Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Cargo
FAA Says *** You to Cargo Pilots >

FAA Says *** You to Cargo Pilots

Notices
Cargo Part 121 cargo airlines

FAA Says *** You to Cargo Pilots

Old 12-10-2014, 05:04 AM
  #1  
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
 
Joined APC: Nov 2013
Position: Boeing, left side
Posts: 180
Default FAA Says *** You to Cargo Pilots

https://www.federalregister.gov/arti...alregister.gov

Flightcrew Member Duty and Rest Requirements

A Rule by the Federal Aviation Administration on 12/09/2014

Publication Date:Tuesday, December 09, 2014Agencies:Department of TransportationFederal Aviation AdministrationDates:Effective December 9, 2014.Effective Date:12/09/2014Entry Type:RuleAction: Notification of availability.Document Citation:79 FR 72970Page: 72970 -72975 (6 pages) CFR:14 CFR 11714 CFR 121Agency/Docket Numberocket No. FAA-2009-1093RIN:2120-AJ58Document Number:2014-28868Shorter URL:https://federalregister.gov/a/2014-28868
Regulations.gov Docket Info

Docket NumberFAA-2009-1093Docket NameFlight Crewmember Duty and Rest RequirementsDocket RIN2120-AJ58Public Comments2425 commentsSupporting/Related MaterialsGRA, Incorporated - Summary of Crew Pairings AnalysisU.S. DOT/FAA - Wyatt et al AmJPhys 1999U.S. DOT/FAA - Wegmann-Klein 1985U.S. DOT/FAA - Rosekind et al Mnging Fatigue ops2U.S. DOT/FAA - Rosekind et al Mnging fatigue ops1U.S. DOT/FAA - Rosekind 2005U.S. DOT/FAA - NASA Study on Pilot CommutingU.S. DOT/FAA - NASA StudyU.S. DOT/FAA - NASA Rosekind et al 2001U.S. DOT/FAA - NASA Priciples Guidelines 1996See all 67 supporting documents


Action


Notification Of Availability.

Summary


The FAA is issuing a Final Supplemental Regulatory Impact Analysis (Final SRIA) of its final rule that amended its existing flight, duty and rest regulations applicable to certain certificate holders and their flightcrew members. A copy of the Final SRIA may be found in the docket for the rulemaking. The Final SRIA responds to comments that were made in response to the Initial Supplemental Regulatory Impact Analysis, and, where appropriate, incorporates new information provided by the commenters. In addition, the Final SRIA makes adjustments to the methodology used to estimate the costs and benefits of applying the final flight, duty, and rest rule to cargo-only operations, and includes additional sensitivity analyses. The results of the Final SRIA concludes that the base-case benefits of applying the flight, duty, and rest rule to cargo-only operations would be about $3 million, and the high-case benefits of doing so would be about $10 million. Conversely, the costs of applying the flight, duty, and rest rule to cargo-only operations would be about $452 million. Because the results of the analysis continue to indicate that the costs of mandating all-cargo operation compliance with the new flight, duty, and rest rule significantly outweigh the benefits, the FAA has determined that no revisions to the final rule are warranted.

Last edited by UAL T38 Phlyer; 12-10-2014 at 10:17 AM. Reason: TOS in Title
shroomwell is offline  
Old 12-10-2014, 05:26 AM
  #2  
Gets Weekends Off
 
labbats's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A320
Posts: 1,347
Default

Safety first... unless it costs too much.
labbats is offline  
Old 12-10-2014, 05:58 AM
  #3  
Gets Weekends Off
 
PurpleTail's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2006
Posts: 519
Default

Horrible

Big Eff'ing surprise though since Fred has Washington bought and paid for in his back pocket. Again, just horrible.
PurpleTail is offline  
Old 12-10-2014, 06:00 AM
  #4  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Fr8doggie's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Position: Junior
Posts: 280
Default

Easy fix -- just drop the F bomb if you are tired. I don't know why guys are so afraid to do that.
Fr8doggie is offline  
Old 12-10-2014, 06:12 AM
  #5  
Gets Weekends Off
 
JamesNoBrakes's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: Volleyball Player
Posts: 3,978
Default

Originally Posted by labbats View Post
Safety first... unless it costs too much.
FAA does what congress wants. Unfortunately, to a large extent, congress does what businesses want.
JamesNoBrakes is offline  
Old 12-10-2014, 06:29 AM
  #6  
Banned
 
Joined APC: Oct 2008
Position: Window Seat
Posts: 1,430
Default

I, for one, am relieved and overjoyed about this decision.
aviatorhi is offline  
Old 12-10-2014, 06:46 AM
  #7  
Stuck Mic
 
Firsttimeflyer's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Dec 2013
Posts: 1,059
Default

Bad and good. Next time you cargo guys jumpseat on a pax 121 carrier, ask them about the impact to their schedules and QOL thanks to 117.

I'd say on average you will work 1-2 days more per month to make the same pay compared to the previous rules...or take the pay hit to keep the same amount of days off.

I'd say it hurt the pairings and most operators making the flying much less efficient.

Not saying I agree with the FAAs decision, just pointing out what has happened to schedules and those impacted by 117.
Firsttimeflyer is offline  
Old 12-10-2014, 06:54 AM
  #8  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Busdrivr's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2006
Posts: 480
Default

FedExField. That's the gift that keeps on giving, the whole year.
Busdrivr is offline  
Old 12-10-2014, 07:13 AM
  #9  
Gets Weekends Off
 
contrails's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,943
Default

Originally Posted by Firsttimeflyer View Post
Bad and good. Next time you cargo guys jumpseat on a pax 121 carrier, ask them about the impact to their schedules and QOL thanks to 117.

I'd say on average you will work 1-2 days more per month to make the same pay compared to the previous rules...or take the pay hit to keep the same amount of days off.

I'd say it hurt the pairings and most operators making the flying much less efficient.

Not saying I agree with the FAAs decision, just pointing out what has happened to schedules and those impacted by 117.
I don't know if I'm an anomaly or what, but my schedule and my schedule flexibility is vastly improved with 117.

16 hours on duty?? 8:00hr layover commencing while waiting for the hotel van?? Never again.

Don't think 117 is bad stuff, it's not.
contrails is offline  
Old 12-10-2014, 07:28 AM
  #10  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
Default

Originally Posted by Firsttimeflyer View Post
Bad and good. Next time you cargo guys jumpseat on a pax 121 carrier, ask them about the impact to their schedules and QOL thanks to 117.

I'd say on average you will work 1-2 days more per month to make the same pay compared to the previous rules...or take the pay hit to keep the same amount of days off.

I'd say it hurt the pairings and most operators making the flying much less efficient.

Not saying I agree with the FAAs decision, just pointing out what has happened to schedules and those impacted by 117.
I am pretty sure it is not a coincidence that Delta is hiring a 100 a month.
FDXLAG is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
FEtrip7
Cargo
38
02-16-2012 02:25 PM
Timeoff2fish
Safety
69
12-29-2011 06:23 AM
RPC Unity
Union Talk
149
06-30-2011 08:39 PM
SF340guy
Union Talk
92
06-12-2011 06:30 PM
fireman0174
Major
46
11-19-2006 05:49 AM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Your Privacy Choices