Change My View - Part 117
01-21-2020, 09:02 PM
#171
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2017
Posts: 2,099
Change My View - Part 117
Originally Posted by BLOB
That was my point. The FAA agreed the cost to implement 117 at a cargo carrier is higher. Why? Because our system form IS different than a pax carrier. We DO fly more at night...so comparing how good 117 was at a pax carrier is not a useful comparison to the impact on our system.
Yes, our bodies are affected by fatigue just like any other pilot. I won’t argue that...But it simply came down to a cost benefit analysis. The benefit gained by going to 117 was not worth the cost. For the pilots who don’t necessarily want 117 as it exists for cargo, it is simply because we evaluate the possible gains as not being worth the cost to us.
You may not like the fact that it ultimately is a cost benefit analysis but every operation that does a risk assessment most definitely weighs the costs vs the potential reward. Science would support that never flying at night and only flying 4 hours per day between 9am and 1pm will decrease fatigue related accidents. It would have added safety benefit of allowing maintenance more time to fix our planes. However the cost to the airlines and flying public would be too great. That’s extreme yes but it illustrates the point. We can argue where the line of safe operations is relative to cost but to deny it exists isn’t based in reality.
I agree that fatigue is insidious. 117 doesn’t change that. You still may have to make the judgement call that you are fatigued under 117 due to a myriad of circumstances that still comply with 117.
Yes, our bodies are affected by fatigue just like any other pilot. I won’t argue that...But it simply came down to a cost benefit analysis. The benefit gained by going to 117 was not worth the cost. For the pilots who don’t necessarily want 117 as it exists for cargo, it is simply because we evaluate the possible gains as not being worth the cost to us.
You may not like the fact that it ultimately is a cost benefit analysis but every operation that does a risk assessment most definitely weighs the costs vs the potential reward. Science would support that never flying at night and only flying 4 hours per day between 9am and 1pm will decrease fatigue related accidents. It would have added safety benefit of allowing maintenance more time to fix our planes. However the cost to the airlines and flying public would be too great. That’s extreme yes but it illustrates the point. We can argue where the line of safe operations is relative to cost but to deny it exists isn’t based in reality.
I agree that fatigue is insidious. 117 doesn’t change that. You still may have to make the judgement call that you are fatigued under 117 due to a myriad of circumstances that still comply with 117.
The fact that we do fly more at night (when humans get their best rest) is more the reason why we should be under 117!
The science doesn’t say that we can’t fly at night safely, as you seek to insinuate. It says that it can be done safely with certain stipulations. And then it specifies those rules. It’s not a regulation that tells us what’s the most safe flight operation. If we use your logic, we wouldn’t fly at all, even during the day because that’s the most safe.
The fact is that passenger pilots and cargo pilots suffer from fatigue in the same physiological way. The fact that they valued your life less than those on a passenger airplane is insulting.
There will always be instances of fatigue. I can tell you from prior experience that after 117 went into effect, operational fatigue calls went down significantly while non-operational (noisy hotel, pre-duty sleep debt) remained the same. In other words, the regulation works.
01-21-2020, 09:10 PM
#172
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2017
Posts: 2,099
Originally Posted by BLOB
Let me guess. How many of these are true?
1. You live in Memphis (base)
2. You are senior in your seat or have been most of your time.
3. You don’t need to trip trade to get the schedule you’d like to have.
These are all choices (sort of). However, the more of these you answer yes to the less you are affected by some of the negative consequences that may limit our schedules with 117.
Just because a guy commutes, upgrades at a point junior to when you have or will, and likes our scheduling flexibility as it is doesn’t mean he is wrong. He is managing his career in a way that is different than you. If changing the “rules” of the game impacts that negatively why would you expect him to support that.
1. You live in Memphis (base)
2. You are senior in your seat or have been most of your time.
3. You don’t need to trip trade to get the schedule you’d like to have.
These are all choices (sort of). However, the more of these you answer yes to the less you are affected by some of the negative consequences that may limit our schedules with 117.
Just because a guy commutes, upgrades at a point junior to when you have or will, and likes our scheduling flexibility as it is doesn’t mean he is wrong. He is managing his career in a way that is different than you. If changing the “rules” of the game impacts that negatively why would you expect him to support that.
