Where is FDX ALPA?
 

After reading last weeks issue of the Full page advertisement in the USA Today concerning the NPRM, I was wondering where is FDX ALPA?

This is a huge issue that only comes around every 30 years it seems. To update rest rules sounds like it would be right up the wheel house for FDX ALPA.

But FDX it seems is silent? Any reason why? A cargo cutout of the NPRM it would seem is a very important issue for the FDX pilots?

Just seems strange there has been no public response from FDX pilots.

The IPA has been very active with this fight. I only hope that ALPA is as involved. You're right, FDX pilots should be demanding action:
Nov 14, 2011
IPA Meets With White House OMB

Representatives of the IPA and former NTSB Chairman Jim Hall met today with officials from the White house Office of Management and Budget. The Association called the meeting to address concerns that cargo industry lobbyists are pressuring the White House to exempt cargo pilots from a pending FAA pilot Flight and Duty Time rewrite.
“It is totally unacceptable to have two standards, two differing safety rules, one for passenger pilots and the other for cargo,” said Chairman Hall. “The IPA has been a consistent and strong voice on this issue,” he added.
IPA President Bob Travis, Negotiation Team Leader Lauri Esposito, and General Counsel Bill Trent joined Hall in meeting with OMB officials at the White House Conference Center.
“Jim provided the OMB with a much needed historical timeline on this issue,” said Travis. “But what we are up against is clear-the very considerable lobbying resources of the cargo industry.”
Esposito, who met with the OMB in August, provided the Office further data refuting cargo operator claims of excessive costs that would flow from the application of the NPRM to the industry.
“Of all the industry operators, cargo carriers are the most financially equipped to comply with any new rule.” Esposito served on the FAA Labor and Industry group recommending the new rules.
Trent explained that while the FAA’s NPRM flows from a congressional mandate, Agency rulemaking is still subject to the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). That law, Trent said, requires the OMB to perform a cost benefit analysis of any proposed new regulation.
“The White House, via the OMB, gets the final say on this proposed FAA Rule,” said Trent. “That’s why we have concentrated our efforts on the OMB throughout this process.”
“It comes down to essentially a political call by the White House and that’s why we are here today,” said Travis. “Cut out or not, we are here today with Chairman Hall to send a clear and strong safety message to the administration on the eve of this important decision.”

Everything I have heard directly from the FDX MEC is that we are very much involved in lobbying against a cargo cutout version of the NPRM, and for the NPRM to be released ASAP.

Our MEC is very involved. Do you get their emails? Did you read SS's email today?

Have also heard that UPS has a big time lobbying group that is pushing hard for the cargo cutout, and sadly, it's working. It seems like safety might be for sale.

To our MEC's knowledge, FDX does not have a lobbying campaign for the cargo cutout.

However, although I am always for safer rest rules, I have wondered if this NPRM might have unintended consequences for us at FDX and UPS, specifically, and maybe other cargo outfits too.

My concern is a possible negative effect on week on/week off schedules and on the commuters' lifestyle, to name two. Your thoughts?

CS, I have the same two concerns you have.

You've got to be kidding me.

I too am all for better rest rules and safety in general...... as long as it doesn't effect my week-on / week-off day flying.:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Sounds like the response that was given to Fred Smith, many years ago, when at one of the Wednesday night pilot meetings, he suggested that all the pilots wanted was to earn over $200K a year, while only working Thursdays. One of our pilots responded: Yes, Fred, but not EVERY Thursday.

FedEx guys, check your Emails today if you are wondering where FedEx ALPA is.

Time for us to step it up.

I got lot's of emails today from FDX Alpa as well as Alpa national concerning this very topic!... We've got to step up to the plate now!

Z

Send the messages...one minute of your time.

As a passenger pilot with friends at cargo carriers, I sent my show of support for all of you as well. One minute of your time indeed.

Original Poster:

Are you kidding? I'm guessing you haven't read any of the emails the that have come from FDX ALPA in a long time?

Check your inbox, they're there.

I don't think he's a FDXer. Probably not in his inbox.

From the outside looking in it seems there isn't a cohesive viewpoint in the cargo community about whether a cutout is a good thing or bad. Is fdx alpa addressing this and it's not getting pushed to the forum, misinformation, or just unknown?

From a hopeful someday fdx commuter, it seems like this decision could have a major impact on a commuter lifestyle.

Should your concern be the schedule/ lifestyle or the safe operation?

Yes, and therein lies the paradox. We've (airline pilots) been pushing for better work rules, especially those concerning duty time and rest between flights, since the first jet aircraft were delivered to Pan Am, TWA, Eastern, etc, etc, and now that we're on the verge of something positive actually happening, there are those in this profession, who still don't see "el picture grande." No doubt, the changes could very likely effect our quality of life somewhat, but the tradeoff would hopefully be that we'd operate, day in and day out, in a much safer mode, because we've been allowed to get adequate rest. Personally I feel it's a good tradeoff. At least for now.

I'm not sure how any of this would actually affect commuting, but I will comment on the most repeated, "we'll have to be in domicile 24 hours in advance of a trip". Personally, I will be no better rested if I'm in a crashpad for 24 hours than had I stayed home and used my big-boy common sense and arrived for my trip prepared to fly safely.
We're "allowed" to get adequate rest right now, at least as it pertains to commuting. Whether you choose to do so or not is your personal and professional responsibility.
I would consider that tradeoff a lose-lose.

Bingo.

I've heard more than one of our dudes say "But my schedule is just fine."

Not the right attitude on this one.

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.

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)...

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!

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)

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

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. :rolleyes:

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.