Originally Posted by
Noworkallplay
What? You moved the goal post again. Now you have come to the conclusion that our more restrictive CBA rules will be voided or lost in some way shape or form? Well that’s not what happened at the pax airlines when 117 was implemented so why would that occur at FDX?
No - didn't move anything. I'm simply saying that if the company is forced to comply with 117 and whatever additional cost that entails, it's only natural that they will attempt to offset those costs where they can. When we open up section 12 during our next CBA negotiations for a post 117 FedEx, what's to stop the company from using it to justify changes we don't want, like increased block hours before requiring an RFO. Telling the company we want to keep it the way it is doesn't seem like a real valid reason when the new science based regulation they just had forced on them says 9 is ok. The current 8 hour requirement is exceeded by our CBA. No one else uses 7:35. They all comply with the FAR limit of 8 if that's the limit that applies. Are you telling me that 117 airlines don't fly 9 hours without an RFO if the crew is acclimated? I kind of doubt that's really the case.
Also, the argument that we don't have to vote the change in doesn't hold much water considering our past history. A minority of our pilots care about RFOs or other more "niche" aspects of our work rules. All it took was 57% last time to say, "Meh.. good enough, I don't deadhead in first class much....... I don't do hotel-in-lieu of internationally..... I don't ............fill in the blank".