meatloaf

Exactly. Last time we went through this there were 2 examples that started flashing neon for me:

1. More commutes/month for most commuters.
2. No more RFO's after 7:35 block time. Under 117 I believe it only required an RFO after 10:00.

Can't swear to it--and nobody is talking yet--but neither of these are good. Have to pay for it somehow apparently..

BlueMoon

Not sure about 1.

2. It is 9 hours if report times is 0500-1959 base time. It is still 8 hours outside that. Also augmented duty time is based off the type of rest facility an aircraft is equipped with and what time show time is.

We can always negotiate tighter requirements. Which I believe the 7:35 is. Since by the FAR’s they could do 8 without an RFO.


The applicable tables are on the last page of this link
https://www.alpa.org/~/media/DAL/Doc...Rules-Text.pdf

FXLAX

The company can only go up to FAR maximum duty times. 117 does have the ability for the pilots to extend two hours in certain circumstances but never over any FAR limit.

FXLAX

I think some pilots are referring to different things when we say “better.” For me personally, if I say better, I’m referring to better safety. 117 is science based.

There will be “unintended” consequences. But some would see them as intended to make it safer. And again, this wouldn’t be something negotiated. It would be a regulation that the company would be required to operate under.

FXLAX

Fatigue mitigation is not about how different the operation is. Your body will be fatigued regardless of the operation. If science based fatigue rules affects our operation, that is more of a management issue to solve, especially during disruptions.

In my time at the regionals, pilots screamed bloody murder when they saw the regulation published. Once it was implemented, I occasionally heard whimpers when the new regulation did get rid of some nuanced type of trip that particular pilot liked. I heard more benefits of feeling more rested despite the inconvenience. And the 10 hours of rest rule did change trip efficiency but I never heard anyone complain about trading that for the added rest it provided.

Adlerdriver

Walrus, I didn’t say that and I really don't see that in any of the other responder’s posts either. Your comment appears to be rooted in the assumption that 117 is actually safer than our current contract. Most of our current rest and contractual work rules far exceed 121 mins. So, while someone might be able to put 121 and 117 side by side and make a case for 117, that’s not reality for us here at FedEx. Put our contract next to 117 and let’s have a real comparison. I’ve never, not once in almost 15 years, had to play the 8 hours behind the door game with the schedulers. I don’t think I’ve ever even had a scheduled layover, never mind irregular ops that would have been significantly affected by the 117 10-hour requirement. Maybe that’s just good luck and avoiding the domestic stuff but I’m pretty sure those situations are not regular problems for most of our pilots because of our contract. So what are we going to give up to allow ALPA national to claim one level of safety? What will we have to negotiate to keep when the “science based” regs in 117 bolster the company’s argument against a long standing practice we currently have like the 7:35 RFO?

Is adding an extra commute to our schedule really going to be safer? We can’t argue against that specifically because the choice to commute is just that, a choice. There can’t be inclusions to 117 or 121 that mitigate fatigue caused by commuting. But the reality is still there for our pilot group. We have a huge percentage of commuters who would be adversely affected by regulatory requirements that may not do anything to advance safety. It’s far more than just inconvenience. Did the “science based” research for pax pilots flying trips that average 3-days at a time look at what will happen to us shortening our week-on/week-off pattern and doing an extra body clock swap each month? I doubt it.
Are we embracing a reg designed for pax pilots who don’t fly 7-14 day trips because it works for them? Are our pilots going to find themselves flying without an RFO on flights that have them now because the science based 117 never envisioned a 14-day 777 trip that has enough time in theater to trigger that crew reduction?

I just want to make sure we’re not hurting our regular ops which are the norm and exceed both 121 and 117 in order to fix the one-off irregular situations that could be handled with a fatigue call when necessary. If it’s safer, let’s do it. But I need more than a political talking point and anecdotal arguments that don’t apply to our operation.

The Walrus

Wasn't aimed at you. 117 doesn't change rfo requirements in our contract.

BLOB

Adding commutes does not enhance safety so it isn’t just a matter of convenience. Most pilots I fly with (commuter or Memphis locals) find night 1 of a string of hub turns to be the most fatiguing. If you increase the number of times the crew is on “night 1” each month that doesn’t enhance safety. It is unwise to say give me 117 without seeing how it would actually impact schedules. I don’t think it’s as simple as you’re making it out to be.

FXLAX

With a cursory look at comparing domestic trips, it seems like the biggest change would be consecutive night hub turns and irregular ops. I don’t think the 10 hour rule would come into effect anyway as the only ones I’ve seen that are built to less than that are back end DHs, which I believe is allowed by 117.

As for giving anything up in negotiations, nothing has to be given up. The 7:35 RFO almost becomes moot because anything above 8/9 flight time would require an augmented flight anyway. But again, if the reg is implemented, the contract doesn’t change if it’s more restrictive. The only things that change are things that would be less restrictive.

Also, I find it odd that on the one hand people ask for a comparison to see if it would be “better” yet claim that it would automatically add a commute. From my prior experience, it didn’t add any commutes.

Also, the science based rule (which ALPA cargo pilots participated in the ARC) did take ALL flying into consideration. The only reason why the FAA changed its mind is because the OMB told them too after arm twisting lobbying by FedEx and UPS. I don’t think they did because they felt that it would make our fatigue worse by going to 117.

If we have regulations (or even contract language) that would require a fatigue call in order to maintain safety, it’s a flawed regulation. And we shouldn’t be using negotiating capital in other to fix safety issues with regulations. FedEx pilots have already used way too much negotiating capital (given up contractual gains) in order to gain some of the good scheduling contract clauses. Having everyone on 117 levels the playing field so that we can use that leverage for all the other things we would like to see improved.

Adlerdriver

First, I'm not implying that we were left out of 117 because someone thought it would make our fatigue worse. It was all about the $$$.

"Nothing has to be given up"? Were you around for our last contract? We gave up plenty in that contract just because. If 117 is implemented and as a result, the beneficial aspects of it are forced on the company, you don't think they'll use the same science based data where they can to offset the changes they don't like elsewhere? This "science based" stuff can go both ways - we don't get to ignore what might result in changes we don't like. If there is science based data that supports the company's desire to alter the RFO requirement in our current contract, I believe we would be hard pressed to keep that.

As to it being "moot"... I don't understand your point. There's a big difference between 7:35 and 8/9 at the end of a 13 day trip operating two-pilot from NRT-ANC.

Were you flying consecutive night hub turns week-on/week-off in your prior experience?

I don't care about a "level playing field". What does that even mean in this context. I care about our work rules, system form and QOL. I'm concerned that those might be degraded unnecessarily for little to no gain. Our current contract is safe because we have expended negotiating capital to make it that way. That's over and done. There's nothing we can do about that. I continue to express doubts that 117 will be an improvement for us and truly enhance safety. I think that's a really bad assumption and I don't think it's unreasonable to ask ALPA to show us exactly how it enhances safety for a FedEx pilot. I don't want to lose anything we've already expended precious negotiating capital on because someone decides it's moot and no longer supported by the science in the new regs.

Finally, expecting a regulation to cover all possible contingencies is unrealistic. There are going to be situations under 117 that require a fatigue call just like there are now under 121. So to claim that reg and it's logic is "flawed" because of an occasional outlier event isn't valid. We'll always need to use the fatigue option at times - no reg can avoid that when irregular ops crop up.