1 I don’t live in Memphis, about 1500 miles away. I commute, mostly without the benefit of any deadheads.
2. Not senior in my seat. I transitioned and therefore chose to be junior in my seat.
3. I do trip trade to get a better schedule than what I had.
Again, you are attacking the person with an opinion rather than attacking his opinion. That’s an ad hominem argument and it’s fallacious. Even if all those things are true, it doesn’t make his opinion less valid than yours. At least not on those grounds.
01-21-2020, 09:19 PM
#173
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2017
Posts: 2,099
Originally Posted by BLOB
Oh Why didn’t you say it was a safety issue. If you say those words you must be right. Look....never meant to get into a purse slapping contest with you. Merely voicing a dissenting opinion that 117 and the additional commutes it will entail do not necessarily enhance safety for the cost that comes with it. Flying a bunch is not the goal. Commuting less and working when I want to is the goal. I guess we will see if it goes through. I’m sure there will be unintended consequences. Maybe we will get lucky and have some good ones this time.
There doesn’t need to be more commutes. There are multiple things that can be done to make the lines compliant. Management will want to keep costs as low as possible. They will want to keep the amount of pilots needed as low as possible. They will want to make pilots as efficient as possible. Increasing the amount of trips doesn’t seem to accomplish that.
01-22-2020, 03:18 AM
#174
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2018
Posts: 210
Originally Posted by FXLAX
There doesn’t need to be more commutes. There are multiple things that can be done to make the lines compliant. Management will want to keep costs as low as possible. They will want to keep the amount of pilots needed as low as possible. They will want to make pilots as efficient as possible. Increasing the amount of trips doesn’t seem to accomplish that.
Yes management likes efficiency. It’s very efficient for them to have you sit in Memphis for a day without pay....costs them nothing and resets your ability for 3 days of fun flying in the WOCL under 117. Renegotiating with our customers to have an earlier last drop off time or later guaranteed delivery time to accommodate our nap time is more difficult and costly for them. I just don’t think they will choose the path that accommodates us.
We will just have to see how it plays out since I don’t think we are going to move the needle on this debate. And in the end nobody cares about our opinions on APC.
Take it easy. Fly safe. Have a good day.
01-22-2020, 04:23 AM
#175
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2015
Position: Fetal in the hub
Posts: 406
Originally Posted by FXLAX
The fact that we do fly more at night (when humans get their best rest) is more the reason why we should be under 117!
The science doesn’t say that we can’t fly at night safely, as you seek to insinuate. It says that it can be done safely with certain stipulations. And then it specifies those rules. It’s not a regulation that tells us what’s the most safe flight operation. If we use your logic, we wouldn’t fly at all, even during the day because that’s the most safe.
The fact is that passenger pilots and cargo pilots suffer from fatigue in the same physiological way. The fact that they valued your life less than those on a passenger airplane is insulting.
There will always be instances of fatigue. I can tell you from prior experience that after 117 went into effect, operational fatigue calls went down significantly while non-operational (noisy hotel, pre-duty sleep debt) remained the same. In other words, the regulation works.
The science doesn’t say that we can’t fly at night safely, as you seek to insinuate. It says that it can be done safely with certain stipulations. And then it specifies those rules. It’s not a regulation that tells us what’s the most safe flight operation. If we use your logic, we wouldn’t fly at all, even during the day because that’s the most safe.
The fact is that passenger pilots and cargo pilots suffer from fatigue in the same physiological way. The fact that they valued your life less than those on a passenger airplane is insulting.
There will always be instances of fatigue. I can tell you from prior experience that after 117 went into effect, operational fatigue calls went down significantly while non-operational (noisy hotel, pre-duty sleep debt) remained the same. In other words, the regulation works.
I do narrowbody night hub turns and 117 will do nothing to reduce fatigue for me. Therefore, I feel like 117 is a solution looking for a problem to fix. Im not shilling for management nor am i simply ignorant about all the wonderful things Part 117 provides. Im just saying it matters to others more than it matters to me and that makes me more concerned about the unintended consequences then the benefits you seem so eager to tout.
Last edited by Shaman; 01-22-2020 at 04:38 AM.
