Quick pbs question
10-18-2016, 12:08 PM
#41
UCH Pilot
Joined APC: Oct 2014
Position: 787
Posts: 776
Garbage in, garbage out. You get sorta how it works (or you can copy paste) so if you're not being exact and telling PBS precisely what you want... Whose fault is that? You're proposing going from seven weighting pools to 100 to speed it up too??? So 12000 pilots go from seven weighting pools to 100, you're probably talking trillions of possible solutions.
I've gotten my #1 or 2 bid group every month, month after month because I bid what I know my seniority can hold. If you're at 80% and trying to pick trips, or at 10% and not giving appropriate avoid/award commands, thats not a failure of PBS. Could it be easier? Sure, and Boeing could build a better airplane than the 737, but it's what we have. My bidding QOL is up to me to understand how it works, sink or swim.
As far as the speed, if you want lesser optimization levels we can get it sooner.
I've gotten my #1 or 2 bid group every month, month after month because I bid what I know my seniority can hold. If you're at 80% and trying to pick trips, or at 10% and not giving appropriate avoid/award commands, thats not a failure of PBS. Could it be easier? Sure, and Boeing could build a better airplane than the 737, but it's what we have. My bidding QOL is up to me to understand how it works, sink or swim.
As far as the speed, if you want lesser optimization levels we can get it sooner.
The only reason I can think of why so many people don't understand that this specific PBS is terrible are because either they think all PBS systems will be difficult so why change when they have already have learned this one, or because they don't understand how it works.
We should let seniority determine lines, not bidding skill and/or limited weighting choices.
10-18-2016, 12:24 PM
#42
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2009
Posts: 5,265
I think this represents the basic problem. You don't understand that having more bid weightings REDUCES the solvers work. There would not be as much iteration with more bid weightings. Its not # of bid groups X # of trips that determines the possible combinations. The only reason we have multiple bid groups is because of the LACK of bid weightings. If you don't believe me read where ALPA proposed adding 2 weighting groups H+++ and L--- to take the total to 9 instead of 7.
The only reason I can think of why so many people don't understand that this specific PBS is terrible are because either they think all PBS systems will be difficult so why change when they have already have learned this one, or because they don't understand how it works.
We should let seniority determine lines, not bidding skill and/or limited weighting choices.
The only reason I can think of why so many people don't understand that this specific PBS is terrible are because either they think all PBS systems will be difficult so why change when they have already have learned this one, or because they don't understand how it works.
We should let seniority determine lines, not bidding skill and/or limited weighting choices.
Also agree the weighting has subrogated seniority.
The times I haven't gotten my first choice were usually because it prevented someone below me from getting their schedule.
As far as bidding skill, if a senior bidder isn't willing to work as hard to get smart on it vs a junior guy, that's their fault as its a level playing field and everyone has the same tools available.
10-19-2016, 09:53 AM
#43
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2012
Position: 777
Posts: 2,173
I think this represents the basic problem. You don't understand that having more bid weightings REDUCES the solvers work. There would not be as much iteration with more bid weightings. Its not # of bid groups X # of trips that determines the possible combinations. The only reason we have multiple bid groups is because of the LACK of bid weightings. If you don't believe me read where ALPA proposed adding 2 weighting groups H+++ and L--- to take the total to 9 instead of 7.
The only reason I can think of why so many people don't understand that this specific PBS is terrible are because either they think all PBS systems will be difficult so why change when they have already have learned this one, or because they don't understand how it works.
We should let seniority determine lines, not bidding skill and/or limited weighting choices.
The only reason I can think of why so many people don't understand that this specific PBS is terrible are because either they think all PBS systems will be difficult so why change when they have already have learned this one, or because they don't understand how it works.
We should let seniority determine lines, not bidding skill and/or limited weighting choices.
Many people are lazy when it comes to change. We need to get off the pot and make a better system a priority.
10-19-2016, 10:10 AM
#44
UCH Pilot
Joined APC: Oct 2014
Position: 787
Posts: 776
I think many people don't truly understand the why's of PBS and it's priorities. It does abrogate seniority, and we as a group don't demand a better system, so in a way, it's our own fault our system sucks.
Many people are lazy when it comes to change. We need to get off the pot and make a better system a priority.
Many people are lazy when it comes to change. We need to get off the pot and make a better system a priority.
10-21-2016, 08:35 AM
#45
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2014
Position: Airbus 320 Captain
Posts: 481
If you are trying to avoid back to back trips (i.e. you want a minimum of one full day off between each trip) then you need to set minimum base rest time to a sufficiently high value, around 35 hours. Setting minimum days between blocks will still build back to back trips within a work block (e.g. a 4 day work block with two trips back to back).
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
