Originally Posted by
BoilerUP
I am 100% in support of one level of safety with regards to flight time and duty rest limits for all airline pilots in the United States.
We should not have to "buy" safer operational limits via the collective bargaining process, and anyone who claims that 117 will cause more commutes, circadian flops, and decimate schedules is spreading nothing but FUD.
If your CBA is more restrictive than 117 in an area, nothing will change; if your CBA is less restrictive than 117 in an area, 117 will become your new 'FAR limit'. The FRMS in 117.7 allows deviations to 117 requirements, and there is zero reason to believe waivers jointly desired by both labor and management (week on/off schedules, for example) and backed by decades of safe operational experience would be denied.
Your employer (and mine and every other company that makes up the Cargo Airline Association) is spending hundreds of man hours and thousands of PAC dollars lobbying against Safe Skies...do we really think they're doing that in OUR collective best interest?
One Level Of Safety is a nice slogan. However one set of regulations does not guarantee the same level of safety. The implications of 117 on a predominantly day operation are different than the implications on a company that operates much more at night. Yes there are mechanisms to get SOME schedules beyond 3 nights but the ability to get week on week off will be less likely unless it benefits our companies. They will do what suits them regardless of what it does to our schedules and QOL. You did not prove that our schedules will not be adversely affected just by claiming that to disagree with you is nothing but spreading Fear Uncertainty and Doubt. There absolutely is uncertainty and doubt about the benefits you claim. And as stated before, 2 hours of sleep may or may not be safer than a quick turn to a shorter flight and shorter duty period resulting in a longer layover.