horrido27

To me..the concern is this-
If we have pilots winning PBS disputes (buddy of mine just told me he has won disputes 3 months in a row now), there are obviously issues with the software. It happens.
But how are we to know that the branching is working properly?
While no system is foolproof, there should be a way for the pilots who are involved in a branching STT to be able to get a report on how/why the system did what it did.

Always
Motch

Regularguy

"The system however gave the trip to the junior pilot to facilitate a separate trade with the senior pilot. "

If what you are saying is true then the program logic ran the Jr. Pilot's trade out of seniority in order to accommodate the Senior pilot's trade.

That's still wrong. The logic should be (but wasn't) the Senior pilot's trade couldn't be accomplished because it wasn't available. Then the writer of this thread should have gotten his/her trade in the proper order.

Now if there was a pilot to pilot trade here that should be OK.

It sounds like a senior pilot built the trading logic.

If this is true, being a senior pilot I could look through the trade requests of those Jr. to me and pick a trip I wanted to fly that someone else wanted to trade into another open trip. That's called "cherry picking" the system and in reality is "super" seniority.

In the past senior pilots got seniority trade in the "big pick" (1st trip trading after line completion).

Maybe we can fix this with all the reserve gripes?

gettinbumped

100% disagree. The program logic is: Can I run the most senior pilots (Pilot A) trip trade? Sometimes this involves 4-5 other cascading trades, and in this case executed a trade for Pilot C. If yes, it completes the trade. Then it goes on to the next pilot (Pilot B). So then the system moves on. Now Pilot B wanted the same trip as Pilot C, but now that trip is gone because Pilot C got it during Pilot A's trip trade request. Sorry Pilot B, but now that trip is "unavailable". Someone isn't going to get the trade because it's the the trip isn't available. You suggest it should be Pilot A instead of Pilot B? That's an abrogation of seniority.

We have a MUCH more robust trading system now that we are trading amongst each other. Before it was "no coverage" ALL the time. As more and more users come on line and advertise trips, the chances of getting a trade goes up substantially, thanks to the branching you want to eliminate.

Your suggestion that some senior Pilot is going to go through Junior pilots trade requests just to pick out something to block their trade is.... highly suspect. Besides, they can do that all they want and then WHAM, it doesn't matter because someone senior to THEM got a trade executed that killed their deal.

Branching has its downside, and I've been on the receiving end of that several times. But the tradeoff is that it allows a MUCH more robust trip trade system with much higher chances of executing everybody's trade requests. The other option is to go back to straight first come/first serve... which we already have after 11am the day prior. That would be fine with me!!

Regularguy

"100% disagree"

Dude you just reworded basically exactly what I wrote.

So did you disagree that it's super senority or do you agree? Your post was rather confusing.

What you confirm is the trip trading system we have benefits the super senior pilot, who, BTW, also benefits from the PBS bidding system.

Your post was really confusing about what you disagree with, but maybe you just like to disagree?

My post was more frivolous than anything and more designed to point out the inconsistency in our senority system.

Oh well bid what you like and like what you bid. UAL's in another "capacity constrained" management mode again.

DB Cooper

We have rules that we must all play by. Branching is new and feels like a rule change. I've been told its contractual and it certainly applies to everyone. It may have been on the books but I have never seen it it before. Therefore it feels new.

I mentioned earlier PBS and seniority. I wasn't referencing global constraints. I was thinking bidding constraints like line value. A senior pilot cannot bid a line worth 95 hours, there are rules to prevent this. Likewise there should be rules governing STT. No super seniority, or some ownership of the trip, or pick up priority over trade. (Just some random thoughts here.) Also some level of transparency would be nice. I'd like to be able to see the trade logic instead of having to trust our IT.

Ultimately I respect seniority and realize, as mentioned earlier, that I may have been awarded a trip thru branching logic. This may simply take getting used to.

DB

duvie

I think what gettingbumped is saying is that it is in fact seniority based. This "super seniority" term sounds like cable news BS rhetoric. If the system is built to favor those who are senior, then it is seniority based. Virtually every part of our QOL, from pay to vacation, etc. favors senior people, why does this all of the sudden seem like "super seniority" to some?

Although convoluted and perhaps not perfectly executed, it creates a much larger inventory for trip trading and easily three times as many trades as a simple A for B system would.

There are merits on either side, but I think the potential upsides are for the pilots, not the company. Am I missing something