01-22-2020, 07:10 AM
#176
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: 767 Captain
Posts: 3,988
Originally Posted by Noworkallplay
What? You moved the goal post again. Now you have come to the conclusion that our more restrictive CBA rules will be voided or lost in some way shape or form? Well that’s not what happened at the pax airlines when 117 was implemented so why would that occur at FDX?
Also, the argument that we don't have to vote the change in doesn't hold much water considering our past history. A minority of our pilots care about RFOs or other more "niche" aspects of our work rules. All it took was 57% last time to say, "Meh.. good enough, I don't deadhead in first class much....... I don't do hotel-in-lieu of internationally..... I don't ............fill in the blank".
01-22-2020, 08:29 AM
#177
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: FO
Posts: 3,031
Originally Posted by Adlerdriver
No - didn't move anything. I'm simply saying that if the company is forced to comply with 117 and whatever additional cost that entails, it's only natural that they will attempt to offset those costs where they can. When we open up section 12 during our next CBA negotiations for a post 117 FedEx, what's to stop the company from using it to justify changes we don't want, like increased block hours before requiring an RFO. Telling the company we want to keep it the way it is doesn't seem like a real valid reason when the new science based regulation they just had forced on them says 9 is ok. The current 8 hour requirement is exceeded by our CBA. No one else uses 7:35. They all comply with the FAR limit of 8 if that's the limit that applies. Are you telling me that 117 airlines don't fly 9 hours without an RFO if the crew is acclimated? I kind of doubt that's really the case.
Also, the argument that we don't have to vote the change in doesn't hold much water considering our past history. A minority of our pilots care about RFOs or other more "niche" aspects of our work rules. All it took was 57% last time to say, "Meh.. good enough, I don't deadhead in first class much....... I don't do hotel-in-lieu of internationally..... I don't ............fill in the blank".
Also, the argument that we don't have to vote the change in doesn't hold much water considering our past history. A minority of our pilots care about RFOs or other more "niche" aspects of our work rules. All it took was 57% last time to say, "Meh.. good enough, I don't deadhead in first class much....... I don't do hotel-in-lieu of internationally..... I don't ............fill in the blank".
We should use whatever argument we used to keep it at 7:35 in the last contract.
Last edited by BlueMoon; 01-22-2020 at 08:44 AM.
01-22-2020, 10:43 AM
#178
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2014
Position: Semi-Retired...
Posts: 3,127
117 at scheduled 121 pax operations hurt my earning capability after its implementation. Yes, it eliminated the dreaded 8 hour reduced rest overnight, but resulted in trip parings that formerly averaged 25-28 block hours per 4 day trip into an average of 20 block hour 4 day trips a few years later. The limits required more pilots to compete the same existing block hours which meant everybody got lower block hour lines.
now, factor in that we are/were rarely starting or even flying during the period of circadian low that triggers greatly reduced duty periods. Add in the restriction from doing more than three overnight consecutively unless rest periods (of at least 2 hours) are built in, and you can see that your potential productivity is going to drop way down.
the company doesn’t want it because it will force them to hire more pilots to cover the same flying as now. The pilots should be aware that the cost of guaranteeing more rest while at work means exactly that... more rest, less work. It will eventually result in pairings that will be a pay cut requiring additional nights at work for the same pay you’re getting now.
More pilots means more revenue for ALPA. It also means they don’t have to defend the 117 rules as hard against the argument that the cargo planes aren’t exactly falling out of the sky, so is 117 even necessary?
managements have been pushing (since as far back as the original 117 ARC) that all that was needed were minor changes to the rest rules, not the entire rewrite we got. Sadly, after 7 years under 117, it’s beginning to look like management may have actually been right. Earning the same but away more, or earning less and home the same.
be careful what you wish for. Heck, the official opinion from the ALPA National Govt Affairs Committee is that there is not a pilot shortage at all, and that there won’t be. That’s how out of touch National has become.
now, factor in that we are/were rarely starting or even flying during the period of circadian low that triggers greatly reduced duty periods. Add in the restriction from doing more than three overnight consecutively unless rest periods (of at least 2 hours) are built in, and you can see that your potential productivity is going to drop way down.
the company doesn’t want it because it will force them to hire more pilots to cover the same flying as now. The pilots should be aware that the cost of guaranteeing more rest while at work means exactly that... more rest, less work. It will eventually result in pairings that will be a pay cut requiring additional nights at work for the same pay you’re getting now.
