Originally Posted by Adlerdriver (Post 2583625)

I don’t know. Can they? What do you suggest?
Are we still talking about jumpseating into a long-haul trip or has this morphed into something else? I mean, that’s how I ended up posting what I did.
When PurpleToolBox uses the term “commuting into” a trip, I believe he is referring to setting up a commute to have a relatively short time from commute complete to report time. Based on our schedule, the most effective way to do that is jumpseat on our own aircraft. So, that’s what I’m picturing when we have this discussion of setting up a protected commute. That’s why we have the protection and why the airline guys do. So we all can hopefully spend minimum time commuting, arrive within a few hours or less of the report time and do so with some redundancy. Therefore, part of the problem lies in the fact that the departure time of our morning flights doesn’t match up very well with any flights other than our own. With a few outlying exceptions, the only flights that would truly allow us to commute into most of our long-haul flights like the pax guys do are FX flights. If this has become about a pilot being protected when they jumpseat offline and come in 12 hours prior so they can go to their crashpad or a hotel and sleep, then that’s a different discussion, in my opinion

I’m not assuming a commute has to be on a FedEx flight. I rarely use a FedEx flight to commute to MEM for a 777 trip. I commute offline because I want to get to MEM and have a chance to sleep before my trip. It has nothing to do with concerns about being pulled off my trip if I jumpseat on our flight. So, even if we had a commuter policy that protected me while doing that, I still wouldn’t do it. But, I get the desire for something better than what we have. I just don’t think trying to use a passenger airline commuter policy as a model is valid or realistic if we are putting the policy into practice to allow us to commute into a long-haul flight.

One reason for that is there are some pretty significant differences between a typical major airline commute and ours to MEM. By definition, a major airline pilot domicile is typically a large hub with numerous inbound flight from every city they serve. Most commuters have direct flights for their commute. Contrast that with MEM. An outstation for all the major airlines with limited daily flights and requiring a connection for everyone except those few who live in one of the major airline hubs.

About those back-up flights. When someone has to explain their commute plan after they missed a trip, the back-up has to actually be available to the commuter. A 19:00 UAL primary commuter flight can’t use a 19:05 AA flight that leaves from the other side of O’hare as a back-up. So, the time getting from the pax terminal to the “dark side” of the FedEx ramp has to factored in to someone’s commute if it’s going to pass when they have to explain their situation.

I’m also coming at this discussion with the attitude that commuting into a 03:30 MEM-NRT flight is a completely different situation than commuting to a 15:30 pax flight to NRT. We all know the challenges of working at that time of day. Being rested for that departure is difficult even for someone who doesn’t commute. The logistics of even the best commute situation including a back-up to make that departure result in beginning one’s commute a minimum of 8-9 hours prior to departure. That’s showtime at the airport for a direct pax flight – not getting on and having enough time to get over to the FedEx ramp for the back-up. That’s best case (other than having access to two FX flights as primary and back-up). So, if FedEx offered us a typical airline commuter clause of any primary and any back-up, that means that almost all our pilots trying to comply while commuting to that NRT flight would be on duty at least 22-23 hours by the time they got on final at NRT. I know commuting isn’t duty but let’s be realistic about this. It’s not sleep either. I don’t care if you manage to nod off on the jumpseat or maybe catch a nap in a sleep room before show time. Those are great if they happen, but they’re not guaranteed events. Neither is sleeping on the bunk during the flight. I’ve had plenty of great sleep opportunities ruined by turbulence.

So, my point is that by putting that commute policy into practice, FedEx is basically giving tacit approval for that 22 to 23-hour duty day. They have no deniability because that’s the best-case scenario for almost everyone who would attempt to commute into that trip.

Contrast that with Airline “X” using the same policy: They treat the process like a black box and don’t want to know how you make the sausage – just that you’re in domicile when you’re supposed to be. There are so many variables to each pilot’s situation and the inbound flight schedules that it’s impossible to specifically determine what each one is doing. So, they have the ability to claim ignorance that FedEx would not.

Originally Posted by FXLAX (Post 2584365)

I'm not really sure why you keep making assumptive arguments as to why we can't have a commuter policy for all flights. What I'm saying is that instead of coming up with possible scenarios as to why it wont work here, lets come up with ideas that can work here.

Like I said, company codifying what they feel is best practice to commute into contractual language would be better than what we have now, which is nothing. Even if it means being in base 12 hours before show time. If that helps a pilot make a less stressful commute, its a win win.

Now, can we stop looking for reasons why we can't and instead look at ways we can? I'm not experienced enough in commuting into international flights to make a suggestion on that nor am I creative enough. But I do feel its unfair not to have a protected commuter language that's the same for domestic flights.

Originally Posted by FXLAX (Post 2584365)

I'm not really sure why you keep making assumptive arguments as to why we can't have a commuter policy for all flights. What I'm saying is that instead of coming up with possible scenarios as to why it wont work here, lets come up with ideas that can work here.

Originally Posted by FXLAX (Post 2584365)

Like I said, company codifying what they feel is best practice to commute into contractual language would be better than what we have now, which is nothing. Even if it means being in base 12 hours before show time. If that helps a pilot make a less stressful commute, its a win win.

Originally Posted by FXLAX (Post 2584365)

Now, can we stop looking for reasons why we can't and instead look at ways we can? I'm not experienced enough in commuting into international flights to make a suggestion on that nor am I creative enough. But I do feel its unfair not to have a protected commuter language that's the same for domestic flights.

Originally Posted by djslappy (Post 2584704)

Cost of living is substantially lower in the Philippines Vs China. Just curious how easy that commute would be.

Originally Posted by Fdxlag2 (Post 2584380)

So in essence you want to punish the domestic commuters who can commute in and operate out because reserve guys can’t? The company has a policy, it is in the contract, get to your base in time to check in for your trip or meet the 1 hour call out. If you don’t you lose the hours. If your commute plan sucked you lose the hours and get a nasty letter in your file. Do you really want to require the guy who drives in from Nashville to get there 8 hours prior?

The “Protected” provision isn’t screwing anyone, it does help a large percent of commuters. A 12 hour deviation type check in for a non deviation trip would not make anyone’s commute less stressful, just the opposite.

Originally Posted by Adlerdriver (Post 2584481)

For one, I'm being realistic. I'm also attempting to address some of the comments made using the assumption that whatever reality some pax airline's commuter policy is based on automatically applies here.

Let's keep in mind that "what we have now" applies to a very large percentage of the trips our pilots fly. I'm not sure why you refer to it as "nothing". Almost anyone commuting to a trip flown in the lower 48 can do so protected by our current policy. So, I guess what we're talking about is trying to protect a commute to the international stuff, ANC or HNL and maybe a few random cats and dogs.

So, what do you suggest? Give us some scenarios and a corresponding commuter policy you think will apply.

Ok. Well I am experienced doing it. That's why I took the time to offer you specifics on the obstacles we face in commuting to international. If you lack the experience and knowledge to craft a policy, why are you continually suggesting a solution can be found? Isn't it possible that there is no policy allowing a commute directly into a long-haul flight that FedEx management would agree to because of the issues I brought up?

Unfair? Well, welcome to reality. That's life, as they say. International commute policy language that's the same for domestic flights isn't going to happen and I already explained why.

Maybe there's a solution involving a specific long haul policy. But trying to make a policy that can apply to both situations doesn't seem like a realistic goal.

Originally Posted by FXLAX (Post 2584823)

I wasn’t meaning to say it should change to 12 hours. I was trying to say that having that additional protection exclusively for international commuters would help those who chose to use that provision. And I only mentioned that because someone else suggested it.