Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Cargo > FedEx
Change My View - Part 117 >

Change My View - Part 117

Notices

Change My View - Part 117

Old 01-20-2020, 11:12 AM
  #141  
Banned
 
Joined APC: Jun 2018
Posts: 1,838
Default

Originally Posted by BlueMoon View Post
Having all cargo carriers mandated under 117 can also help level the playing field with future competitors (ie Amazon’s regional airline model of contract carriers)
Bingo! I have been told that Sun Country will be running their Cargo ops under 117.
Noworkallplay is offline  
Old 01-20-2020, 11:12 AM
  #142  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: FO
Posts: 3,031
Default

Agreed, the amount of times we end up talking about the upcoming contract and the other guy says “the company will never go for that” or “that will never happen” to what I feel are fairly realistic improvements, is very worrisome. Well, with that attitude we’ll never make any gains.
BlueMoon is online now  
Old 01-20-2020, 11:14 AM
  #143  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: FO
Posts: 3,031
Default

Originally Posted by Noworkallplay View Post
Bingo! I have been told that Sun Country will be running their Cargo ops under 117.
The CEO literally said it would be during the announcement.
BlueMoon is online now  
Old 01-20-2020, 02:24 PM
  #144  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: May 2018
Posts: 210
Default

Originally Posted by FXLAX View Post
Did those that went to work at FedEx before it had these flexible work rules, pay, pension, vacation, etc just not do anything about those things? Or did they go to FedEx despite those things and when the opportunity arose to make it better, they did? I’m sick and tired of this type of argument. I see now that it’s a cultural thing here. People are so used to doing things the “same” way that they use all these irrelevant excuses.

As for previous airlines, many of them, including mine, had similar schedules as night hub turns. They called them by different names, stand ups, high speeds, CDO, etc. Many came from airlines that did international flying as well. And all of them do the same kind of day flying we do. It is a more valid comparison those people make with experience with both regulations than anyone who has only flown under 121 regs.
What guys don’t want to give up is the scheduling flexibility that was fought for before you got here and decided you don’t like flying at night. I’m sorry not everybody is going to agree with you that 117 will improve our schedules or QOL regardless of how “sick” you are of their arguments that you don’t happen to agree with. To disagree with your opinion (and that’s all it is...just like mine is just an opinion) doesn’t make something an irrelevant excuse. It’s condescending to assume that somebody who has carefully considered the issue yet doesn’t see the vast improvements you claim is just making irrelevant excuses. You are showing up and expecting everybody to bend to your will and do what you want. Unintended consequences often diminish many of the alleged “improvements” that have been sold to us so forgive me for not wanting to jump on your band wagon.
BLOB is offline  
Old 01-20-2020, 10:30 PM
  #145  
Banned
 
Joined APC: Jun 2018
Posts: 1,838
Default

Originally Posted by BLOB View Post
What guys don’t want to give up is the scheduling flexibility that was fought for before you got here and decided you don’t like flying at night. I’m sorry not everybody is going to agree with you that 117 will improve our schedules or QOL regardless of how “sick” you are of their arguments that you don’t happen to agree with. To disagree with your opinion (and that’s all it is...just like mine is just an opinion) doesn’t make something an irrelevant excuse. It’s condescending to assume that somebody who has carefully considered the issue yet doesn’t see the vast improvements you claim is just making irrelevant excuses. You are showing up and expecting everybody to bend to your will and do what you want. Unintended consequences often diminish many of the alleged “improvements” that have been sold to us so forgive me for not wanting to jump on your band wagon.
To help me understand your concerns can you please enlighten me on your experiences prior to FedEx. Can you give me examples of what you have to compare FedEx to? I’m not being snarky, just honestly trying to understand the perception you have and what you have to compare it to.
Noworkallplay is offline  
Old 01-20-2020, 11:31 PM
  #146  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Adlerdriver's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: 767 Captain
Posts: 3,987
Default

Originally Posted by Noworkallplay View Post
To help me understand your concerns can you please enlighten me on your experiences prior to FedEx. Can you give me examples of what you have to compare FedEx to? I’m not being snarky, just honestly trying to understand the perception you have and what you have to compare it to.
Blob has a very good point. You two 117 proponents (FXLAX & Noworkallplay) would have more success presenting your points without the lecture to the rest of us. It would also probably work out better for you if you avoided characterizing the opinions with which you disagree as coming from ignorance while assuming your career experience in the industry has uniquely equipped you both to save us all from ourselves.

