Scheduling Articles
Oct. MEC Crew Scheduling
Chair Report
Eric
Brahm Oct. 10, 2007
Since
coming to this position I
have been strived hard to
increase my knowledge of the
process by which our lines
are created and of the
limitations we confront. I
realize now that I’ll be
fighting much more of an
uphill battle than I
anticipated and my hat goes
off to Nancy for all the
hard work she has done over
the past three years.
Planning Task Force
One of
the activities that I have
been involved with is the
Planning Task Force.
The
company formed a Planning
Task Force made up of
representatives from the
following work groups: ALPA,
AFA, Crew Planning, Crew
Resources, Current Schedules
and Finance. AFA was
represented by Veronica
Tenerelli, John Grace, and
Nancy Hunter.
This
process started before I was
elected to serve as the MEC
Scheduling Chair. After
elections the MEC requested
that the company allow the
AFA to add an additional
member (myself) and for
Nancy to continue on with me
representing the flight
attendants to make for a
smoother transition. This
request was granted and we
both remained involved
through the completion. The
group met 4 times beginning
in April. and was divided
into smaller committees that
reported back to the group.
The Task Force has held it’s
final meeting and has sent
its recommendations on to
Peter. These
recommendations will be
officially presented in a
public forum probably mid
November. In the meantime
I’ll provide you with a
break down of some of the
issues we looked at.
Co-Pairing
Before
I came in the group
considered separating the
pilot lines from the flight
attendant lines. Nancy has
already presented a report
on how she felt that would
affect us. It was
determined that doing so
would not be cost
effective. It would require
more man hours in Planning
and Scheduling and might
cause an increase in
misconnects. It also had
the potential of separating
the problem we as flight
attendants have in that we
are dependent on lines
developed for a work group
that often has interests and
desires very different from
our own. This can affect
connect times, variety or
lack thereof in the trips
when one group is commuters
and the other local in
nature. The pilot shortage
that the company is
experiencing has been
extremely detrimental to our
line construction. The line
average value is higher than
what our work group would
find optimal. Separating
the pairings would allow us
the flexibility of building
lines that better meet our
needs and more tailored to
our staffing levels The
company has offered to
create additional lines for
f/a built from the pilot
lines. While this is
beneficial to the people who
can hold a line that would
otherwise be on reserve and
to the flight attendant who
gets additional days off, it
does not create the optimum
lines for our work group and
will only be done when the
company determines there is
an overage of flight
attendants. For the month
of Oct there were no
additional lines created at
any base. Both Veronica and
I have continuously stressed
that we would like to see
co-paring reconsidered.
Crew Planning Software
Members
of the task force questioned
whether the crew pairing
optimization software
currently used by Eagle, AOS,
provides optimal solutions
given our current restraints
and complexity. Members of
the task force met to
evaluate how different
inputs into AOS might impact
the program’s solutions. We
learned that we may be able
to improve the solutions by
running multiple iterations
changing variables such as
maximum block time and
forcing day trips on hub
originators. However,
existing computing power
imposes time constraints on
Crew Planning’s ability to
re-run solutions during
real-time production. To
ensure we are getting the
most from our existing
tools, Crew Planning was
given approval to upgrade
their computers. This has
been accomplished and the
new computers have
substantially more memory
and speed.
There
are other pairing
optimization products
available and the task force
conducted a high level
review of those options. It
was determined these other
products may have the
potential to provide better
solutions but the cost of
investing in new software is
substantial. Also, since
there are still questions
about whether we are getting
the most from AOS, we agreed
to defer further
consideration of replacement
software until other issues,
maintenance routings in
particular, are addressed.
Prior
to the start of this task
force, Crew Planning
expressed interest in
acquiring bid line
optimization software from
AOS. This is an additional
tool that may lead to
improved line productivity.
CDO’s
There
was a subcommittee that was
supposed to consider CDOs.
I was appointed to this
committee but to my
knowledge it never met.
