Quote:
We wanted 117 when we thought we could work with the FAA on some issues and preserve week on/week off type flying with proper rest mitigation (ie good sleep rooms, block time limits, etc). When IPA sued the FAA, discussions with other unions (like ALPA) were terminated. At this point a unilateral adoption of FAR 117 might have some detrimental unforeseen consequences. Any chance we had to shape and massage the rules was lost when the lawsuit was filed.
For every pilot that wants 117 here, there is probably one that does not. This is going to be a very complex process, and if we were to be included it probably needs to be done with some pretty serious study on the actual impact. That is what CD's emails on the subject indicated are going on.
Not here to carry RF's water, but in six months I've seen him personally intervene and help several pilots with issues. He is CP...he is going to push for company position on 117, and that position is we don't want it. That's his job. What I would say is there are probably as many guys bounding into his office saying "protect my schedule" as there are saying "117 is the right way to go..."
While I haven't reviewed the current version of the rules, in the past our CBA kept us pretty much above most of the mins anyway. You will see longer block on day flights allowed if we get 117. Again--its not 100% good for us in some areas.
FAA issued the 117 rule with the cargo cutout before the suit was filed.Originally Posted by Albief15
This one isn't black and white, guys....We wanted 117 when we thought we could work with the FAA on some issues and preserve week on/week off type flying with proper rest mitigation (ie good sleep rooms, block time limits, etc). When IPA sued the FAA, discussions with other unions (like ALPA) were terminated. At this point a unilateral adoption of FAR 117 might have some detrimental unforeseen consequences. Any chance we had to shape and massage the rules was lost when the lawsuit was filed.
For every pilot that wants 117 here, there is probably one that does not. This is going to be a very complex process, and if we were to be included it probably needs to be done with some pretty serious study on the actual impact. That is what CD's emails on the subject indicated are going on.
Not here to carry RF's water, but in six months I've seen him personally intervene and help several pilots with issues. He is CP...he is going to push for company position on 117, and that position is we don't want it. That's his job. What I would say is there are probably as many guys bounding into his office saying "protect my schedule" as there are saying "117 is the right way to go..."
While I haven't reviewed the current version of the rules, in the past our CBA kept us pretty much above most of the mins anyway. You will see longer block on day flights allowed if we get 117. Again--its not 100% good for us in some areas.
At the time of the FAA ruling, the FAA was not entertaining discussion about how to include special rules for cargo. Was a clean exception. All discussions and the NPRM was complete
The entire time the suit was in process, all pilot unions, Independent unions, CAPA, and ALPA were working legislatively to change the carveout as well in Congress.
Im perplexed with your version of blaming the IPA. Your timeline is wrong.
Additionally, not fighting the carveout like done with TCAS, battery concerns and the like, sends a strong message to cargo companies that they should also be excluded from other safety measures in regulations (again, TCAS etc)
Not fighting at every step is short sighted. 117 was a signal the FAA can be manipulated by govt and corporate interests. 117 was a victory for everyone but cargo pilots. Reason managements fought so hard even after they won the suit. They feared the legisative as well. Again, which had been waged by the IPA the entire time with other unions. Some more than others, but a team effort nonetheless.
You must be relieved cargo pilots lost the battle of 117, even though 117 is not all cherry's, sure encourages other carve outs though. FAA seems willing to oblige.
SD