My understanding is that it can only happen if both pilots on that flight agree to it.
In other words it'd NEVER happen here. Not until the toxic mgmt-line pilot relationship were to improve.

Maybe I misunderstood your reply? Tried to edit but it was too late.

I was being sarcastic when I said the changes were small because even though most schedules at pax airlines barely changed, the 10% of extra new hires is huge.
Either way, I'm proud of IPA for suing the FAA. Maybe we'll win or maybe we won't but at least we aren't ALPA who simply gave up the fight for their "second tier members", cargo pilots. :mad: :(

Writing today in the Federal Register, the FAA reaffirmed its original decision to exclude the nation’s cargo pilots from duty and rest rules applied to passenger pilots.
“Today’s ruling comes as no surprise,” said IPA President Bob Travis. “We thought it unlikely that the FAA would reverse its own decision,” he added.
With the FAA’s decision, however, Travis said the way is cleared for the IPA to proceed with its initial litigation challenging the carve-out.
“The action now shifts back to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia,” Travis stated. “Next, the Court will next take up the issue of whether the FAA had the statutory authority to exclude cargo pilots from the new duty and rest rules in the first place.”
Travis said that the IPA will continue to challenge the notion that cargo pilots should be subject to a lesser standard of protection.
“The idea that science-based scheduling rules should apply to passenger pilots, but exclude cargo pilots, is ridiculous and even the FAA admits that fact.”
Last month the FAA’s top medical officer acknowledged that the decision to exclude cargo pilots from the new rules was “political,” and a result of lobbying pressure.
“We know who is behind the ‘politics’ of the carve-out. The Association intends to hold UPS accountable, and today’s decision will place an even brighter spotlight on the Company’s actions in our mediated talks.”
Travis said that the IPA will continue to seek common sense scheduling rule changes through the bargaining process, as well as through the courts and legislative branch.
“Our strategy is to engage UPS on multiple fronts. A pilot is a pilot, and cargo pilots, who work primarily on the back side of the clock, deserve no fewer protections than all others,” he added.

I don't think this line of thinking is completely accurate. If you're #100 out of 500 and then 300 more pilots get hired after you, you're still #100. There are still 99 guys ahead of you getting the schedules you might want, so how do those guys behind you improve your QOL?

If those 300 new hires behind you are the result of expansion, then maybe you have a wider variety of lines to choose from, or you're no longer on reserve. However, those 99 guys still get first dibs.

In the case of 117, I would argue that adding additional bodies to the seniority list simply to cover the requirements of the new regulation does absolutely nothing for one's QOL (other than whatever improvements result from the actual regulation change).

The biggest QOL improvement comes from those ahead of you leaving due to retirements, medical, etc.

Yes, it is based on individuals agreeing to the extension. And each agrees they are fit to fly each leg as well. Some airlines you do that by loading your employee number into the FMS which is sent out with the FMS, others you sign or initial the stations copy of the release.

So what you are saying is being number 30 from the top is the same if you are in the HKG 76 bid pack or the MEM 76 bid pack? We bid percentages for a reason.

This is not a surprising development.

The positive side of this is that the IPA will have access to lots of information, potentially embarassing to the company, OMB, and FAA, due to discovery, as the case progresses in Federal court.

....Bingo!

QOL is a function of how may pilots are in front of you...in relation to the size & choices within your bid pack and seat position

The number of guys behind you merely create a job protection buffer in case of furlough

Spot on. Just as others have said, and as airlines have announced, yes more coverage is required to cover the same amount of flying which results in less productive trips and higher reserve % required. The less legs you fly in a day the less the trips are impacted by 117.

One exception to this is the allowance of 9 hours of flight time, so that is a benefit to the very select few who can hold such trips like turns, their pay/QOL improved...conversely as I alluded to earlier, the reserves get to sit in the back of the plane in case something happens on the outbound leg, then that crew can fly the leg back home. Great for the line holder, not nearly as much fun for the reserve.
This is due to the "legal to start, legal to finish has gone away with 117.

Of course it is but if you add 10% more pilots to our bid pack the QOL has to go up, if nothing more than there will be more reserve options. but if the rules change the trips will change and there will be more lines. Better for all except maybe number 1 and even he will have a choice of more lines.