Actually, the Regional guys do NOT have it the worst.
I just did a bunch of research, and wrote a report on the Fligh/Duty/Rest issues, and am sending it out to Congress and to some reporters.
The guys who have it the worst at Part 91 guys, who have NO Flight/Duty/Rest rules. So, when they fly commercially, they can be scheduled by their managers for WHATEVER the managers want. NO rules, NO union...they can be ROYALLY screwed!
Next up are the -121 Supplemental guys:
Any Regional guys on reserve for 240 hours CONSECUTIVELY, and then called for a 16 hour+ day? I didn't think so. That's one of the problems they have!
There is some negative impact on most of the majors. Most of the Europe flights back to the US East Coast can now be flown 2 pilot. I don't remember the last time I was SCHEDULED over 13 hours anyway, so I suspect that our schedules won't change much, if at all. My prediction is this is going to be a net negative for our manpower at UAL.
I'm dismayed to see that there is no provision to lower the monthly/yearly flight time limits, and I don't see any change to Whitlow. I guess ALPA didn't learn anything from Little Rock. Hopefully by the time the final language is written, this will be addressed.
I think that the augmentation rules were left untouched, i.e. > 8 hours = 3 pilots. There is a lot more to this report, ALPA only published some representative tables to counter the air carriers that put out their version yesterday. As they said in the fast read, everyone was supposed to wait until the FAA published their NPRM. Since the carriers broke their promise, ALPA probably wanted to get out something to counter their position lest it become generally accepted as a consensus opinion. According to one of the ARC participants, the report is quite detailed and cannot be described in a short period of time. I recommend again that everyone wait for the full report before making any substantive conclusions.
I think that the augmentation rules were left untouched, i.e. > 8 hours = 3 pilots. There is a lot more to this report, ALPA only published some representative tables to counter the air carriers that put out their version yesterday. As they said in the fast read, everyone was supposed to wait until the FAA published their NPRM. Since the carriers broke their promise, ALPA probably wanted to get out something to counter their position lest it become generally accepted as a consensus opinion. According to one of the ARC participants, the report is quite detailed and cannot be described in a short period of time. I recommend again that everyone wait for the full report before making any substantive conclusions.
Yeah, I hope so! It would be insanity to think 2 pilots would be better rested than 3 after an all-nighter across the Atlantic and going into a busy app. environment like LHR, CDG, FRA or AMS. Amazing how any regulatory scenario promoting safety through increased rest could possiblyentertain the idea of reducing augmented crews on 8+hrs flights through 6 time zones!
You know EVERY single company out there is going to schedule to the max; OK so we can fly more; what about food/bathroom? were not machines; people need brakes. I think these rules are still going to screw us in the end......
True. But right now, most (notice I said most) of the better CBA's out there have language that is more restrictive than current regs. Hopefully (notice again, hopefully) those CBA's get rewritten to to be more restrictive than the proposed changes.
However, It would be nice to get a trip/duty rig so as not to kill time off. Yeah, I know, not likely.
Is it me or is this all this incredibly over-complicated? Why can't it be something simple like "10 hours of rest, max scheduled 8 hours in a 14 day?" Change the numbers for 3 man crews and what not but just make is simple. With this proposal we'll all be looking at charts to figure out if we're legal or not. Way too much thought process for something that should be a no-brainer.
Just like trying to calculate runway distance down to the foot, if you gotta get it that precise is it even worth it?
Is it me or is this all this incredibly over-complicated? Why can't it be something simple like "10 hours of rest, max scheduled 8 hours in a 14 day?" Change the numbers for 3 man crews and what not but just make is simple. With this proposal we'll all be looking at charts to figure out if we're legal or not. Way too much thought process for something that should be a no-brainer.
Just like trying to calculate runway distance down to the foot, if you gotta get it that precise is it even worth it?
No thanks. Under your proposal, I could work three straight 14 hour days, even with those days starting at 9pm. I'll take what ALPA came up with; the company can easily program their computers as is already done at DAL.
I find it interesting that a DAL pilot is a co-chair but there is no Delta signature at the end of the document.
The document you're looking at is the management proposal, not the ALPA or the ARC proposal. The co-chair of the ARC is Captain Don Wycoff, the ALPA Executive Administrator, and he didn't endorse that document that you're reading, which is why he didn't sign it. His name would be attached to the ALPA document, not the management document.
Is it me or is this all this incredibly over-complicated? Why can't it be something simple like "10 hours of rest, max scheduled 8 hours in a 14 day?" Change the numbers for 3 man crews and what not but just make is simple. With this proposal we'll all be looking at charts to figure out if we're legal or not. Way too much thought process for something that should be a no-brainer.
Just like trying to calculate runway distance down to the foot, if you gotta get it that precise is it even worth it?
It's not THAT complicated, and if you're working for a decent carrier, all of this is just going to go into a scheduling computer program anyway.
Besides, this is all supposed to be "scientific", not "simple". I'd like to hope that these new rules have some grounding in objective fatigue research, not just a splatter on the wall and see what sticks.
I'm afraid the detailed specificity is because if you count on carriers (and to some degree, pilots) to do the right thing that common sense would dictate, 95% will, and then 5% won't.
The document you're looking at is the management proposal, not the ALPA or the ARC proposal. The co-chair of the ARC is Captain Don Wycoff, the ALPA Executive Administrator, and he didn't endorse that document that you're reading, which is why he didn't sign it. His name would be attached to the ALPA document, not the management document.
Thanks. I just found it a bit odd. That makes sense.
Can you explain your statement? This requires shorter duty days and longer rest periods. The only change where you can do more is if you report in the morning between 0700 and 1259 you can fly up to 9 block hours. That has no real impact on jobs.
The one big change is that it will force many pilots to fly more days per month to get their hours in. This is always a downside of better work and rest rules.
Hmmm. What about the all the 8.5 hour turns to the Caribbean? Now they're 3 man crews because of the 8 hour rule. They will go to 2 man crews now and cut hundreds of lines and jobs at many of the majors. Not to mention many other city pairs.
I'll say it again. ALPA is a bunch of concessionist pussies. They've done more to damage what's left of this profession than the execs.
Similar Threads
Linear Mode
