding, there are pilots who will find that this method better allows them to express their preferences.
All of the discussion about the G-line, seniority inversions, overly constrained parameters miss the point that both systems do the exact same thing in these respects. At l-UAL we didn’t talk about the G-line but it’s the same thing as the “minimum number of reserves”. Just as if you’re below the G-line, if you’re within the minimum number of reserves the system considers you a reserve and you will not get a regular line unless a senior lineholder gives up their line. In both systems, if you’re considered a reserve it is logically and contractually allowed for the system to leave you on reserve while a regular line goes junior to you if it is necessary to do so to grant a senior pilot’s bid. Conversely, if you are entitled to a regular line, a senior pilot’s bid cannot force you onto reserve. That behavior could be changed but the MEC elected to not allow lineholders to be forced onto reserve. In any scheduling system, if the category is over-constrained (too much or too little credit time for the number of pilots) it will not create schedules that grant pilots their preferences. The two legacy carriers discussed these items to different degrees and using different terms but the systems work the same in these respects.
Finally, there’s the discussion about training. During the negotiations for the bankruptcy contract, we were able to secure paid classroom training on PBS largely because we were successful in convincing the company that anything less would doom the system to failure. While that training was effective for many pilots, it didn’t work out very well for others (reference the bidding mistakes mentioned above). Some of that ineffectiveness may have been because pilots didn’t realize at the time how important it was to learn the system at the outset. We did find that in the contractually-mandated second set of “kiosks” many more pilots paid attention and took advantage of the one-on-one opportunity to refine their bids with a PBS Instructor. Under the current transition, while we were not able to get the company to bear the cost of classroom training, we were able to get them to spend a considerable amount providing other resources to train pilots from both legacy airlines on the system. The more effective one-on-one approach should result in more “targeted” assistance. We would have liked to have gotten both types of training but, that would be just one item on a long list of items scheduling and non-scheduling related that we would have liked to have gotten. Ask any of our l-CAL brethren and they’ll tell you the current training is light years beyond the training they received on the system when they first rolled it out.
PBS is complex and difficult no matter what system you use. Change is different. We don’t have an unlimited ability to get the company to spend money on everything we want (especially based on our company's financial performance). We just want you to know the facts. What we as union volunteers are trying to do is to make the system as “user-friendly” as possible, enforce the contract, and ensure the company lives up to its obligations to “Schedule with Safety”. We will continue to field your complaints and comments and will work to achieve those goals.
----------------------
System Schedule: Comments on Jeppesen PBS
Many of you have probably seen or wrote some of the emails and forum posts decrying the change from AD OPT PBS to Jeppesen PBS for l-UAL pilots. The SSC would like to address some of the issues raised in these discussions. First, let us say that if we had a choice, we would prefer that all pilots be able to stay on the system they’ve been used to for the last several years or, even better, go back to pre-built lines. Unfortunately, that just wasn’t going to happen. Most UAL decisions are based on cost. Contrary to popular belief however, Jeppesen PBS was not chosen because it’s the cheaper option. While the company does not share financial details of their contracts with third-party vendors, the PBS Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) for both legacy carriers are familiar with the general costs of these (and other systems). Since all the vendors compete in the same marketplace, they keep their costs pretty aligned. What makes more of a difference is the amount of resources the airline is willing to put into bringing the system online and supporting it. That cost would have been about the same for either system.
When evaluating the systems three years ago at the beginning of negotiations for the UPA, the JNC and SMEs considered many factors. It was a given that whichever pilot group had to learn a new system (or if both groups had to due to choosing a third system) that group would be less than pleased. We’re pilots, and many believe change is bad. From a technical point of view, both programs use the same optimization engine (CPLEX) and generally get to the same solution. The terminology and emphases are different but they produce similar results. The programs have differences in methodology that affect their ability to solve large problems. That fact became one of the big factors in Jeppesen’s favor: Jeppesen PBS has a demonstrated ability to solve the large (600+ pilots) 737 categories on the l-CAL side. Due to other work the l-UAL SMEs had done in evaluating PBS systems from many vendors, there was serious doubt that AD OPT could solve these problems without some major changes. That’s not to say that it couldn’t be made to handle those problems, it’s just the SMEs weren’t sure how hard it would be to get there and were concerned as to how it would affect solution quality.