I didn’t come to FedEx straight out of the military. I spent over 4 years at a major legacy pax airline and 2 more at an ACMI airline after I got furloughed. I’ve worked under truly outstanding CBAs developed using decades of industry experience that put many aspects of our current FedEx contract to shame. I’ve seen that same CBA decimated by bankruptcy and then worked under another with duty limits that simply stated “See FARs”. I see plenty of room for improvement in our current operation at FedEx and will never be a blind apologist as you seem to want to make us out to be.

Our reserve system sucks.

Our deadhead fare system has huge loopholes that should have been addressed properly in exchange for the lay-flat bed concessions our negotiators felt necessary to give the company.

The company should find and book the correct class of service on DHs – period – not shrug and be able to say “sorry – higher class of service was sold out”.

We should have holiday pay.

We should be pay protected for trip removal and get rid of SUB.

That’s just to name a few.

To make my stance clear – I’m not against 117 or any potential safety improvements its implementation might offer our pilot group. I’m not arguing that the science used to develop it is invalid. However, expecting 117 to work in every aspect of our operations ignores the fact that we have a unique system that is different from the primary beneficiaries of 117 – i.e. the pax pilots. In spite of all that, it’s already been clearly established that much of our current CBA is already 117 compliant. So, we have small, targeted sections of our CBA and/or our system form that would be affected by implementing 117. I’m nowhere near convinced that those small changes are worth the overall result. I’ve held this opinion for years – long before DD decided to put his concerns about 117 out on the APC front page. Just because management wants the status quo because they can see 117 is going to cost them money, doesn’t mean my reservations have any connection to theirs. I am very, very wary of unintended consequences which have always been a problem at FedEx. Some of those consequences can be determined just by reading 117. 2 hours behind a door on an AM hub-turn. 9-hours of flight deck duty as a two-pilot, un-augmented crew if the flight departs in a certain window. The unintended consequences are much more difficult to determine because we don’t know how the company is going to change our pairings, schedule, etc. in order to comply. Neither one of you have the ability to determine that and whatever happened at your past airlines is irrelevant. So, all I’m asking for is some critical analysis of the situation to make sure it’s truly going to be an improvement in safety and not just making one small problem area better while making several others worse. I don’t need the government to “empower” me so I can avoid having to make a fatigue call. You’re either fit for duty or you’re not. That’s going to be our responsibility to decide regardless of what regulation we work under.

That implication that you both are more qualified to evaluate the benefits of 117 at FedEx because you worked under it somewhere else is a pretty big stretch. Some aspects of our operation are the same or close enough to the pax carriers but much of it isn’t. You both seem to conveniently ignore that fact.

Have either one of you ever flown an intercontinental trip at FedEx? Round the world in 5-7 days? 14-day single departure trip?

No big deal if you haven’t yet (or will ever). But, when you conveniently equate pax long-haul to ours, it’s pretty clear you have no idea what you’re talking about.

Can either of you definitively answer ANY of these questions below about implementing 117 at FedEx? No - you can't. None of these questions are “conjecture or half-truths”. They’re big concerns with answers that have the potential to drastically affect our QOL.


Will our pilots flying AM hub-turns have their groups of work days shortened and become more frequent and be forced into additional monthly circadian swaps as a result?


Will disruptions to our trips result in more incidents of pilots being removed and put in SUB?


Will our duty periods involving AM hub-turns be longer to accommodate rest requirements?


Will we lose our RFO on say, CDG-DEL, BOM-MXP, NRT-HKG (to name a few) if the company builds the trips to ensure we’re “acclimated” to that theater before departure? News flash to you both – No pilots at any of the major US pax carriers flying long haul go to work for 12-14 days at a pop and get acclimated to a theater half-way into the trip which would then allow 2-pilots operations up to 9 block hours.