Somehow it was determined
(without much in the way of
any actual study) that CDOs
are occasionally cost
neutral but more often drive
higher costs. I’ve seen
that CDOs do have value in
line construction. They
increase line variety and
help strengthen sequences
that would otherwise be weak
thus helping to obtain more
days off. This improves the
quality of the lines. This
issue was not brought to a
resolution. It is still an
outstanding issue and needs
to be addressed in a
different forum. What
exactly that forum is has
not been determined, but we
have expressed our
disappointment with this
being glossed over.
Bridge Flying
Bridge
Flying was discussed. Due to
difficulties experienced by
the limited capabilities of
some of our maintenance
bases and the variety of our
fleet it was determined that
it would be hard to
accommodate more bridge
flying. However, additional
tests are supposed to be run
to determine whether bridge
flying is something that
Crew Planning should
consider exploring further.
Maintenance Routing
I
worked with Crew Planning
and an ALPA representative
to look at the how the lines
would look if they were
built without the constraint
of Maintenance Routing. The
test runs produced trips
that were very similar to
the trips that were
published in the October bid
leading to the conclusion
that Maintenance Routings
have very little impact on
the quality of trips that
are produced in the Crew
Planning Process. It was
determined that even though
the majority of the
maintenance routings are
broken within the first few
days of the month they at
least should help to avoid
“loops” that prevent an
aircraft from coming into
contact with a maintenance
base at least every 4 days.
Our recommendation was that
it didn’t change the lines
substantially and if the
company saw some value then
they should continue to use
them.
ASCO
The
task force also asked to
evaluate ASCO, a tool used
in the SOC to keep crew with
equipment, and its impact on
the crew quality of life
issue. “Before and After”
tests were run using
schedules from individual
dates and the results showed
that ASCO slightly reduced
crew swaps. The
recommendations of the task
force were: parameters used
in ASCO need to be synched
up with schedule planning
constraints and ASCO should
still be run in ORD with the
revised parameters to gather
more data
General Consensus on the
Task Force
In
conversations with the other
Task Force members from AFA,
I think the conclusion we
all reached was that we went
into the Task Force
optimistic and left
disappointed. Although it
was nice for Planning that
they received new computers,
it has not yet translated
into improved lines. We
felt as if our interests
were looked at
half-heartedly. We weren’t
certain that our concerns
were taken seriously. In
the recommendations there is
some vague language of
looking further at Bridge
Flying and CDOs but not any
time frame mentioned or how
this will come about.
Slightly after I joined the
Task Force, Bradley Terrill
resigned both as coordinator
and from the company. Jason
Weems replaced him but much
of the energy and momentum
seemed lost.
Aug. Planning Round
Table
We met
for the usual round of
complaints due to the
degradation of lines. We
talked about how the pilot
shortage was affecting us
through higher line average
and less variety. Dave
Brown came into the meeting
to meet with us. Veronica
made it clear that we did
not feel as though we were
adequately staffed. We
questioned how the company
could have been caught off
guard by the AA recall that
created so many transfers.
He explained to us that AA
doesn’t always inform them
in a timely manner and often
changes their mind. He said
there would be regular
classes throughout the
year. It was brought up
that we’d like open houses
at the bases that will be
hiring so that people don’t
quit as soon as the come on
line due to the high cost of
relocating. Dave Brown has
finally made a commitment to
sit down with Veronica or
whom ever we choose to give
us the formula used in
determining staffing. He
also stated that he will
bring us charts and graphs
for the next Round Table and
explain it to the Scheduling
Reps. Veronica told him
that although it will be
nice to see how the numbers
are decided what the AFA
would really like to see
instead is an actual
increase in our numbers.
Bid Package Format
Change
During
the summer an experiment was
done in DFW with the bid
packages. The lines were no
longer displayed by days off
but were put in order by
type of sequence. The
feedback was very positive
and it was decided to do
this across the system at
all bases. The initial
response has been good with
minimal complaints and many
positive comments. Bid
packets will remain in the
new format however this was
done as an experiment and
can be reversed if the
membership is not in favor
of continuing it in this
manner. It made no
difference at SJU since it’s
always been done that way.