Another factor in selecting Jeppesen was customization and interface. If you’ve been able to use the system you’ve seen one example of this: the Bid Analysis Tool. The Bid Analysis Tool provides a near real time analysis of your bid and shows an example line from your bid groups. This is an invaluable tool for all pilots. The l-UAL PBS SMEs have tried to get a feature like that in AD OPT PBS in the develop stage well before the system was implemented. Despite over 7 years of trying, we were unable to get AD OPT to add that feature. At one point, the company and AD OPT agreed in principle to add a comprehensive “legality checker” only to have AD OPT increase the cost well beyond what they had originally told the company. We took this as an indication that they were not really interested in creating a better interface and began looking at other vendors. Jeppesen PBS has customization features far beyond what’s available with the AD OPT system and, more importantly, that customization can be done in-house, eliminating the need to go to the vendor for changes. The company has dedicated support from within Flight Operations to make these changes. In fact, that dedicated support was able to identify and fix a few minor bugs “on the fly” during the practice bids 1 & 2. It has taken AD OPT months to fix those types of bugs in their PBS program. That doesn’t mean that we will get every little thing we want changed in the system but it’s much better than what we were able to achieve with the old system.
Much of the discussion decrying the change to Jeppesen PBS centers on the difficulty of changing to a new method of expressing preferences and how much more difficult it is to use. Some of the discussions express a love for the old system that really leaves us scratching our heads. It seems that as a group, we pilots have slightly selective memories and more than a little denial of the facts. The l-UAL PBS SMEs remember the hundreds and hundreds of complaints we fielded in the early years of PBS and the great frustration borne by the l-UAL pilot group until getting the system going. We have reviewed pilot bids for every category for every month since PBS’ inception. There are still pilots who, for no lack of trying in some cases, still don’t “get” bidding with points. Although to read some of the current discussions, one would think that AD OPT PBS is the most intuitive, easy to use system ever invented; our review of the bids shows otherwise. The PBS SMEs have a saying, “a number one bid is a terrible thing to waste”. Due to the difficulty in expressing preferences with points and lack of the tools we feel are needed (see the discussion on the Bid Analysis Tool above) there are too many pilots who are unable to express what they want in a line using AD OPT PBS and there are a lot of number one pilot positions being wasted. While Jeppesen PBS has its own set of problems when it comes to bidding, there are pilots who will find that this method better allows them to express their preferences.
All of the discussion about the G-line, seniority inversions, overly constrained parameters miss the point that both systems do the exact same thing in these respects. At l-UAL we didn’t talk about the G-line but it’s the same thing as the “minimum number of reserves”. Just as if you’re below the G-line, if you’re within the minimum number of reserves the system considers you a reserve and you will not get a regular line unless a senior lineholder gives up their line. In both systems, if you’re considered a reserve it is logically and contractually allowed for the system to leave you on reserve while a regular line goes junior to you if it is necessary to do so to grant a senior pilot’s bid. Conversely, if you are entitled to a regular line, a senior pilot’s bid cannot force you onto reserve. That behavior could be changed but the MEC elected to not allow lineholders to be forced onto reserve. In any scheduling system, if the category is over-constrained (too much or too little credit time for the number of pilots) it will not create schedules that grant pilots their preferences. The two legacy carriers discussed these items to different degrees and using different terms but the systems work the same in these respects.
Finally, there’s the discussion about training. During the negotiations for the bankruptcy contract, we were able to secure paid classroom training on PBS largely because we were successful in convincing the company that anything less would doom the system to failure. While that training was effective for many pilots, it didn’t work out very well for others (reference the bidding mistakes mentioned above). Some of that ineffectiveness may have been because pilots didn’t realize at the time how important it was to learn the system at the outset. We did find that in the contractually-mandated second set of “kiosks” many more pilots paid attention and took advantage of the one-on-one opportunity to refine their bids with a PBS Instructor. Under the current transition, while we were not able to get the company to bear the cost of classroom training, we were able to get them to spend a considerable amount providing other resources to train pilots from both legacy airlines on the system. The more effective one-on-one approach should result in more “targeted” assistance. We would have liked to have gotten both types of training but, that would be just one item on a long list of items scheduling and non-scheduling related that we would have liked to have gotten. Ask any of our l-CAL brethren and they’ll tell you the current training is light years beyond the training they received on the system when they first rolled it out.
PBS is complex and difficult no matter what system you use. Change is different. We don’t have an unlimited ability to get the company to spend money on everything we want (especially based on our company's financial performance). We just want you to know the facts. What we as union volunteers are trying to do is to make the system as “user-friendly” as possible, enforce the contract, and ensure the company lives up to its obligations to “Schedule with Safety”. We will continue to field your complaints and comments and will work to achieve those goals.
----------------------
07-27-2015, 05:32 PM
#13
Banned
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: Narrow/Left Wide/Right
Posts: 3,655
Originally Posted by Levigarrett
Sure, that would be great. How much are you willing to pay for it. PBS does what it's supposed to do. No conflicts with training, vacation, 117 limits or carry in/out. That's why PBS (no matter what vendor) was so coveted by both pre-merger companies. I like attempting to build my own schedule therefore I prefer any PBS system to hard lines. Adding conflicts into the system after the run would be nice but I'm fairly certain the company would be demanding something significant to "purchase" that. Everything has a cost, I'm certainly interested in the price. Perhaps it's worth it.
