OKLATEX

Not arguing the point of 117.

That being said; this subject has been discussed by ALPA/SIG and there will be minimal changes required by the company to conform.

I believe additional sleep rooms would be required on their part. Something, in fairness to the company, they’ve put a lot of efforts towards. Further, the SIG has said that a lot of our pairings conform. Perhaps some of our pairings/line construction would look different but from what I remember, the changes for us would be minimal.

Our system form and contract protects us in many ways.

The smaller cargo carriers (with lesser contracts) would benefit more under the 117 Rules.

Padding themselves from a law suit is a stretch in my opinion. Making a business decision to avoid any disruption to service is the way I see it. Further, I think those currently in Flight Ops are pushing for the right thing. Yes, would it help in a lawsuit, sure, but frankly those in flight management currently are pretty reasonable people. I think on this issue, they are trying to do what is best for the pilots and company, which is all I can ask/expect of Flight Management.

If the above comes off a little ‘too purple’ so be it. It is the way I see it and this airline isn’t any different than AA, UAL, DAL or SWA.

flextodaline

I was being facetious 🙄

FXLAX

I take issue with using negotiating capital for safety. If just ONE provision of our contract is made to comply with science based fatigue rules of 117, then it’s negotiating capital well spent. Meaning that it would come from congress and not by having to use negotiating capital to obtain it because in more likelihood, the NC would make a calculated decision to use that capital for other things. So if we can get that outside the negotiating table, then it’s one less thing to try to negotiate. That’s why we should support all parts in One Level of Safety. Either we consciously choose the higher level of safety that 90% of the industry operates under or we choose to ignore being as safe as them. I for one choose safety over any real or perceived negative repercussions. I know my family would appreciate that more.

OKLATEX

I agree, I’m for one level of safety. That’s all I really care about, safety and legality.

Safety isn’t for sale and never should be a political hostage to anyone.

My response was to the original poster who claims that the FedEx is protecting themselves from a lawsuit and nothing more.

Flying Boxes

I think the issue with Part 117 is the company currently has the ability to negate the science based scheduling with the declaration of an Operational Emergency. It would be more difficult and costly to recover the freight after a major disruption.

Adlerdriver

I’d sure like to see some examples of the safety enhancements that we would see under 117. FedEx specifics.
What would change in the various fleet’s trips and line construction?
Where would our current contract fall short?
Let’s see ALL the changes and make sure we’re not just assuming it’s better.
I’m not saying it isn’t, but unintended consequences are a constant problem here when we think we’re making changes for the better.
Shouldn’t be too hard for the SIG to give us some examples.

BoilerUP

Not a FDX guy, but 117 allows for waivers based on fatigue mitigation (sleep rooms, for example) and Express carriers have a long operational history to support such a waiver request. With management and labor both petitioning for a waiver, it’s unlikely to be denied IMO.

I dunno FDX’s contractual rest requirements, but the minimum 10 hour rest with 8hr uninterrupted sleep opportunity would be a good baseline for *everyone* in the industry.

Beast of Burden

Hear! Hear!

Part 117 is legit complicated. The best part is that it mandates a minimum of 10 hours of rest, period. The tables that limit block hours and duty day are simple, but the rest is unnecessarily complex for precious little benefit.

The only good arguments I’ve heard for eliminating the cargo cutout are part 117 is based on science and it could provide protection during an operational emergency. Passenger carriers are doing it is not a reason for us to ask to be included. We operate the same airplanes in the same airspace, but our operation truly is different.

Safety, of course, is the ultimate concern. I’d like to see specifically how part 117 would make us more safe. If it does, I’m all for it. But, the two valid arguments above are not enough to get me on board.

My fear is that part 117 will increase scheduling restrictions, limit trip trading possibilities, and possibly add an extra commute every month. All with no added safety benefit.

Anecdotally, in four years as a regional guy, there were several times I was thankful for part 117. Even doing night hub turns, I have yet to wish that 117 applied.

Let’s not take on this additional burden, yes burden, without knowing how it will affect us and our operation.

Agreed. Amend part 121 to read this.

gatorhater

You cans add me to the Beast and Adlerdriver column. The guaranteed 8 hrs would be nice, but there are a lot of other gotchas in there that a commuter heavy pilot group would not like.

The Walrus

All for safety as long as it is convenient . Got it.