Connect and get the inside scoop on Airline Companies

Welcome to Airline Pilot Forums - Connect and get the inside scoop on Airline Companies

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ. Join our community today and start interacting with existing members. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free.


User Tag List

Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 11-17-2011, 04:07 PM   #21  
Gets Weekends Off
 
KnightFlyer's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,429
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PastV1 View Post
The problem is you (we) don't know what the trade off is. Does it make you work 3-4 days a week for 4 weeks or allow the continuation of week on week off flying. Wanting something just because isn't always good. The law of unintended consequences is still alive and well today.

The unknown......
Exactly. For the commuting hub-turners: will you be better rested flying week-on week-off or flying 3 hub-turns every week?

There's plenty to be fixed in the rest arena (l/o length, # of legs in the critical period, Intl trip rest sequences, etc.)

Show up rested to fly (as best as you can); don't regulate commuting.
KnightFlyer is offline  
Old 11-17-2011, 05:41 PM   #22  
Gets Weekends Off
 
CloudSailor's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,680
Default

This is why the NPRM is, in my humble opinion, a gamble for us. If I lived in MEM, or in any domicile for that matter, this would be an easy decision in favor of the regulation. But, like about 65-70% (is that about right?) of FedEx pilots, I commute.

Now, do I decide to commute? Yes. Was I offered this job on the condition that I have to live in domicile? No. Commuting is a quality of life benefit we get as airline pilots. If they decide to include commuting in the regulation, it might affect us in ways we don't even understand right now. I know that the families of the victims of the Colgan accident have been in Washington, wearing red shirts, and lobbying big-time for the issues that they think are important. Commuting is one of those issues. And, as our MEC President said, the Colgan families are being listened to. They are a very effective group.

As I stated previously, I'm all for safety being the number one issue. And that is exactly why, as a commuter, I see this regulation as possibly decreasing safety, instead of increasing it, for commuters (the reason this issue finally came to a head to begin with). For example, I would be much more prone to fatigue if I had to go from 3 night hub turns, to commute home, to go back to day-time schedule for two or three days, then commute back to operate at night. I know from a previous carrier that multiple commutes per week can be brutal (for example, 8-10 commutes per month vs. 2-4). This could also create a situation that 3-4 days off won't be enough time to go home (if there are hard requirements for show-time in domicile).

With no disrespect intended, it is too bad that because of the un-professionalism of a few, all commuters might have to pay the price. Also too bad that we are even discussing commuting included in a regulation that should deal solely with antiquated flight/duty limitations.

I understand the issue from both perspectives.

Anyway, this is most likely already decided in favor of the highest bidder (which is not us)...

Last edited by CloudSailor; 11-18-2011 at 03:27 PM.
CloudSailor is offline  
Old 11-18-2011, 08:25 AM   #23  
On Reserve
 
warthog's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Aug 2007
Position: A-300/310 FO
Posts: 19
Default FDX Dec schedules reflect NPRM limits...

according to the SIG. How good do those look?? In the Bus, it's ugly. Granted, some of that is due to peak, but not all of it. Commuting will definitely be impacted, thus, so will QOL for those commuters.

I don't wanna move back to MEM...I just left!
warthog is offline  
Old 11-18-2011, 08:30 AM   #24  
Gets Weekends Off
 
PastV1's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: 11 Capt
Posts: 509
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by warthog View Post
according to the SIG. How good do those look?? In the Bus, it's ugly. Granted, some of that is due to peak, but not all of it. Commuting will definitely be impacted, thus, so will QOL for those commuters.

I don't wanna move back to MEM...I just left!
How does the SIG have them? (the new NPRM rules)
PastV1 is offline  
Old 11-18-2011, 08:43 AM   #25  
Proponent of Hysteria
 
skypine27's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: "Part of the problem." : JL
Posts: 1,030
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PastV1 View Post
How does the SIG have them? (the new NPRM rules)
Bingo.
And how would you define "in base"? Gonna use our precious and perfect FDA 100nm rule?

So a guy lives in San Diego but is based in LAX. He gets on a train northbound at 530pm traveling 85mph while a guy who lives in Fayetteville and who's based in MEM gets on a train.....

