Cargo Cut-out
04-27-2012 | 06:45 AM
#51
Part Time Employee
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,918
Likes: 0
From: Dispersing Green House Gasses on a Global Basis
So when we have lines that don't meet the 2 hr break do you think Airline Scheduling will move our departure times to an earlier time so that they meet this (at the expense of customer cut off times) or do you think they will rebuild lines/pairings to maximize the cut off times to the customer? Thus impacting our schedule?
Past..
Past..
Yes the new rules may negatively impact a few but overall I think they are an improvement. And, if you are wondering - I commute.
04-27-2012 | 10:02 AM
#52
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
Just talking what we have not what could be changed through negotiation.
04-27-2012 | 01:52 PM
#53
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Last edited by vagabond; 04-27-2012 at 03:01 PM. Reason: please don't use profanity
05-02-2012 | 02:07 PM
#54
Line Holder
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
From: Left seat
Forgive me jumping in during the middle of this conversation but I have a related question... If this Cargo cut-out goes through and the Cargo and passenger carriers are basically under the same rules... will that increase the hiring needs of the cargo carriers? Seems to be an obvious; yes, but I am not sure of the big picture here.
05-02-2012 | 04:10 PM
#55
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,203
Likes: 0
From: Gear Monkey
Forgive me jumping in during the middle of this conversation but I have a related question... If this Cargo cut-out goes through and the Cargo and passenger carriers are basically under the same rules... will that increase the hiring needs of the cargo carriers? Seems to be an obvious; yes, but I am not sure of the big picture here.
(Note: The "final" FT/DT regs which were ultimately released for Pax carriers were NOT as onerous as what was originally proposed; therefore, the numbers in their original response (if accurate) would be an upperbound)
FDX also argued their "one-time" costs, spread over the first 3 years, would be $255 million; plus annual costs of $179 million in perpetuity.
Total 10 year costs were estimated at $2.04 Billion.
The FAA used "excessive industry cost" as it's justification for not including cargo operations in the new FT/DT requirements.
05-02-2012 | 04:17 PM
#56
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
From: MD11 Kitchen Bi*ch
Just thinkin'.
05-02-2012 | 08:34 PM
#57
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
From: B777 Captain
They are more the same than the 757, 767 or the 727 100, 200, or the A330/A340, to name a few...
05-02-2012 | 09:12 PM
#58
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
From: airplane
Forgive me jumping in during the middle of this conversation but I have a related question... If this Cargo cut-out goes through and the Cargo and passenger carriers are basically under the same rules... will that increase the hiring needs of the cargo carriers? Seems to be an obvious; yes, but I am not sure of the big picture here.
Contact your congressman and ask them to support the Safe Skies Act that a R-Congressman from MN is sponsoring.... this will remove the carve out.
05-03-2012 | 10:11 AM
#59
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 425
Likes: 0
Does the required additional 812 extra pilots take into account the Sky ***** factor ? One Sky ***** should equal two pilots ............. There are folks working obscene credit hour months , because they can ........... If the carve out is eliminated , will there be a requirement to reopen new crew bases ? I believe the carve out should be eliminated on the basis of what is demanded , Schedule with Safety ......... It will also put a stop to this excessive practice of allowing folks to pick up an insane and unsafe amount of work hours every month , thus creating the need to hire more crews ............ What say you ???
05-04-2012 | 11:37 AM
#60
Line Holder
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
From: Left seat
On Nov 15, 2010 FDX claimed to the FAA that it would need to hire 812 additional pilots if the "original" FT/DT regs were imposed on cargo operations (...about a 17.7% increase in total pilots --- assuming roughly 4,600 on the FDX Master Seniority List)
(Note: The "final" FT/DT regs which were ultimately released for Pax carriers were NOT as onerous as what was originally proposed; therefore, the numbers in their original response (if accurate) would be an upperbound)
FDX also argued their "one-time" costs, spread over the first 3 years, would be $255 million; plus annual costs of $179 million in perpetuity.
Total 10 year costs were estimated at $2.04 Billion.
The FAA used "excessive industry cost" as it's justification for not including cargo operations in the new FT/DT requirements.
(Note: The "final" FT/DT regs which were ultimately released for Pax carriers were NOT as onerous as what was originally proposed; therefore, the numbers in their original response (if accurate) would be an upperbound)
FDX also argued their "one-time" costs, spread over the first 3 years, would be $255 million; plus annual costs of $179 million in perpetuity.
Total 10 year costs were estimated at $2.04 Billion.
The FAA used "excessive industry cost" as it's justification for not including cargo operations in the new FT/DT requirements.
Thanks for the info! I knew it would create more jobs but I had no idea it would create that many. I will be calling my senator and house rep today!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
