Originally Posted by
rickair7777
I have to jump in here...
For many of us, days off is the only justification left for this career. When I'm at work I'm gone...I need more days off than a nine-to-fiver to balance that out. For me it's about 15 days off to barely break even. Anything less than that and this job is QOL-negative. Eighteen is what I prefer.
This is a very, very important issue and is unrelated to safety. The concern that people have is that the FAA will mandate changes which will affect airline economics...especially regionals. It is particularly bad for regionals because they are stuck with their income level and can't change it until the next round of feed contracts.
Majors at least can raise ticket prices, and since all majors will be impacted the same it should not be a competitive issue.
But the regionals are stuck, and they will do what they always do when backed into a corner...take it out on labor. I think the frustration is that the government is changing the rules but not making any allowance for the impact on us. If I were to be limited to 12 days off, I would quit...unless the company eliminated all overnight trips and did only locals so I could be home each night.
What if you told a nine-to-fiver that he was going to have to spend 72 additional hours at work each month, unpaid. He would laugh in your face...
Major schedules are different, so obviously this will not affect them much. Even some of the better regionals rarely go over 12 hours. I suspect the bottom-feeders will get hit hardest...they will take everyone down to min days off and still have to hire.
I understand your concern but that still does not justify why we should be flying 14 to 16 hours a day when scientific data has proven that pilot's are not 100% when working those kinds of hours. I think we tend to forgot that our profession is centered on safety, or at least it should be and not around day's off.
As you mentioned earlier, this will affect airline economics especially when it comes to labor. What's the incentive for the airlines? To start scheduling more productive trips for the pilots. I have seen way to many times a trip with a 5 hour sit in between my schedule. If the airlines want to stay competitive and keep labor cost low, next time they will fly me back to base to fly another leg rather than waste 41% of my useful day sitting around doing nothing. What are the consequences if they don't do this? They will require a significantly larger workforce than will be necessary, therefore increasing payroll.
As you know with the current regulations 50% of our time can be spent flying and 50% sitting around doing nothing. Why give the company this much leeway? Keep the flight time the same and decrease the duty day and the consequence of that will benefit us all. That way our day can be divided in to 66% flight/34% duty; gives the company less room to play with.
Let's also not forgot that flight time may also be increasing with these new rules as well. This will enable us to have more productive trips too.
With a more productive flying schedule and less sitting around, not only will you notice a bigger paycheck but your days off will also stay the same. Remember, either way they have to pay you 70 - 75 hours a month. If the company flies you any less than that they are loosing out.
And last but not least, since so many people make the claim here that the companies don't do it that often to warrant a change, than there should be no reason why they would decrease everyone to min days off if the rules do change.
Last edited by StrikeTime; 09-10-2009 at 12:11 PM.