Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 12/07/2018 in all areas

  1. There's really not much point in having a big debate over PBS. If I managed to make a compelling enough argument that you threw up your hands and said, "JW, you're right - I wish we had line bidding back at AA", you're still going to have PBS at the end of the day. I just feel the need to point out that you really should caveat your positive comments about PBS and limit them to what you guys have successfully negotiated at AA. PBS in the industry is just as widely varied as all the other aspects of individual airline contracts. It's not accurate to say "PBS is great" without putting some qualifiers with that statement. According to you (maybe you can help to quantify your opinion with a seniority hack), AA pilots have done a bang-up job creating an awesome PBS. If the majority of pilots there share your viewpoint, good on you guys. Not every airline with PBS can make that claim. So, I continue not to try to sway your opinion, but to add some balance to the discussion and possibly offer new guys who are or eventually find themselves at a line bidding airline a differing perspective. I disagree that most arguments against it are based on misunderstanding or contractual issues. Maybe that's true at AA. But, you can't evaluate it across the industry in a vacuum simply based on it's own merits. Your only experience with it is at AA and according to you it's good. If you wanted to refute arguments against it at another airline, you would need to evaluate it's impact on the complete system in place at that airline - not just what schedules pilots end up with each month. One thing that kind of makes this an apples to oranges discussion is the significant variation in trip constructions at FedEx and UPS when compared to pax carriers. I would say that PBS is more suited to a pax airline. The concept of a "dream schedule" is probably only limited by one's imagination at AA. At FedEx, everyone's dreams (on a particular) aircraft fall into very similar patterns. So, it's very easy to build lines people want. Domestically, we basically work Mon-Fri, sometimes Sat. No one wants to work nights in a shotgun fashion, so we work week-on/week-off and so on. With a huge population of commuters (70%-ish), that works great - less commutes each month. Same for international. We have huge trips. Lots of them. Most pilots either work one 12-14 day trip or two smaller trips each month. There are a smaller number of lines for locals who prefer a higher number of shorter trips in a month. My point is, PBS generated lines according to individual pilot's desires would most likely look like they do now being built by our own pilots on the scheduling group. So, with all the negatives that come with PBS, we really have no reason to accept it. I don't know about AA, but here, no contractual changes are going to generate the same level of QOL improvement that we can by conflict bidding. Our contract already exceeds the FARs in every area. The "shortcomings" (as you call them) of line bidding create opportunities for more pilots across a larger seniority range to be able to manipulate their schedules - BEFORE trip trading, dropping, picking up trips is an option. As I emphasized by bolding your statements above, PBS is strictly seniority based which you accurately acknowledged and is a HUGE factor when evaluating the reality of PBS. There's something to be said for the "So, you're saying I've got a chance!" potential even if it's occasional as opposed to knowing, without a doubt, you're only going to get what your 93% seniority can hold. A final point - Airline management wants PBS.....badly. That should tell you something in and of itself. Many airlines that use PBS had it forced on them via bankruptcy contracts they had little to no choice in voting for. At FedEx, we continue to counter management's efforts to introduce PBS into our contract negotiations. We do that, not because we don't understand PBS - but because we do. In our case, it's not worth the cost in: pilots on our seniority list, time off during our vacation months, schedule flexibility for all especially junior pilots and having to waste negotiating capital to fend off attempts to enhance efficiency on the PBS scheduling algorithm every contract cycle just to get schedules similar to the ones we already get now.
    5 points
  2. I have no idea how you made it this far...or you’re still trolling. MLR.
    2 points
  3. I stand by PBS being great. Most of the arguments against it are contractual, or just flat out misunderstandings and what PBS actually does. But at it's core, PBS offers the ability to build your dream schedule, so long as you have the seniority. You can't do that in a system where the lines are predetermined. Trading, dropping, and picking up trips to manipulate a schedule from line-bidding are contractual elements (that we also have under a PBS system) to account for the shortcomings of a line-based bidding process. PBS certainly does provide the company with the ability to more tightly manage manning, but the contract, rather than conflict bidding and other technicalities are where we should be securing our QOL protections. When I was getting out of the military a whole bunch of people kept telling me about PBS and how I should avoid it at all costs. Now looking back, I realize those people were at Southwest FedEx and UPS. I think United too before they switched over. They knew about as much as I did about it. Now that I'm here, all I do is fly with guys who were line bidders for 20 years and only recently switched over to PBS once American did. I would say about 75% or more of them prefer PBS. If you take the time, learn the system, and create a very nuanced standing bid, you don't even need to do anything month-to-month. Again, seniority allowing. There are many things at American that need to be fixed, probably even more than the other airlines right now. But PBS does not preclude those fixes from happening. And on a more mercenary note, PBS is generally a benefit to the new guys, because let's face it, the old guys as a group aren't too keen on learning new systems. That leaves a lot of opportunities for us to get sequences that we would not otherwise have the seniority to hold.
    1 point
  4. MyPers Officer Promotions will have the promotion increments. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    1 point
  5. TL:DR but important note from 3)..... the website is handgunlaw.US
    1 point
  6. For those of us with a safety shop that doesn't believe in using the safety process to prevent mishap and won't let you read mishap reports: https://www.militarytimes.com/2018/12/05/investigation-blames-air-force-and-navy-for-systemic-failures-in-fatal-marine-corps-c-130-crash-that-killed-16/ The horrific KC-130T plane crash that killed 15 Marines and a sailor last summer was caused by a deteriorating propeller blade that was corroded when it entered an Air Force maintenance depot in 2011, but workers there failed to fix it and sent it back to the fleet unrepaired. This neglect allowed a routine corrosion problem to metastasize into a crack that went undetected for years until a mundane cross-country transport mission ended in flames. On July 10, 2017, that worn-down blade finally failed and came loose from the propeller 20,000 feet above Mississippi farmland, as the Marine Corps Reserve plane was en route to California under the call sign “Yanky 72.” It shot into the side of the aging aircraft, one of the last 130Ts still flying, a model set to be retired in the next few years. The blade’s impact set off a cataclysm that killed everyone on board and left the aircraft in three pieces, creating inconsolable heartache for 16 military families and an inferno of wreckage scattered for miles.
    1 point
  7. The service in general could not handle it because airframes are no longer replaceable
    1 point
  8. Bro, you're already the Ultimate Fighter Pilot... Why do you care about ANG openings?
    1 point
×
×
  • Create New...