pinseeker

You make all of these assertions about scheduling and flexibility being affected negatively without any proof. These are only your opinion. I can't remember the last time that I had a schedule that didn't comply with 117.

As has been pointed out multiple times, our contract is already fairly close to 117. Even our international duty free buffer is 48 hours vs. the 56 hours for 117.

As far as being junior isn't a choice, I think you are wrong. When you got hired at FedEx, you knew that you would be in the bottom 30 or so until more people were hired after you, just like you knew that FedEx flew at night. So yes, you chose to be junior when you took the job not knowing when hiring would stop just like you chose to fly at night. Sounds like you were here around the purple nugget hires, so you should know that nothing is guaranteed.

If you send that schedule over soon, I'll let you know if it is ok or not.

Tuck

Primarily the cost savings. Currently they can't schedule over 8 so the company fighting for that in Sec6 doesn't give them a lot - how many flights do we have that are scheduled block 7:36-8:00? Not that many. But there are a TON when you add in the 8:01-9:00 so with 117 they have the potential to save a ton of money and as others have said, that RFO flying doesn't affect everyone - frankly most of our improvements over the years have been disproportionately to the intl flyers - I doubt there's a ton of love from the domestic flyers towards intl. I could see us giving up 7:35 quite easily - might not go all way to 9:00 - but could easily see it go up significantly in Sec6

Tuck

You have to think what would be cheapest way for Company to capture any savings that they would lose from 117 - losing the flexibility to extend wantonly is huge to them. So if you right now have a line with 5 hub turns M-Fri why wouldn't company just sit you on Thurs eve for 24 hours in MEM - and then have you continue Fri night? Add the single day MEM-xxx and xxx-MEM for a different pilot - cost to Company is zero and that's the name of the game. There is no way they are going to change scheduled freight delivery by 15 minutes here and there to accomodate greater hub turns unless it saves them money. You'd have to give an example as to how it would save them money to do that . Show me the idea of why the Company would either adjust takeoff and landing times OR flip flop you in the middle OR get weekend layovers or a long layover in the middle and keep costs the same or even save money?
Make no doubt that they will be less willing to accomodate all the monthly "disputes" in the build process if 117 is passed and it costs them money. Still, it MIGHT be safer but you will lose flexibility and likely be gone for more - not necessarily work more but be gone more for less pay - unless you live in MEM then it might be great.

pinseeker

Because the SIG builds the lines, not the company. The company builds the pairings. If the SIG can put together the pairings so that you fly 5 hub turns in a row and are legal, then you get paid if the company decides to remove you. If you are turning through a hub like AFW, OAK, or IND and the company wants to rest you for 24 hours on that pairing, you still get paid.

How about showing the number of current lines in your bid pack that aren’t 117 compliant. Let us know the line numbers and why they aren’t compliant. So far all that has been thrown out is conjecture and hyperbole.

BLOB

Your guess on the effect of 117 is just that...a guess like everybody else. Even the MEC officers with all their resources said they cannot predict the effect. But I guess you’re smarter than everybody else. The rest of us are just full of hyperbole.

As a side note, ask what the average FEDEX pilot makes each year. It’s well north of average pay x 1000 FYI 🤔. The NC has the number and it’s what they’re basing retirement negotiations on.

Back to my 300 CH month. It’s in your mail for your approval 😜

Shaman

It is pretty important to understand what you quoted.

"The things that are fatiguing about FedEx flight ops are not at all the same as those for daytime passenger ops."

Bolded and underlined for emphasis. It ain't the pilots or the regulations its the OPERATIONS. There maybe some guys who've been bitten by a radioactive marsupial and remain unbothered by nighttime operations, but for the rest of us mere mortals its all about developing mitigating strategies. I can count the number of times on one hand where it was the duty day or the turn that made the difference in how I felt. And this is due to the normal circadian cycle which is tied to the movements of the SUN.

Here's a link on the importance of SUNLIGHT and the circadian cycle. Circadian Rhythms and the Critical importance of Sunlight. How to get back in Sync! - Sunlight Institute

Folks in this thread have quoted research about WOCL's and how there are two and whatnot, but organisms on this planet have evolved to function around cycles of the sun. When we operate in a function contrary to those cycles it is by its very nature fatigue inducing and no matter how many times anyone says it FAR 117 does little to nothing to address this specifically. The marginal changes it does make however can be very significant for daytime operations. This is why the comparisons aren't meaningful to many of us here.

I fully understand that having a different set of rules for people with the same job titles is distressing for some, but we don't have the same set of contractual rules either. I understand regulations change, but if you're looking for support for this change selling it as better for fatigue management at a place like Fedex is going to be challenging.

Tuck

Yeah it's not possible - that's the reason why the SIG said 4 years ago that it would impact something like 30% of the lines (as in, they couldn't build them even if desired) and that's without the very necessary buffers Company would install in 117 trips.

Tuck

On mine there aren't that many but I'm more of an international flyer. Do you trust the SIG's analysis or not? The officers have said during hub turns that something like 70% of current lines are compliant and that's using 5 year old data and with zero buffers.

Not to mention that many pilots end up with something very different than their actual line - they swap with others, open time, pick up x pairings etc - that part will be greatly reduced as the ability to swap based on the many rules that 117 mandate (non waiverable whereas today your line has to be built to certain parameters but then you can optionally waive many of those restrictions and adjust your schedule).

Tuck

Good pint. The entire idea of a 2 hour rest during the WOCL has never been accurately tested. The science 117 depends on is made up at best - ask the officers about it during the next hub turn with them. Ask if 117 is actually based on 40-50 year old (our average age) pilots or what it's based on? What do the ALPA civilian experts say about that science?

kwri10s

I'm way out of the know on this issue. I'm reading and learning but just baffled by what might be. Some of you guys seem very smart on the regs. A quick question.

If I take several steps backwards and try to look strategically at why the company might be against 117, is there any verbiage in 117 that mandates a minimum of two pilots in the cockpit at all times? Since we already know the company has dropped big money into the single pilot and no pilot technology innovation, would implementing 117 somehow cut them off at the knees with their strategy of someday moving to single-pilot ops?