Originally Posted by
FXLAX
Do those flight from MEM to Europe and Asia or the ANC to Asia flights block more than 8:35?
No. They typically fall in the 8:20 to 8:30 range, so if we adopted 117 over our CBA - no RFO on departures between 0500-1959L (not just from MEM but from anywhere we happen to be if we're not acclimated).
Originally Posted by
FXLAX
Obviously it’s better to have a sleep room at the hub but personally I prefer a hotel room than hanging out.
Okay - but I know you know that the process of leaving a secure ramp facility to go to a hotel room for 2-hours behind the door isn't always as good as it might sound in practice. Sleep may or may not happen and if it doesn't, that crew has just extended their overall duty time for no fatigue mitigation benefit simply to comply with an FAR. I'm sure I'm not the only one who might prefer to keep the turn tight, shorten the duty and get to the hotel sooner. Do you not see the potential value in that for what I'll bet is many of us and conversely the risk in hoping the "sleep during 2 specific hours" gamble pays off?
Originally Posted by
FXLAX
As for reserve, I think the 12 hour rest applies to long call if your FDP begins before and operates into your WOCL (0200-0559). I don’t think that applies to short call or airport standby.
Ok, I agree with this now. My bad.
Originally Posted by
FXLAX
Many contracts that were more restrictive than 117 remained so. Sometimes pilots are their own worst enemy when it comes to fatigue. Pilots will always try to go to the limit in order to reduce the amount of commutes for example.
The fact that this happened at other airlines is irrelevant. I have zero confidence in our pilot group's ability to keep anything in our contract we want to stay there, especially something like RFO rules which involve a minority. I don't need to be saved from myself. One could argue more commutes breaking up what was once a week-on/week-off schedule could end up being more fatiguing. IMO, one of the great QOL aspects of this particular job is being able to take a large chunk of time away from it and adequately recover from the rigors of a challenging schedule. If someone wants to spread out their flying across all 4-5 weeks of a particular month, there are plenty of shotgun schedules available. I'd rather not have those kinds of schedules mandated to everyone when some of us may prefer and adapt better to more concentrated flight periods with larger block of off days.
Originally Posted by
FXLAX
I heard Chuck Dyer say (paraphrasing) that on balance, 117 would benefit Fedex pilots. Are there any parts of 117 that you see that would be better for us?
I'm not sure what Chuck was specifically referring to. I'm not an expert, but as we've had these exchanges, I've gotten more familiar.
Frankly, I see very little that would benefit us. Our contract is already in line with much of it. Rest periods, RFO use, block hour limits, reserve limits are already equal or exceed 117 (from my examination - not exhaustive). AM out and back lines are already built with a max of three in a row. But, the nice thing is, if someone wants to add another and they feel up to it, they have the option.
I'm not interested in flying unaugmented for 9 hours because I'm supposedly still on domicile time when that duty period starts. (how's that work for a West coast commuter?) Flying an extra hour with three pilots before we go to four is equally unappealing. We already see the difference going from CAN to Europe (4 pilots) and doing the same thing the other way with 3 pilots. It's huge - and would be a big detriment.
You can read as well (or better) than I. Do YOU see any benefit for our pilot group? If not, then why are we complaining about the cargo cut-out. There's plenty to be concerned about when it comes to our union, but this is noise level IMO.