Originally Posted by
AutoBrkOff
“There is a subtle yet very distinct difference between asking a crew if they want to extend vs. extending them and forcing them to call fatigued if they’re unsafe. It’s the same reason our Captains are taught to ask for input from the First Officer before stating what they think should be done.
If the extension to 16 hours is the main reason for going to 117, why not take work that out in the contract. From
https://www.saynoto117.com/history.html :
4) Section 2.53 and Section 12.A.3 of the FedEx/ALPA 2015 CBA (contract) define an operational emergency. That is where the FAR limit phrase is in our CBA. Here is a sentence from that section: "When an operational emergency is declared, all flight, duty time and rest limitations may be extended/reduced to FAR limits, except as provided in Section 12.D.9. An operational emergency may be declared for a specific sort facility, a region of the system, nationwide or worldwide."
Supporters of Part 117 frequently cite the ability of the company to extend us to FAR limits during operational emergencies as a justification for going to Congress to "strengthen the backstop" of those times when we're in an operational emergency. I’ve heard from at least 4 MEC members who voted on the Part 117 resolution that we need Part 117 for all those times we are in operational emergencies and get extended to 16 hours of duty. In fact, the MEC Secretary/Treasurer recently stated, in an email, regarding the issue:
“I am convinced the only real thing the company is afraid of losing is the ability to extend us to 16 hours of duty.”
The Sec/Treasurer may be right—the company may not be “worried” at all about our schedules going from week-on/week-off to something much less commutable or palatable or safe. They care about moving airplanes as cheaply and reliably as possible. But WE should be worried about the decimation of our week-on/week off bread and butter schedules we operate safely and so should the union that is supposed to be representing us. They should be worried enough to at least build a sample bidpack and see for themselves and share with the crew force to demonstrate meaningfully and concretely that this would be a “nothing burger” as they contend.
Furthermore:- Part 117 allows for 16 hours of duty in some cases: 14 CFR 117.19(a)(1)
- Why not NEGOTIATE a contract provision for operational emergencies instead of seeking a change to the laws of the entire country that might on a day-to-day basis have negative impacts on fatigue and QOL? It is, in fact, OUR CONTRACT (Section 12.A.3) that allows us to go to FAR limits. If there is collective concern about the provision, isn't the CONTRACT (also called the collective bargaining agreement) the place to start for "collective" concerns?
- Even without #2 above, if a pilot is currently too fatigued to comply with an extension, there are already provisions and remedies for these instances.