Come on dudes, there isn't going to be an impossible to define "be in base" thing prior to showing for a pairing in this deal. And if there was, the COMPANY can, pay you for it and build it in to min days off. Any duty that we are paid for and/or on the clock for is better than actually sitting in the cockpit.

Use your brain on this one (I know it's likely been a while)
skypine27 is offline  
Old 11-18-2011, 11:43 AM   #26  
Line Holder
 
Brad4est's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2009
Position: MD-11 Capt
Posts: 68
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PastV1 View Post
The problem is you (we) don't know what the trade off is.
I'll have to disagree with you here. The problem is that someone with big money (UPS) is pushing for a cargo cutout, and behind closed doors. There is either one level of safety for ALL pilots or there isn't.

There is NO justification for a cargo cutout. NONE. Do cargo pilots somehow not get fatigued in the same manner as passenger pilots? Obviously, just my opinion.

Also, I think we should be very wary of allowing the camel's nose in the tent. If cargo gets different rules on this, why not on any number of things.

Plus, where was UPS during the comment period. They lost that battle so now they want to go behind closed doors and sneak in the back door? And, how is OMB involved in making a determination on safety? Their ONLY purview is costing.

Sorry for the rant, I guess I'm just cranky today. But, we are all pilots flying the same airplanes whether with passengers or cargo. The safety standards should and must be the same for all involved. Again, IMHO
Brad4est is offline  
Old 11-18-2011, 12:47 PM   #27  
Gets Weekends Off
 
KnightFlyer's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,429
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PastV1 View Post
How does the SIG have them? (the new NPRM rules)
NPRM
KnightFlyer is offline  
Old 11-18-2011, 02:53 PM   #28  
Gets Weekends Off
 
MeXC's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 689
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by skypine27 View Post
Bingo.
And how would you define "in base"? Gonna use our precious and perfect FDA 100nm rule?

So a guy lives in San Diego but is based in LAX. He gets on a train northbound at 530pm traveling 85mph while a guy who lives in Fayetteville and who's based in MEM gets on a train.....

Come on dudes, there isn't going to be an impossible to define "be in base" thing prior to showing for a pairing in this deal. And if there was, the COMPANY can, pay you for it and build it in to min days off. Any duty that we are paid for and/or on the clock for is better than actually sitting in the cockpit.

Use your brain on this one (I know it's likely been a while)
Well, it looks like at least you've got this all figured out. Just let the company in on it, they'll be glad to know.
MeXC is offline  
Old 11-18-2011, 02:56 PM   #29  
Gets Weekends Off
 
MeXC's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 689
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad4est View Post
I'll have to disagree with you here. The problem is that someone with big money (UPS) is pushing for a cargo cutout, and behind closed doors. There is either one level of safety for ALL pilots or there isn't.

There is NO justification for a cargo cutout. NONE. Do cargo pilots somehow not get fatigued in the same manner as passenger pilots? Obviously, just my opinion.

Also, I think we should be very wary of allowing the camel's nose in the tent. If cargo gets different rules on this, why not on any number of things.

Plus, where was UPS during the comment period. They lost that battle so now they want to go behind closed doors and sneak in the back door? And, how is OMB involved in making a determination on safety? Their ONLY purview is costing.

Sorry for the rant, I guess I'm just cranky today. But, we are all pilots flying the same airplanes whether with passengers or cargo. The safety standards should and must be the same for all involved. Again, IMHO
I agree in principle and that's why I support it. However it could well have unintended consequences. If the company ends up paying for extra time in base and adjusting min time off you can bet we'll pay for it in other areas.
MeXC is offline  
 
 
 

 
Post Reply
 



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Jetblue close to alpa vote superduck Union Talk 420 06-20-2011 10:00 PM
Colgan Certifies ALPA Russ Regional 50 12-19-2008 11:28 AM
SkyWest ALPA Vote Scheduled, Letter from Mgmnt JetJock16 Regional 75 09-24-2007 03:24 PM
ALPA FDX (Part II) Freight Dog Cargo 183 06-04-2007 05:39 AM
Alpa Fdx capt_zman Cargo 769 05-24-2007 09:47 AM


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:26 AM.