Originally Posted by
Jack Bauer
After scanning all or part of the new rules it appears on its face pretty watered down and the airlines lobbying efforts won out more often than not on each given proposal that was intended to increase safety and reduce fatigue. Very sad to see the outlandish arguments made by "industry" and paid for "studies" that influenced the powers that be (FAA) to break from a true "how can we help pilots feel more rested, be less fatigued and make less mistakes" approach.
I am open to differing opinions but the language used and seeming backpedaling made by the FAA begs the question who got paid off and how...future jobs, money, etc?
Any differing opinions out there? I would like to hear some concrete reasons why this is a win?
I actually thought most of the rules were fair and realistic with the exception of of two major things:
1. The exclusion of cargo carriers
2. Two YEARS to implement (really?!)
The un-reducible 10 hours of rest is a big win, in my opinion, along with the reduced duty days. I remember just how exhausting those 16 hour 5 leg days were, any every time I have been reduced to 8 hours of rest I am just miserable. The 30 hours rest required in 7 days is also a big plus, being scheduled to end at 2 pm and duty in the next day at 2 pm, does NOT make someone feel like they had a day to rest and recuperate. I think that extra 6 hours makes a big difference.
Before I say the following I will say I am not and have never been management: Safety and cost will ALWAYS have to be balanced. As someone else said to me once, the day after 9/11 was probably the safest day in aviation history, but cost the airlines a lot of money! So in an attempt to be as objective as I can, I actually think most of these rulings are fair.