First, I'm not implying that we were left out of 117 because someone thought it would make our fatigue worse. It was all about the $$$.
Originally Posted by
FXLAX
As for giving anything up in negotiations, nothing has to be given up. The 7:35 RFO almost becomes moot because anything above 8/9 flight time would require an augmented flight anyway. But again, if the reg is implemented, the contract doesn’t change if it’s more restrictive. The only things that change are things that would be less restrictive.
"Nothing has to be given up"? Were you around for our last contract?
We gave up plenty in that contract just because. If 117 is implemented and as a result, the beneficial aspects of it are forced on the company, you don't think they'll use the same science based data where they can to offset the changes they don't like elsewhere? This "science based" stuff can go both ways - we don't get to ignore what might result in changes we don't like. If there is science based data that supports the company's desire to alter the RFO requirement in our current contract, I believe we would be hard pressed to keep that.
As to it being "moot"... I don't understand your point. There's a big difference between 7:35 and 8/9 at the end of a 13 day trip operating two-pilot from NRT-ANC.
Originally Posted by
FXLAX
Also, I find it odd that on the one hand people ask for a comparison to see if it would be “better” yet claim that it would automatically add a commute. From my prior experience, it didn’t add any commutes.
Were you flying consecutive night hub turns week-on/week-off in your prior experience?
Originally Posted by
FXLAX
FedEx pilots have already used way too much negotiating capital (given up contractual gains) in order to gain some of the good scheduling contract clauses. Having everyone on 117 levels the playing field so that we can use that leverage for all the other things we would like to see improved.
I don't care about a "level playing field". What does that even mean in this context. I care about our work rules, system form and QOL. I'm concerned that those might be degraded unnecessarily for little to no gain. Our current contract is safe because we have expended negotiating capital to make it that way. That's over and done. There's nothing we can do about that. I continue to express doubts that 117 will be an improvement for us and truly enhance safety. I think that's a really bad assumption and I don't think it's unreasonable to ask ALPA to show us exactly how it enhances safety for a FedEx pilot. I don't want to lose anything we've already expended precious negotiating capital on because someone decides it's moot and no longer supported by the science in the new regs.
Finally, expecting a regulation to cover all possible contingencies is unrealistic. There are going to be situations under 117 that require a fatigue call just like there are now under 121. So to claim that reg and it's logic is "flawed" because of an occasional outlier event isn't valid. We'll always need to use the fatigue option at times - no reg can avoid that when irregular ops crop up.