busdriver12

Not answering for Tony, but at least the crappy VTO system we have now does not have a large number of reserve days in it, and honors seniority as far as assigning reserve from the bottom up. Forget DOS+3, that happens on DOS. Understand that a PBS system will honor the companies desires before any of yours are considered.

There is something to the devil you know better than the devil you don't....

FDXLAG

Bus I am really not trying to be hyper critical but you would prefer the company change it without a Secondary Line Replacement Working Group and without CBA protections? Just trying to understand the thinking.

Just trying to reconcile your last two posts. You want improvements to the software but not the ones that are in the proposed TA. I understand no extra reserves, but the software, I want some input on.

CloudSailor

Is there anything in the last 4+ years, preventing the company from advancing scheduling to help us and
Futures, with the TA gain you describe above TonyC? It seems like it would be essentially free to fix, and would help us, and them.

Why has the company not fixed the PBS on property (VTO's) in the last 2 decades? Nothing has stopped them from doing so.

Why haven't they purchased/developed software that makes VTO's some of the most senior sections of the bidpack, particularly during the last 4 years? Nothing has stopped them from doing so.

They are not interested in improving QOL - not in an evil way, just not at all interested. They ARE interested in maintaining control. They've had 4-20 years to make VTO's awesome, they haven't. And we 'reward' those actions in this TA by giving up 20% of all R-days, system wide???

I don't get it...

TonyC

The current software is a crude form of PBS. We asked for improvements. Refreshing Open Time would be a huge improvement, and as busdriver12 said, it would help all parties involved.

Going forward, I'm not convinced a "better" PBS program is what we want. I think we should also consider taking everything left over after the Regular Lines are modified with Vacation, etc., and the Make-Ups and Carry-In situations are resolved and create Secondary Lines from those trips which can then be bid for in seniority order. One major complaint now is that the Secondary Line system essentially ignores seat seniority. When the system has the option of tossing a 3-day block or RA onto the number 1 Secondary Line holder's schedule, he/she probably doesn't enjoy the benefits of seniority.

The problem here is not just the reach for better software, but the shift in paradigm by increasing the number of Secondary Lines and the ways they can be manipulated. If The Company trusted it will be an improvement for us, why doesn't the MEC Chairman have the authority to turn it off? Yes, he gets one chance to say, "Yes", but after that, no chance to say, "No, that didn't work, stop it now, let's go back to what we had." It's not like we've ever been surprised before by the difference between what we thought something would be like and how The Company actually played the cards.






.

FDXLAG

I have enough faith in the SLRWG group and the MEC that hard parameters will be agreed to prior to implementation. But that is just me. As far as the number of lines; as long as the number of trips that must be included in regular lines stays the same, I am not that worried about waking up with PBS someday in 2017, again just me.

E. Final Acceptance and Transition
The MEC Chairman and the Vice President of Flight Operations must meet and agree on the final acceptance of the SLR prior to its implementation. In the absence of agreement, the SLR shall not be implemented.

F. On-Going Implementation Measures.
The parties recognize that the issues associated with the implementation and subsequent operation of the SLR are varied and fluid. Other measures facilitating the implementation and subsequent operation of the SLR may be implemented if agreed upon in writing by the Vice President, Labor Relations Law and the Association’s MEC Chairman.

CloudSailor

I also trust the SLRWG, since pilots will be involved. It is the final stage of implementation that concerns me (since pilots have ZERO say in the matter):

4. If the SLRWG is unable to reach consensus, the SLRWG shall meet with the System Chief Pilot (or his designee), who shall use his best efforts to broker a consensus among the members of the SLRWG. In the event consensus cannot then be reached, the matter will be referred to the Vice President, Flight Operations, who shall make a
recommendation to the SLRWG, taking into account the views and opinions of all the members of the SLRWG on the appropriate resolution of the issue. If the Association representatives on the SLRWG disagree with the recommendation, the Association
may appeal the matter to the Senior Vice President, Flight Operations who will render a final decision after meeting with the Association MEC Chairman or his designee. (p.598)

busdriver12

I think the union would agree to a LOA that allowed the conflict input processing requests to be filled first, and then put out for VTO holders to request, as the TA specifies, if this TA didn't pass. It's a win all around. If the company preferenced a wider range of BLG targets, that would solve many VTO complaints that seniority isn't being honored. I don't know that having a group working on helping the company to screw us is going to be of benefit. The company seems to be far more resourceful at this kind of thing than we are. VTO's could be far better with these two things I mentioned, and a very easy fix, but we do not share the same goals as the company does, unfortunately.

But I don't think the company will fix any of this for free. Even if it's better for them. It's a bargaining chip.

Tony's last post #124 explains it better than mine did, as did CloudSailor's #123.

FDXLAG

So you are worried (for example) the SLRWG will say the number 1 pilot schedule will be built before all others and the MEC signs off on it and then the company renegs during implementation and there is nothing we can do about it?

busdriver12

That seems like a valid concern, to bring up. Though I'm not overly worried about this, since I think it will take a long time to hash out. I am more concerned about what happens on DOS.

busdriver12

Here's another potential problem in the TA as far as VTOs. Maybe someone can verify this since it's too difficult to scroll through the TA on my iPhone without reading glasses. There was something perplexing about VTOs being built with vacation first, then the rest of them. Did I misread that, or does it imply they will build them out of seniority if you have vacation? So the most junior person with vacation gets built before the most senior person without? Anyone understand this? Not trying to spread rumors, just want to understand.