Do any of you guys know if both DAL and AA use PBS?
Do any of you guys know if both DAL and AA use PBS?
Delta has NAVTECH PBS, AA doesn't yet, but is scheduled to go to PBS pretty soon as part of their merger MOU I believe.
07-27-2015, 06:05 PM
#15
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2015
Position: EWR 777 FO
Posts: 187
Some of the things I want to see improved in the next contract include:
1. On reserve, less freedom for the company to roll our days off. This summer has been awful for my, and my reserve colleagues QOL being rolled several times every month in addition to being used basically every day of reserve. We need to get rid of these FDO and RDO days and make them all HDO! Or at the very least make only one block of days off RDO days with the 3 remaining blocks HDO days.
2. Limit the amount of short call and airport standby the company converts from long call reserves. I can count on one hand the actual long call reserve days I have had all year. All others have been a trip or short call assignment.
3. For line holders, all overs for the month should be a separate add pay column to protect your cancellation pay.
4. Vacation days should not be counted towards your min days off for the month. Therefore on a month with one week of vacation there should be a minimum of 19-20 days off. Vacation days should also be paid at our daily minimum of 5 hours.
5. If a trip is modified or extended into days off, for whatever reason, the pilot needs to have that day off restored. Get rid of these ridiculous loopholes of extended delays and same/different flight numbers.
6. Training days should not bring you down to min days off if you could hold more days off for the month. This is basically training on our days off. Also training days should be paid at our daily minimum of 5 hours.
1. On reserve, less freedom for the company to roll our days off. This summer has been awful for my, and my reserve colleagues QOL being rolled several times every month in addition to being used basically every day of reserve. We need to get rid of these FDO and RDO days and make them all HDO! Or at the very least make only one block of days off RDO days with the 3 remaining blocks HDO days.
2. Limit the amount of short call and airport standby the company converts from long call reserves. I can count on one hand the actual long call reserve days I have had all year. All others have been a trip or short call assignment.
3. For line holders, all overs for the month should be a separate add pay column to protect your cancellation pay.
4. Vacation days should not be counted towards your min days off for the month. Therefore on a month with one week of vacation there should be a minimum of 19-20 days off. Vacation days should also be paid at our daily minimum of 5 hours.
5. If a trip is modified or extended into days off, for whatever reason, the pilot needs to have that day off restored. Get rid of these ridiculous loopholes of extended delays and same/different flight numbers.
6. Training days should not bring you down to min days off if you could hold more days off for the month. This is basically training on our days off. Also training days should be paid at our daily minimum of 5 hours.
07-27-2015, 06:37 PM
#16
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,866
- a reassignment for lineholder or reserve is treated as SRM with 200% add pay for any portion a a trip flown that was not part of the original trip. Seniority originally awarded that trip so flying anything but that trip is SRM.
07-27-2015, 07:00 PM
#17
Not retiring avatar
Joined APC: Apr 2010
Position: 777 CAP
Posts: 768
Originally Posted by CousinEddie
Now, carefully re-read the SSC explanation above and decide if you really want to waste negotiating capital on a new PBS system.....
My answer to your question is YES!
Getting rid of this particular PBS system is my number one priority for positive change in this contract.
-It affects us negatively every month. (We don't accept that with our paychecks, why with our schedules?)
-It takes way too much time and thought to "program" the bid than our last system. (More time devoted to work instead of family.)
-There is not enough flexibility in a system with only 7 bidding ranks.(H++ to L--)
-A bidding system should not require a "hotline" or experts on call to help decipher the system to people who are usually quite proficient on computers. (I used the online chat for help and even the expert couldn't figure it out, he had to call in the super-expert, who gave me a solution that resembled nuclear launch codes.)
-There is no Line Production Floor in the old system. If you want 70 hours and more days off you can have it; also allowing more flexibility in schedules.(This provision alone would improve the narrow body lines significantly.)
-The old PBS gave us our schedules up to ONE WEEK EARLIER!!! Yes, you read that right.(At least by the 12th or 13th).
Going back to the old system or a better one should be an easy choice. I have added my concerns about this PBS to the survey, I'm hoping many others will also.
07-27-2015, 07:25 PM
#19
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,866
Originally Posted by Blockoutblockin
I'd be happy if the company complied with this contract first.
- a new pay claim system (why should it be necessary but I have a feeling it will be for a long time)
- vacation bidding for a calendar year, not May to April
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
