The IPA shoots itself in the foot again..
12-15-2012, 09:49 AM
#1
New Hire
Thread Starter
Joined APC: May 2010
Position: B767 F/O
Posts: 1
The IPA shoots itself in the foot again..
After much cheer-leading in the beginning, the IPA has now lost the FAA lawsuit. No leverage left now. Last spring, Travis was patting himself on the back when the US Dept. of Justice filed court papers stating a mistake was made in the calculation of the cost-benefit data. The problem now is the data is now more in the FAA's benefit! OOPS! All cargo unions must now dig themselves out a much bigger (244 M) hole if they are to be successful in reversing this cargo exclusion. This is much like train-wreck Thrush all over again. The IPA has been largely silent about this.
You can read the filing here: https://www.federalregister.gov/arti...t-requirements
You can read the filing here: https://www.federalregister.gov/arti...t-requirements
12-15-2012, 10:07 AM
#2
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2009
Posts: 556
Originally Posted by Moondance
After much cheer-leading in the beginning, the IPA has now lost the FAA lawsuit. No leverage left now. Last spring, Travis was patting himself on the back when the US Dept. of Justice filed court papers stating a mistake was made in the calculation of the cost-benefit data. The problem now is the data is now more in the FAA's benefit! OOPS! All cargo unions must now dig themselves out a much bigger (244 M) hole if they are to be successful in reversing this cargo exclusion. This is much like train-wreck Thrush all over again. The IPA has been largely silent about this.
You can read the filing here: https://www.federalregister.gov/arti...t-requirements
You can read the filing here: https://www.federalregister.gov/arti...t-requirements
12-15-2012, 10:16 AM
#3
Tri-tanic operator
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Doggie
Posts: 2,382
Originally Posted by 4A2B
I think you are mixing up some stuff here. From what i understand the FAA decided on their own to "review" their cost assumptions. This has been done now (and as you pointed out they increased the cost differential) but the IPA lawsuit is still in progress and is not unilaterally dismissed just because the FAA issued its new cost basis for the carve out decision.
I think mixed up too. And YES, the lawsuit is still in progress ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Tomorrow, December, 12, the FAA will publish in the Federal Register its Initial Supplemental Regulatory Impact Analysis of its final rule amending its existing flight, duty and rest regulations. This is the additional cost benefit analysis brought about solely by the IPA lawsuit against the FAA. In the FAA’s cover statement, its Assistant Chief Counsel Rebecca MacPherson states: “The Initial Supplemental RIA (Regulatory Impact Analysis) results in data that provides greater justification for the exclusion of cargo operations from the final rule, and continues to provide justification for the final rule on passenger operations. As a result, the FAA has determined that no revisions to the final rule on either cargo or passenger operations is warranted.”
It is unfortunate that the FAA chose to prejudge its analysis prior the review and comment period that closes on February 11, 2013. At least this time, the IPA and other interested parties will have the opportunity to comment on the FAA’s methodology, which was not the case prior to the rule being issued last December. Exposing their costing methodologies and giving us an opportunity to take issue with their numbers was the principle objective of the lawsuit in the first place; a fair and open process. Having initially reviewed the FAA’s Initial Supplemental Regulatory Impact Analysis, we continue to find it to be flawed, just like its original analysis that was used to carve-out cargo carriers.
After the comment period and the FAA’s final ruling (unless it removes the carve-out), the IPA lawsuit will resume. Why? Because the key basis of our suit is that a cost benefit analysis should have never been applied to Flightcrew Member Duty and Rest Requirements in the first place. We do not believe that it was Congress’ intent to address the important issue of pilot fatigue only if the price-is-right.
12-15-2012, 10:55 AM
#4
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2005
Position: Bus driver
Posts: 248
Its not over, if you look at what the faa says. It clearly states that the rules (public law) that they are trying to use to exclude cargo does not include a provision for cost/benefit analysis, they added that, and they go on to say that they think the provisions that are published "are not exhaustive" meaning that they think they can make things up. However this does prove that corruption is still very prevalent in the federal government
12-15-2012, 10:57 AM
#5
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: 1559
Posts: 1,533
Originally Posted by Moondance
After much cheer-leading in the beginning, the IPA has now lost the FAA lawsuit. No leverage left now. Last spring, Travis was patting himself on the back when the US Dept. of Justice filed court papers stating a mistake was made in the calculation of the cost-benefit data. The problem now is the data is now more in the FAA's benefit! OOPS! All cargo unions must now dig themselves out a much bigger (244 M) hole if they are to be successful in reversing this cargo exclusion. This is much like train-wreck Thrush all over again. The IPA has been largely silent about this.
You can read the filing here: https://www.federalregister.gov/arti...t-requirements
You can read the filing here: https://www.federalregister.gov/arti...t-requirements
12-15-2012, 11:22 AM
#6
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,931
Originally Posted by Moondance
After much cheer-leading in the beginning, the IPA has now lost the FAA lawsuit.
You can read the filing here: https://www.federalregister.gov/arti...t-requirements
You can read the filing here: https://www.federalregister.gov/arti...t-requirements
Can you post a link that backs up your assertion? The link above has nothing to do with the lawsuit status.
12-15-2012, 11:24 AM
#7
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: Frm. DHLAirways. Blue & White Boeing's Now. YEA!!
Posts: 610
Thank you ipa
The only thing I see coming from Herndon on this issue is platitudes and requests for more PAC money.
It's good to see that someones Union actually has a pair.
It's good to see that someones Union actually has a pair.
12-15-2012, 04:07 PM
#8
Gets Off
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Position: Nordskog Industries Field Technician
Posts: 688
Originally Posted by FlyAstarJets
The only thing I see coming from Herndon on this issue is platitudes and requests for more PAC money.
It's good to see that someones Union actually has a pair.
It's good to see that someones Union actually has a pair.
Don't get wrong, I wish the IPA good luck in their approach and am pulling for them, their success will benefit us all.
12-15-2012, 04:44 PM
#10
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
Originally Posted by L'il J.Seinfeld
FedEx guys ripping the IPA while paying due to ALPA? Really?
I'll take my chances with Travis and the IPA. Win or lose, we gave it a swing and that's better than remaining silent.
I'll take my chances with Travis and the IPA. Win or lose, we gave it a swing and that's better than remaining silent.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