More pilots means more revenue for ALPA. It also means they don’t have to defend the 117 rules as hard against the argument that the cargo planes aren’t exactly falling out of the sky, so is 117 even necessary?
managements have been pushing (since as far back as the original 117 ARC) that all that was needed were minor changes to the rest rules, not the entire rewrite we got. Sadly, after 7 years under 117, it’s beginning to look like management may have actually been right. Earning the same but away more, or earning less and home the same.
be careful what you wish for. Heck, the official opinion from the ALPA National Govt Affairs Committee is that there is not a pilot shortage at all, and that there won’t be. That’s how out of touch National has become.
Last edited by Cujo665; 01-22-2020 at 10:56 AM.
01-22-2020, 11:44 AM
#179
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,820
Originally Posted by Cujo665
117 at scheduled 121 pax operations hurt my earning capability after its implementation. Yes, it eliminated the dreaded 8 hour reduced rest overnight, but resulted in trip parings that formerly averaged 25-28 block hours per 4 day trip into an average of 20 block hour 4 day trips a few years later. The limits required more pilots to compete the same existing block hours which meant everybody got lower block hour lines.
now, factor in that we are/were rarely starting or even flying during the period of circadian low that triggers greatly reduced duty periods. Add in the restriction from doing more than three overnight consecutively unless rest periods (of at least 2 hours) are built in, and you can see that your potential productivity is going to drop way down.
the company doesn’t want it because it will force them to hire more pilots to cover the same flying as now. The pilots should be aware that the cost of guaranteeing more rest while at work means exactly that... more rest, less work. It will eventually result in pairings that will be a pay cut requiring additional nights at work for the same pay you’re getting now.
More pilots means more revenue for ALPA. It also means they don’t have to defend the 117 rules as hard against the argument that the cargo planes aren’t exactly falling out of the sky, so is 117 even necessary?
managements have been pushing (since as far back as the original 117 ARC) that all that was needed were minor changes to the rest rules, not the entire rewrite we got. Sadly, after 7 years under 117, it’s beginning to look like management may have actually been right. Earning the same but away more, or earning less and home the same.
be careful what you wish for. Heck, the official opinion from the ALPA National Govt Affairs Committee is that there is not a pilot shortage at all, and that there won’t be. That’s how out of touch National has become.
now, factor in that we are/were rarely starting or even flying during the period of circadian low that triggers greatly reduced duty periods. Add in the restriction from doing more than three overnight consecutively unless rest periods (of at least 2 hours) are built in, and you can see that your potential productivity is going to drop way down.
the company doesn’t want it because it will force them to hire more pilots to cover the same flying as now. The pilots should be aware that the cost of guaranteeing more rest while at work means exactly that... more rest, less work. It will eventually result in pairings that will be a pay cut requiring additional nights at work for the same pay you’re getting now.
More pilots means more revenue for ALPA. It also means they don’t have to defend the 117 rules as hard against the argument that the cargo planes aren’t exactly falling out of the sky, so is 117 even necessary?
managements have been pushing (since as far back as the original 117 ARC) that all that was needed were minor changes to the rest rules, not the entire rewrite we got. Sadly, after 7 years under 117, it’s beginning to look like management may have actually been right. Earning the same but away more, or earning less and home the same.
be careful what you wish for. Heck, the official opinion from the ALPA National Govt Affairs Committee is that there is not a pilot shortage at all, and that there won’t be. That’s how out of touch National has become.
Yeah, who would want more pilots. I say we stop hiring for a couple of years so that the number of wide body FO's and captains are reduced. That way, BLG's will increase. Nothing like reducing your pilot force to increase pay.
Very few lines at FedEx pay strictly block. Most lines are MPPDP or TAFB. Personally, I prefer the lines with a 80+ hour layover over flying 6+ hours of block a day. YMMV.
Last edited by pinseeker; 01-22-2020 at 11:57 AM.
01-22-2020, 12:30 PM
#180
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2005
Posts: 1,273
Originally Posted by Shaman
The things that are fatiguing about FedEx flight ops are not at all the same as those for daytime passenger ops. To conflate the two is simply disingenuous. Duty day extensions to FAA limits are marginal occurrences.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
