FDX-Just in for your 777 bid
 

FAA Drops Its Rest Plan for Pilots on Long Hauls - WSJ

FAA Drops Its Rest Plan for Pilots on Long Hauls - WSJ.com

By ANDY PASZTOR
After years of disputes with airlines over ways to reduce fatigue in the cockpit, federal aviation regulators this week withdrew a proposal mandating extra rest for U.S. pilots flying the longest international routes.

The Federal Aviation Administration's decision jettisons, at least for the time being, a policy which senior officials had championed as an important safety measure. By establishing new standards for the longest routes, the agency had hoped to set a precedent for addressing the broader issue of pilot fatigue throughout the industry. The agency had been pushing for additional rest for pilots before, during and after these long-haul runs.

The airline industry opposed the initiative, which would have mandated longer layovers for pilots and could have required some carriers to redesign cabins to provide additional sleeping areas for flight crews. Less than a month ago, the FAA asked a federal judge to throw out industry challenges to enhanced crew-rest on so-called ultralong-range routes, or nonstop flights lasting 16 hours or longer.

But earlier this week, the agency informed airlines, pilot unions and other groups it was dropping the proposal based on industry comments. "We remain committed to addressing the issue of fatigue" on such flights, "but believe additional data is necessary," an agency email said.

An FAA spokeswoman said Friday the agency will "work with airlines over the next year to gather data that will help us determine the safety requirements for these flights."

Although a number of carriers have indicated they will voluntarily comply with some provisions, it's still a setback for proponents of tougher fatigue-prevention schedules. Carriers had been concerned that by agreeing to the new policy, they could be opening the door to further FAA restrictions that could be imposed on their operations outside of the standard rule-making process.

The proposal was a building block for the FAA's campaign to use the latest research findings to revise pilot-scheduling rules that basically haven't been updated for decades. Various FAA initiatives have stalled over the years due to disagreements between airlines and pilot groups.

In late 2006 Delta Air Lines Inc. agreed to special operating restrictions on its New York-Mumbai run, but later scrapped that route for commercial reasons. The FAA hoped to hammer out similar restrictions with other carriers.

Last summer, when negotiations over voluntary changes in ultralong-range schedules seemed to be making progress, Peggy Gilligan, a senior FAA safety official, said the goal was to "better apply what we know from science" to enhance safety, sometimes by going outside traditional rule-making procedures. "We will reach some kind of agreement," she predicted at the time. A spokeswoman on Friday said Ms. Gilligan, who is now the agency's top safety official, wasn't available for comment.

Despite years of joint industry-government analyses and fatigue study groups, the FAA continues to face strong opposition from the airline industry. The impasse over these routes -- including nonstop flights by Continental Airlines Inc. from Newark, N.J. to Hong Kong and AMR Corp.'s American Airlines flights between Chicago and Delhi -- comes as outside experts express concern that tired and sleepy pilots are one of the major safety issues confronting U.S. commercial aviation. Some foreign airlines and regulators have already made significant strides in reducing such risks.

On flights lasting longer than eight hours, additional pilots typically are assigned to relieve crew members. But when nonstop flights are scheduled for 16 hours or more, even four-person cockpit crews work beyond that traditional eight-hour per day limit.

The now-stalled proposal allowed some pilots to be behind the controls for a total of more than the current eight-hour limit during a single workday. In return, airlines would have guaranteed extra-long crew rest periods before takeoff, various fatigue-prevention techniques during trips and as many as two full days of rest for pilots after arriving overseas.

When the FAA released the proposal last fall, it said "the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence and studies indicate that people can have significant levels of fatigue" toward the end of such long flights that "may adversely affect safety." Since traditional flight-time rules never contemplated such lengthy trips and grueling schedules, the agency also said "it is appropriate to be cautious" by relying on extra safeguards "to maintain a high level of safety for the traveling public."

American and Continental, which filed suit with a number of other carriers to block the FAA's proposal on procedural grounds, have argued that the scheduling restrictions wouldn't make pilots more alert or in the end, enhance safety.

For years, the FAA has been criticized by the National Transportation Safety Board for failing to impose tougher, wide-ranging fatigue-prevention rules. The proposal affecting long-haul routes was an example of agency efforts to begin tailoring restrictions as a way to target portions of the industry perceived to have the greatest fatigue risks.

—Christopher Conkey contributed to this article.
Write to Andy Pasztor at [email protected]

Email the FAA expressing your disappointment in their dropping the fight for stricter and safer rest requirements for both ULH Flying as well as other flying (if that's how you feel).

I did.

Contact the Aviation Safety Hotline

Thanks for the link - I hope they get flooded with thoughtful and persuesive messages from the guys that care about personal safety more than a bigger profit margin.

I sure sent them my thoughts. Takes no more than 5 minutes of your time. Glad someone else is too.

Sent my concerns, as well. (well knowing that without a large lobbyist pocket, my concerns unfortunately are falling on deaf ears...)

Done. But like AirHead328 said...

Question. Won't this possibly make the 777 schedules more attractive? Same pay for fewer days away from base.

Sure. MEM-Delhi with 16 off vs. 48. :rolleyes:

Exactly, I think you get it. MEM-CAN-MEM. Pay will be the same if you do it in 3 days or 6 days. :shake head back and forth:

And...won't it INCREASE number of bodies required to fly those routes if crew-rest is reduced? (Helping the overmanning situation...)

Hey but think how many more you could do each month to help out your "high 5" ;). Those Jr guys can make it up later. Think how much more we can get by giving up our CBA language to go to FAA max.:rolleyes: A few minor tweaks to the retirement age and carryover, the 2000 guys left on the seniority list could be pulling down $500K.

