We've beat 117 dead in another thread, so all I'll say is that there is no guarantee that our schedules will be any safer under 117. Unintended consequences as addressed in the web site above are a very big threat.
Adding 1000 pilots to what appears to be a correctly staffed FedEx sounds like the regulators introducing a pretty significant level of inefficiency into our system form. Inefficiency is a two way street. Of course the company isn't going to like it. But, does that mean we will? Homogeneous, city pure hub-turn pairings built into week-on/week-off schedules are efficient for pilots too. In my experience, efficient schedules (that comply with our already safe CBA) means less work days per month and less circadian swaps - that in and of itself could be argued is less fatiguing. But now, potential inefficiency is a good thing because while we'll still be inefficient, we'll be able to "out-inefficient" our competition like Atlas? Genius.
But, I'd like to understand how you think adding pilots due to 117 is going to make you more senior. Unless 117 is going to magically drum up additional business and as a result, additional flying, how is adding 1000 pilots to deal with regulatory requirements make you more senior?
Pilots below you are a furlough buffer. If there's enough flying to build 900 lines, 50 reserve lines and 50 secondary lines and no flying is added but 200 pilots are, show me how #900 gets more senior. He's still got 899 pilots ahead of him scooping up the same trips he wants. Still gets to pick his vacation behind the same 899 pilots.
You want an end to 16 hour extensions, get some extra sleep time on the turns and 10 hours behind the door no matter what, then negotiate it in our next contract - or just call in fatigued if it happens tomorrow. Effing up our schedules with inefficiencies just to get those "one-offs" that don't happen that often doesn't seem too smart.