View Single Post
Old 03-22-2020 | 05:38 PM
  #66  
FXLAX
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Nov 2017
Posts: 2,174
Likes: 1
Default Cargo Under Part 117 Effort Accelerating

Originally Posted by Tuck
This is getting absurdly frustrating. Last post on this subject. You keep coming back to the three specific exact AMOCs the MEC listed and then you listed above. YOU DID NOT DO THAT - NOR DID THE MEC. There are none - zero examples of an AMOC. An example is not "this is how we think you apply for one" - an example is "carrier xx got approval to regularly go beyond scheduled limits on weekends flying out of xx airport because of xx" - that's the example. They have no example - that's why they say "existing carrier have...." and can't produce one. It's what they THINK could work from reading the FAA short one page guidance on how to apply - that's it. What we don't have are any examples of whether they actually work. There's a law passed that says oxygen mask regulation shall be changed by the FAA no later than October 2019. We're 6 months passed that and it hasn't happened - there's an example for you of how you think things should work, but actually don't. Go back and re-read what you have posted, re-read the MEC's communications and then list for me an exact example from a carrier (carrier name would even be better). If you can't do that then you have no examples - you just have an idea of how it may work (like the oxygen mask story - we think we know how things might work but then they actually don't work that way in real life).

I re-read the MEC blast mail and the document they provided. I stand by what I’ve said.

The MEC gave three specific actual examples of real AMOCs granted to real existing airlines by the FAA. Like I said, you keep moving goal posts by now asking for “carrier xx got approval to regularly go beyond scheduled limits on weekends flying out of xx airport because of xx.” Go ahead and choose to look the other way just because the real life example was not given out in the specific amount of detail you now want. If you believe there are no AMOCs issued to any airline for deviations to 117, then I don’t know what to tell you.

And again, the FAA national office not promulgating regulations has no correlation with a specific regional FAA office assigned to a carrier (and associated inspectors) issuing a deviation in accordance with the FRMS.


Edit: I remembered reading something from ALPA years ago about Delta being issued a 117 AMOC, so I googled and found this. Read the parts that say FRMS versus non-FMRS. The FMRS sections are the rules of their two AMOCs, which happen to coincide with two of the examples given by our MEC in the communication I referenced for you. The non-FMRS are 117 compliant, meaning a deviation per their FRMS is not used.


https://www.alpa.org/-/media/DAL/Doc...de-FAR-117.pdf

Last edited by FXLAX; 03-22-2020 at 06:09 PM.
Reply