Will the 100/28 rule or the 56 hours off (un-waivable) cost us money when our trips are dropped because of them? Will we even be able to make up that money when we can’t find legal make-up trips? Will the same rules deny my ability to be awarded a max pay schedule to drop using my vacation?

None of the above is worth denying the company’s ability to extend me to FAR limits or tell me I’m legal to finish since I was legal to start. I already have a solution to that. When I can’t bid for the trips I want or manipulate my schedule the way I want, there’s no solution for that. When I have to commute more frequently or the number of lines available shrink because less RFOs are needed, there’s not solution for that.

Neither one of you know what the end result of 117 implementation will be here. When you can make a list of actual, tangible positive safety and QOL improvements that are over and above what are currently in our contract and that is clearly eclipsed by what we will be forced to give up in exchange then maybe you’ll change the opinion of me and others like me. But there’s a lot more to my opinion than “we’ve always done it this way”.
Adlerdriver is offline  
Old 01-21-2020, 03:24 AM
  #147  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: FO
Posts: 3,031
Default

You would not lose the RFO with 117 for legs of greater than 7:35 block.


Our contract specifies a third crew member is required on international flights duty periods with block over 7:35.

The only way that goes away if we vote it away.
BlueMoon is online now  
Old 01-21-2020, 04:21 AM
  #148  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Adlerdriver's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: 767 Captain
Posts: 3,987
Default

Originally Posted by BlueMoon View Post
You would not lose the RFO with 117 for legs of greater than 7:35 block.


Our contract specifies a third crew member is required on international flights duty periods with block over 7:35.

The only way that goes away if we vote it away.
You live in a fantasy world if you think our CBA will eventually override FARs.
If the company is expected to comply with everything associated with 117 because it’s science based,why do you think they won’t expect compliance with portions that don’t work in our favor?
The same science based data you claim will save us can be used against us.
When we enter into negotiations with the company expecting all the wonderful aspects of 117 to be folded into our new CBA, why do you can think they’ll ignore the portions that work in their favor?
35 minutes under the FAR maximum is a big difference from science based data that allows them to increase that by 1:55 because the same science we’re holding them to suddenly allows a much different limit to the same situation.
Adlerdriver is offline  
Old 01-21-2020, 04:26 AM
  #149  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: FO
Posts: 3,031
Default

Originally Posted by Adlerdriver View Post
You live in a fantasy world if you think our CBA will eventually override FARs.
If the company is expected to comply with everything associated with 117 because it’s science based,why do you think they won’t expect compliance with portions that don’t work in our favor?
The same science based data you claim will save us can be used against us.
When we enter into negotiations with the company expecting all the wonderful aspects of 117 to be folded into our new CBA, why so you can think they’ll ignore the portions that work in their favor?
35 minutes under the FAR maximum is a big difference from science based data that allows them to increase that by 1:55 because try same science we’re holding them to suddenly allows a much different limit to the same situation.

It’s not fantasy. The contract can be more restrictive than the FAR’s and in many instances it already is

It goes away only if we let it. Then we have ourselves to blame for voting in a contract that worsens QOL.
BlueMoon is online now  
Old 01-21-2020, 04:36 AM
  #150  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Adlerdriver's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: 767 Captain
Posts: 3,987
Default

Originally Posted by BlueMoon View Post
It’s not fantasy. The contract can be more restrictive than the FAR’s and in many instances it already is

It goes away only if we let it. Then we have ourselves to blame for voting in a contract that worsens QOL.
Yeah. Not quite as black and white as you claim. Negotiations involve a bit more than you seem to think. What basis do we have to hold on to 7:35 RFO requirements when the same science based data says
there are specific situations that allow 9 hours. When we demand changes to our work rules because of government mandated rules, it’s unrealistic for us to expect our company to not expect similar changes if they are supported by the same rules.
Adlerdriver is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
onecsd
Major
23
08-26-2015 11:03 AM
CLewis
Part 135
5
07-11-2011 06:35 PM
pdo bump
Cargo
70
05-30-2007 06:01 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Your Privacy Choices