Change My View - Part 117
01-14-2020, 09:13 AM
#32
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: BE-20, LR35
Posts: 266
Originally Posted by Pman
No idea about how 117 would affect us BUT...some of you need to realize this whole “if they don’t want it, it’s good for us” BS is stupid. You do realize we are in a time right now where any other ingredient added to the perfect storm could really make things interesting? This company has to make money. And lots of it. That’s reality. These mgt people are just doing their job too. A lot of you are think you are way more important than you are. There is no wide ranging conspiracy to screw us. I want things to get better for all of us but I also want FedEx to make lots of money and be healthy. Maybe the devil we know isn’t so bad for us or “them”. This all ALPA pushing for money. That’s the “them” who’s intention and wisdom I’d be questioning.
01-14-2020, 09:14 AM
#33
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: FO
Posts: 3,031
Originally Posted by meatloaf
Still not hearing int'l repercussions. Seems that when this turd floated before a 3rd crew member was not required until 10:00 hrs of block time. It's 7:35 hrs now. This would be yet another giveback.
01-14-2020, 09:43 AM
#34
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2019
Posts: 163
Originally Posted by harvick4
Anything that causes an ALPA pilot group to need to hire more pilots, is what they will push for. Even if it will take away QOL. The more pilots, the more union dues. Our schedule flexibility is about to go away.
01-14-2020, 10:00 AM
#35
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2017
Posts: 2,099
All the same arguments pilots and management made before 117 was implemented for passenger airlines. Each side pointed out the possible negatives to their agenda. In the end, neither side’s horror story came to fruition. Each side had negatives thrust upon them. But at least the pilots were more rested and weren’t forced to being extended more than 30 minutes if they didn’t want to.
01-14-2020, 10:28 AM
#36
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jan 2016
Posts: 37
Pretty incredible for a Flight Dept VP to state, “It isn’t a request from the NTSB”
NTSB letter to the FAA administrator, July 2013:
“The NTSB disagrees with this [cargo carrier] exclusion, as many of the fatigue-related accidents that we have investigated over the years involved cargo operators. We also believe that, because of the time of day that cargo operations typically occur, such operations are in greater need of these requirements....[W]e are very concerned about the cargo exclusion...”
NTSB Chairman Deborah Hersman:
“We see two major omissions in part 117. [...] I will say we were disappointed with the exclusion of cargo operators. Science does not support allowing longer duty hours for certain subgroups. The payload may be different; but the pilot's vulnerability to fatigue remains constant.”
NTSB Accident Report, UPS 1354:
”The NTSB has had longstanding concerns about fatigue in aviation, and, for many years, this issue was on the NTSB’s Most Wanted List. The FAA recently issued new flight- and duty-time regulations for Part 121 operations that went into effect on January 4, 2014. However, these regulations do not apply to all-cargo operations. The NTSB has stated that it believes that the FAA should include all Part 121 operations under the new rules.”
NTSB letter to the FAA administrator, July 2013:
“The NTSB disagrees with this [cargo carrier] exclusion, as many of the fatigue-related accidents that we have investigated over the years involved cargo operators. We also believe that, because of the time of day that cargo operations typically occur, such operations are in greater need of these requirements....[W]e are very concerned about the cargo exclusion...”
NTSB Chairman Deborah Hersman:
“We see two major omissions in part 117. [...] I will say we were disappointed with the exclusion of cargo operators. Science does not support allowing longer duty hours for certain subgroups. The payload may be different; but the pilot's vulnerability to fatigue remains constant.”
NTSB Accident Report, UPS 1354:
”The NTSB has had longstanding concerns about fatigue in aviation, and, for many years, this issue was on the NTSB’s Most Wanted List. The FAA recently issued new flight- and duty-time regulations for Part 121 operations that went into effect on January 4, 2014. However, these regulations do not apply to all-cargo operations. The NTSB has stated that it believes that the FAA should include all Part 121 operations under the new rules.”
01-14-2020, 11:53 AM
#37
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: 767 Captain
Posts: 3,988
117 Proponents - how about you find an onerous pairing or series of the same in one of our current bid packs. Show us how 117 will make a clear, definable safety improvement to that situation. If you're going to cherry pick NTSB statements, go the final mile and show us how 117 would have prevented the accident to which they refer. Would it have made any difference in the UPS 1354 accident? Would those two pilots have been resting comfortably in a hotel or completely lacking in fatigue flying into BHM that morning if their schedule had been governed by 117? Or is that just convenient rhetoric from the NTSB that happens to support your agenda?
Usually when someone wants to change something for the better, they offer some tangible examples to support their effort. Like the OP said, "Change my view".
Usually when someone wants to change something for the better, they offer some tangible examples to support their effort. Like the OP said, "Change my view".
01-14-2020, 12:45 PM
#38
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2017
Posts: 2,099
Change My View - Part 117
Originally Posted by Adlerdriver
117 Proponents - how about you find an onerous pairing or series of the same in one of our current bid packs. Show us how 117 will make a clear, definable safety improvement to that situation. If you're going to cherry pick NTSB statements, go the final mile and show us how 117 would have prevented the accident to which they refer. Would it have made any difference in the UPS 1354 accident? Would those two pilots have been resting comfortably in a hotel or completely lacking in fatigue flying into BHM that morning if their schedule had been governed by 117? Or is that just convenient rhetoric from the NTSB that happens to support your agenda?
Usually when someone wants to change something for the better, they offer some tangible examples to support their effort. Like the OP said, "Change my view".
Usually when someone wants to change something for the better, they offer some tangible examples to support their effort. Like the OP said, "Change my view".
I’ll pick any schedule that has a week of consecutive night hub turns without at least two hours behind the sleep room door each night. Or how about being extended to 16 hours? That’s onerous.
When it comes to safety, we pilots are like hydraulic accumulators. We make up the slack. The lack of an accident doesn’t mean a flight is safe. This is a fundamental safety concept.
01-14-2020, 01:13 PM
#39
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Position: MD11 FO
Posts: 1,109
Originally Posted by BoilerUP
If 117 were jointly applied to both passenger and cargo operations, FDX ALPA and FDX Management (and every other pilot group and company management, for that matter) could jointly apply to the FAA for a 117.7 FRMS waiver to the regulations determined most negative to both parties, with decades of past practice and experience supporting such a request.
At minimum, wouldn't eliminating the ability to extend to FAR maximum 16 hours of duty and FAR minimum 8 hours of actual rest domestically be an improvement?
At minimum, wouldn't eliminating the ability to extend to FAR maximum 16 hours of duty and FAR minimum 8 hours of actual rest domestically be an improvement?
01-14-2020, 01:14 PM
#40
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Position: MD11 FO
Posts: 1,109
Originally Posted by Fr8Master
Exactly this! Come on folks, let’s take off the tin foil hats remove the tape from our iPad camera...management is not out to get you, they are here to ensure FedEx is an ongoing concern in the future.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