Mixed Standby Lines
LGA was
not pleased with the Standby
lines and asked if they
could have lines created
with one half regular
reserve and the other half
standby. They were the only
base with this interest.
Planning should be doing
this for LGA only and said
if the response isn’t
favorable they will change
it back upon request.
Minimum Turn Times
We
requested that the minimum
turn time for each base be
published in the bid
package. We felt this was
important for several
reasons. The first was to
be certain that everyone was
using the same figure.
There seemed to be some
confusion because the time
varies from base to base and
aircraft type. It also
depends on whether there is
an aircraft swap. We wanted
to be assured that requests
for OT would not be denied
because of this. We also
wanted reserves to be aware
of how much time they had
when they were given
schedule changes. Carol
Pavlik and I had further
discussion on this after the
meeting and determined that
JETNET might be a more
effective tool because it
would give everyone
immediate access. She has
been working with Brent to
get this accomplished and I
expect to see results
shortly
Surveys
I would
like to survey our flight
attendants to get a more
formal tally of their
opinions on what the
formation of our bid
packets. I’ve been in
discussion with Carl to
decide what format would be
the most effective.
Veronica explained that at
the larger bases it would be
impractical to do a paper
survey. I’m interested in
perhaps placing one on the
AFA website in conjunction
with an emailing to the
master membership list
requesting that they go
there to fill it out. We’ll
discuss this at the Nov.
Planning Round Table and
hopefully come up with
something practical for all
bases.
Meal Breaks
I have
been doing some
investigation on what is
actually meant by the term
Meal Break.
So far
what I have learned is that
when Planning is creating a
line and the option is on,
in any duty period longer
that 6:59 hours there must
be at least one break of 50
minutes or more. The meal
break doesn’t take into
consideration whether or not
the return flight is
domestic or international,
or whether there is a plane
swap. In some bases this
might be an ideal amount of
time, at others I question
whether it is “reasonable”.
I have
been receiving complaints
from several of the bases of
trips created without
adequate time to obtain,
much less eat food. In the
hope of creating more
efficient day trips the AFA
has historically requested
the break option be turned
off for day trips and day
one of multi-day trips.
This requires crews to use
some forethought in
preparing for such trips. I
understand our reasoning for
requesting trips in this
manner but would like to
include a question on the
surveys to be assured that
it this is the preference of
the majority of our crews.
There will be more
discussion on this at our
prep meeting before the next
Planning Round Table so you
might consider discussing
your opinions with your
Scheduling Reps so that your
views are reflected there.
Crew Planning ~ VS~ Crew Scheduling,
Written by Veronica
Tenerelli
Please take a moment to educate yourself on the differences and
functions of your Scheduling Committee.
Many times Flight Attendants come to the AFA Scheduling Reps with questions/concerns regarding their trip mid SEQ., or at the end of a SEQ.;
especially when crew scheduling has altered their trip in any way. Unless your local Scheduling Rep is dually trained and serves as both a Scheduling Rep and Grievance Rep, your concerns may
be headed in the wrong direction. A simple way to remember which Company/Union Rep responsible for scheduling concerns is as follows:
- Construction of the Bid-packet ~ Crew Planning/AFA Scheduling Committee
- Enforcement of the Bid-packet ~ Crew Scheduling/AFA Grievance
The Scheduling Committees primary function is to give input in
the development of the SEQ. and bid-packet at each base. Often times this can be very challenging due to constant scheduling changes, and a small window of opportunity for crew planning to
incorporate requested changes by the AFA
Scheduling Rep. The biggest obstacle is our contract that provides little accountability by the company in support of the Scheduling Committee.
I have attached a time line of our duties each month with the Crew Planning Department. The time line is an approximate as marketing changes can alter the dates somewhat.
For questions, please see your Local Scheduling Reps.
|
