You seem to be confused both about terminology and tenses, so let's try to get this straight:
For present hypotheticals we use a form that is technically referred to as the subjunctive. The subjunctive is identical to the simple past in most forms, but you'll notice that it differs for the first-person singular:
If they were here, I would be happy.
If I were rich, I would be happy. (Not: If I was rich.)
(Just to make things complicated, this form of the subjunctive is disappearing and many people do, in fact, say If I was rich. But for the purposes of illumination, let's treat this as a separate way of inflecting the verb.)
For past hypotheticals we use the past perfect (or pluperfect), not the "present past" that you referred to. (I've never heard the term "present past" before, and in any case I would interpret it as a reference to the present perfect, which is incorrect.) The reason for this is that the simple past is the same in almost all cases as the subjunctive, which is used for the present hypothetical.
If they had been there, I would have been happy.
If I had stayed, I would have met her.
For future hypotheticals we use the simple present. This is not actually surprising, since the simple present is used for near-future events in a variety of contexts in English.
If they come, I'll be happy.
Note, however, that it's actually possible to use both the modal will and other future constructions such as going to in this construction, depending on context.
If they will reduce the price, I'll buy.
Here will retains some of its historical sense of willingness as opposed to indicating mere futurity.
If they are going to leave, then I am, too.
This is a pure future conditional. You can use going to for the future hypothetical in almost any case where you would otherwise use the simple present with no change in meaning.
If-clauses that predict the future are commonly followed by a main clause with will + infinitive:
If you ask without any background, many people will assume you are
just too lazy ... .
What complicates the present example is the use of the word likely. This word already has a future implication so there is no need to use will too. For example:
He is likely to be late = It is probable that he will be late.
For this reason the first of the OP's sentence is perfectly acceptable.
Best Answer
In your sentence as amended, send is without a doubt in the present indicative tense (and it is not a conditional sentence). In English, however, the present tense does rather more than express what’s going on in the present. To talk about something that’s going on right now, we generally use be + the –ing form of the verb which describes the action or state. We use the present tense, on the other hand, to refer to:
(1) a fact that is always or generally true (Water boils at 100 degrees centigrade);
(2) a repeated action (I go to church every Sunday);
(3) an event that occurs at the moment we are speaking (I promise); and
(4) fixed or planned events taking place in the future (My flight leaves early tomorrow morning).
In your example, send could express either (2) or (4), depending on the context. In either case, it is understood that the schedules are or will be sent according to a pre-arranged plan. If that were not to be the case, you would have to say We might be able to figure this out from the schedules you’ll be sending us. Perhaps that was what your boss meant. If so, he was half right, but we express the future by using will + the plain form of the verb only when we are making a prediction or when we are expressing a decision, often made at the time of speaking, about the immediate future. Neither of those cases seems likely given the first half of the sentence.