The preponderance of stacked sub 11-hour layovers drove me off the 717. Absolutely hate them.

 

And yet prior to FAR 117 (widely criticized here) NINE hour layovers were quite common... reduceable to eight, for the flying crew! Yep, part 121 was all a bed of roses. I was actually shocked the first time I flew one of those as it truly did approach the unsafe realm.

117 got many things wrong, but the hard work 10 hour min layover, not reduceable, is one thing that they got right.

 

Not sure which fleet you were on? I flew the 75 domestic, 73N, and 88 for six years. Not quite common for me, three in six years. The 10 hour layovers, now quite common on the 717, are sandwiched by 4 and 5 leg days. I do agree with the many things wrong with the gift that is 117!

 

By all means, let's use the FAR that had to be changed because it was seen as a contributing factor in a fatal accident as a litmus test. Kind of like using the failed TA as a comparison for some of the BS concessions being agreed to in the current AIPs and TA'd sick leave.

Or we could look at other carriers who do it correctly and have 12 hour minimum layovers. Which do you prefer?

 

Novel concept isn't it?......that our working agreement should set a higher standard of safe operations than the faa regs?

schedule with safety and all......yuk yuk.

 

It's a sad reality. In too many situations, that slogan makes for a good soundbite, and not much more. I refer once again to noHat's post that started this conversation. Pay penalties for fatigue calls and declining duty extensions is a prime example of DALPA failing it's own safety motto and turning their backs on those who pay them for representation.

Before the DALPA attack dogs come after me, I'll admit that ALPA safety has historically done tremendous work in advancing safety. But DALPA needs to do much better. There is an article out today that cites AA's pilot union chief as calling out his company for pilot pushing. That's how a true pilot advocate acts.

 

Not to mention DALPA's borderline dangerous "interpretation" of 117's "8 hours of uninterrupted sleep opportunity" clause. That, in no case ever in history, could EVER be met with 8 hours behind the door. It will ALWAYS be more than that by a reasonable amount. How much is reasonable? Picture yourself sitting at a large mahogany table with a glass of water facing an army of opposition, many of whom pushed you into doing it, who are now basically accusing you of being a rogue maverick and challenging you to prove to them that you had said 8 hours of uninterrupted sleep opportunity. You think telling them you face planted by the bathroom door in uniform before the door closed behind you and got 8.0 hours of actual sleep in exactly 8.0 hours in the room, then rose like a vampire and walked out exactly 8.0 hours later is going to fulfill that requirement?

IMO anything less than 9 behind the door is absolutely impossible to defend and is therefore illegal. Maybe a few minutes less if you're a narcoleptic without facial hair that always brings their own food and doesn't need/choses not to shower.

 

Exactly. You can go ahead and stay on rest for 10+ hours and deviate to get home later. I'm sure plenty others and myself will deviate early to go home to our own bed and families.

If the company wants to schedule it less than 10 hours, great! Now they have no way to touch me. Pre-117 they could get away with 8 hours and no minimum in a hotel room. You want to go back to that?!

 

Can someone tell me what triggers reroute pay? Was extended on last day of trip by 7 hours due to late departure and inadequate rest day prior.

 

1. There is nothing stopping anyone from deviating to an earlier DH with a scheduled layover longer than 9 hours. However, there are numerous issues and situations limiting the ability to deviate to a later DH.

2. The only legal DH deviation is to something earlier, not later. For a reserve for instance, you're clock resets at the completion of scheduled DH, not the later DH if that's what is chosen. Also, crew hotel bookings for follow on crews are predicated on the scheduled layover, not the later DH deviation - i.e. you may be occupying someone else's room if you stay longer than scheduled.

3. The company has to give you 10 hours break from duty completion after the layover whether it was 9 hours or 24 hours. Difference is, now they have you on the hook earlier (if reserve) with the 9 hour layover.

4. Not all 9 hour layovers are front or back end of rotation. Some are in the middle.

5. I thought I made it pretty clear in my earlier post, I do not support going back to a dangerously flawed FAR 121. I do support raising the bar to what other carriers have as minimum layovers.

Finally, do you or have you ever had a position in DALPA?