Originally Posted by
pinseeker
Who is saying adopting 117 over the CBA? If the CBA is more restrictive, then we go with the CBA, just like we do now. We can already block over 8 in a duty period without an RFO. The CBA is currently more restrictive than the FAR's regarding RFO's.
Really? When can we block over 8 in a duty period without an RFO right now?
As to the rest...Hopefully no one is saying 117 over anything. My point is very little of what I see in 117 is going to be better than what we have right now.
But if enough people b!tch about the cargo cut-out and it eventually goes away and we're under 117 - now we have to be able to justify what's in our contract and use negotiating capital to do so.
If this supposedly "science based" regulation that ALPA has been championing since it's inception now becomes gospel in the cargo world, how are we going to be able to sit on the other side of the negotiating table and say, "Yeah...we still need an RFO at 7:36 block even though the rest of the industry is going 9:00 with two pilots".
"Oh, while we're at it, let's stick with 4-pilots over 12 hours of block even though industry standard is now 13 hours".
Originally Posted by
pinseeker
It wasn't pilots that tried to get us cut out of 117, it was the cargo companies. Why do you think that is?
Because most cargo companies don't have the contract we have and would have to jump through a lot more hoops to make their contract line-up with 117. For FedEx specifically, the minor benefits the company might gain by chopping an RFO here and there are probably offset by the ass pain of putting pilots in hotels or sleep rooms for 2 hours or whatever other noise level adjustments to duty or rest might be necessary.
My point is that anyone at FedEx complaining about the "cargo cut-out" probably hasn't taken the time to look into what they're complaining about.