Sent mine in thanks for the link. Once again safety gives way to the bottom line. What a joke.

Geeze, all I'm saying is who would want to spend 74 hours in CAN when you could spend 26 hours there for the same pay... unless you're chasing the per-diem.

Well jeepers, I was just using sarcasm to point out that past scheduling "improvements" to improve pay and manage time off may have made life better but it has been at the expense of allowing the copmany to get by with fewer pilots. Isn't that simialr to what you were saying?

Sent in my comment right after reading this thread, and seeing the link. Thanks for posting it.

Best thing about the 777 is all the support the union members give to support the negotiating team. DW is now a 777 Captain. Congrats to him and thanks for the support.

Just sent mine .................. What a mess we are in now, reminds me of that old MoTown Song ............ Money, Money, Money

By gum, you have a good point there. I'm sure any work rule that we thought would be good for us, in the end would be exploited by our superiors. Wishful thinking on my part, I guess.

You'll be block hour limited.....

I swear to god, if he's there on the final bid....well, I don't know what I'll do...but I do know that whatever shred of respect I had for our Union officers will be gone. If he bids and gets the 777, then DW is officially a dirtbag. In my book, anyway. I know he's already there in many of your books. If you're an elected union officer and you're reading this, don't let that dude get away with this. If you don't call him on it, then you're out when he goes. Time to take out the trash.

Have yo been to Delhi?:eek: I'd take 6 hours in a sleeping bag if I was legal to get out of there.
fbh

For an outsider looking in... Are your union reps bidding an aircraft that is "disputed" as in the pay rates haven't been agreed upon? Did I get it right? :confused:

Union Rep's bidding - yes
Pay Rate set - No
Rumor that a side letter is in the union office with all the details - yes

RV

Thank you - Yes ;)

Amen, brother!

Several times. Just saying that short layovers are another way to be optimized, regardless of station or equipment. More with less again. Meanwhile, we've got guys sweating their futures here.

Dat's all.

If DW is bidding the 777, the side letter must be pretty good. Maybe all senior guys should bit it too.

So what your saying is DW pushed for the Age 60 change against his members will, then pushed even harder for Retro which was even more against his members will, (both of which are largely responsible for guys possibly being furloughed and the need for this excess bid), and now is taking advantage of the excess bid caused by his pushing for the above changes to bid the 777 (which he has inside information on about what is being negotiated that we do not) and previously he advised us to be cautious bidding a plane with no pay rate or work rules yet? And you have a problem with this why? (Insert sarcasm smiley here) It's good to be the King I guess!!! Any bets on whether or not he retires at age 60? We all know he has his high 5 taken care of already!!

AMEN!!!!! IF DW GETS THE 777 ON THE FINAL BID, CAN YOU SPELL IMPEACHMENT!!!!!! :mad:

You guys are just over reacting. From the outgoing block 3 Sermon:

By the time I attended my first MEC meeting in 2005, the back room politics of the FPA were a thing of the past and the leadership was working in a very focused manner with one goal in mind; to maintain and enhance our professional lives.

DW saw a chance to enhance his professional life and he took it.

FDD,

Good summary of the situation, thanks for spelling it out in plain english for everyone ... :eek:

Warning - Thread Creep
 

Just posing a question. What if DW (or any other union official for that matter) moved into an upper-level management position after his union term? How would you feel about your representation over the past few years? Think it doesn't happen? ...Where did PC come from?

Well, if you talk to any of the Tiger guys, PC is a different animal altogether. He showed his colors back when he was at Tigers. He apparently is the definition of a one-way buddy f..... BTW, I'm not a Tiger, but I've heard plenty about PC from them. Then again, PC doesn't corner the market on that here at Fedex. You have guys flying OT when we are trying to get a contract, guys flying disputed pairings, guys with their bots blocking the rest of us from open time... etc, etc, u get the picture.

For one thing, the name at the bottom of the FCIF would change. For another thing the.....no I guess that is about it.

Just one more reason that we don't need his heir apparent as the next MEC Chairman. If you haven't made your feelings known to your block rep, now would be an appropriate time.

And just so everyone out there knows who the heir apparents are...they are DM and WR. Time for new leadership. Write or call your MEC reps, and let them know you won't stand for any back room deals between DW,DM,WR and the MEC reps.

Well, on what should have been the final (before it's cancelled all together) our Union Pres is still thumbing his nose at us and bidding the 777. Even if he has inside information..... shame on him, he shouldn't sit on information that would sway the way his membership bids.

Has anyone talked to him about this? He's been here a long time surly someone is on speaking terms with him.......... :eek:

According to the union office yesterday, DM and WR are in New Zealand this week at a convention. On union business, of course.

Sounds like good duty... :rolleyes:

I just took a look at the IFALPA section on alpa.org. Looks like a nice convention, complete with spouses tours, gala dinners, and the like. It kinda makes you wonder why none of the 3 FedEx pilots listed as committee members with IFALPA did not attend. Maybe they could not afford to take the spouses since the BLGs are reduced.

I guess DM & WR won't be available at the weekly hub turn meeting to tell us what their vision is for the future of our union. Oh wait, DW can fill in!

Probably count out the following week too, since it's been a VERY long time since either has crossed that many time zones working. I'd recommend a layover in Fiji and Honolulu to ease the pain.

Does this DW move really surprise anybody? Come on, I mean, seriously folks! The National job didn't work out for him and he just shoved the old lady behind the fire extinguisher to push his way into the last life boat. Told her the train, er I mean life boat was about to leave the station, and dangit he knew what was best for her.