BoilerUP

I know 117 doesn't prevent week on/off schedules...but it seems many pilots in opposition to 117 for cargo operations don't (given the repeated mention of the three-night limit) and that's why I use it as an example.

I am also acutely aware not all schedules are pure week on/off at UPS, I've bid lines for years that aren't week on/off.

Does FDX or FDX ALPA tell you how many of your schedules are already 117 compliant?

Adlerdriver

I've reached the zero "Fs" given state on this whole thing. I'm never going to fly domestic hub turns for FedEx again. If you guys want to chase 117 and whatever potential unexpected consequences it brings, go for it.
But, I have to laugh at the underlying message in your post. The gold standard for most commuting pilots flying domestic hub-turns here is the week-on/week-off pattern. Minimal commutes, minimal circadian disruptions. Add on some deadheads on both ends and it's hard to do much better.

But your message is essentially saying that because those very senior, desirable schedules only go to a minority, we should work under an FAR that will deny those schedules to anyone.
What logic. Some people get crap schedule patterns and those schedules won't be adversely affected by 117, so let's just make sure everyone gets the same crap schedule pattern. Because.......... only 35% get good ones.
Please stay away from the negotiating process until I retire.

Noworkallplay

You can build week on week off under 117. The limit isn't 3 night ops its actually five assuming certain perameters are meet. You once again are not arguing in facts

Noworkallplay

Yes in hub turn meeting I was at they gave some data

Adlerdriver

Not arguing. Just laughing at your logic.
But I think a better way to say it is opponents of 117 are considering real possibilities because there’s absolutely no guarantee the company will build pairings with the parameters required for WO-WO. You’re arguing in assumptions.

BlueMoon

Aren’t you doing the same thing? You’re assuming they won’t build WO-WO and work within the rules.

Adlerdriver

What rules? There are no rules that require the company to produce pairings that can be built into Wo-Wo lines.
Im not assuming anything. I’m saying there is a real possibility it will go as I say and therefore the perceived gains are not worth that risk. Big difference between that and assuming the company will choose to jump through all the required hoops to keep Wo-Wo.

BLOB

I think at this point, it is the responsibility of those pushing 117 to PROVE that implementing it will not degrade our lines. We already know what our schedules currently are outside of 117 and they’re pretty good. Before we change, PROVE that we WILL (not SHOULD) not end up with more commutes and circadian swaps. We don’t want to pass the rule to see how it will be implemented. If it sucks at that point, too late...we are stuck with it.

Our MEC leadership stated repeatedly that they cannot even attempt to predict the impact of 117 on our schedules. I’m sorry but that simply doesn’t inspire any confidence or desire to change.