Connect and get the inside scoop on Airline Companies

Welcome to Airline Pilot Forums - Connect and get the inside scoop on Airline Companies

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ. Join our community today and start interacting with existing members. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free.


User Tag List

Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-13-2020, 06:56 PM   #1  
Not a real airline pilot
Thread Starter
 
DirtyPurple's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2016
Posts: 227
Default Change My View - Part 117

I see the posting on PFC. I admit I do not fully understand every aspect of Part 117.

Talking to my pax-carrier buddies, particularly those who fly long haul, it seems like it did unnecessarily complicate their trips, and in many cases extended their trip footprints to comply with the Part 117 crew rest requirements.

From my limited perspective, I donít think we want Part 117 in cargo. Am I missing something? Wouldnít it potentially wreck a commuterís flexibility?

Iím all ears.
DirtyPurple is offline  
Old 01-13-2020, 07:47 PM   #2  
Line Holder
 
11man's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jun 2014
Posts: 40
Default

Iíd say if the company is putting this much effort into swaying us away from it, itís probably good for us.

I like how he doesnít think we have a fatigue issue and our sig and psit is worthwhile. Having three and four legs a night isnít fatigue mitigation. How bout actually have us fly two legs max three a night. Two in / one out would be the most fatigue reducing, but the company wonít do it because itís not cost effective. International trips the layovers get smaller and smaller, again not fatigue mitigating.

My opinion is that if the company wants to change the fatigue problem, how About actually change the pairings anytime the sig requests it! Itís always a fight over dollars/fatigue.

I canít wait to see these mock pairings/lines, Iím sure theyíll be nicely optimized.
11man is offline  
Old 01-13-2020, 08:23 PM   #3  
Line Holder
 
parks31's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Posts: 67
Default

How does Dillman know anything about our schedules? He was hired from the outside and has been in training.
parks31 is offline  
Old 01-14-2020, 12:41 AM   #4  
Line Holder
 
harvick4's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Aug 2013
Posts: 90
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DirtyPurple View Post
I see the posting on PFC. I admit I do not fully understand every aspect of Part 117.

Talking to my pax-carrier buddies, particularly those who fly long haul, it seems like it did unnecessarily complicate their trips, and in many cases extended their trip footprints to comply with the Part 117 crew rest requirements.

From my limited perspective, I donít think we want Part 117 in cargo. Am I missing something? Wouldnít it potentially wreck a commuterís flexibility?

Iím all ears.
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.
harvick4 is offline  
Old 01-14-2020, 01:34 AM   #5  
Challenge Accepted Five
 
BoilerUP's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Sep 2005
Posts: 6,512
Default

Why would 117 negatively impact commuters in cargo, when it didnít for pax?
BoilerUP is offline  
Old 01-14-2020, 02:15 AM   #6  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Shaman's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jun 2015
Position: Fetal in the hub
Posts: 121
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BoilerUP View Post
Why would 117 negatively impact commuters in cargo, when it didnít for pax?
Commuting here is quite a bit different then at the pax carriers when you consider many pairings begin at an out outstation, the deviation bank policy, and less weekends. There's very little about our schedules that resembles pax schedules.


All that said the fact that management is visit against it bears trying to understand why.

Beware the unintended consequences
Shaman is offline  
Old 01-14-2020, 02:43 AM   #7  
Line Holder
 
HvypurplePylot's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2019
Posts: 88
Default

Anytime management tries direct negotiations with the pilots, which is what this PFC "article" is, they are lying out their ass.
HvypurplePylot is offline  
Old 01-14-2020, 02:44 AM   #8  
Line Holder
 
HvypurplePylot's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2019
Posts: 88
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaman View Post
Commuting here is quite a bit different then at the pax carriers when you consider many pairings begin at an out outstation, the deviation bank policy, and less weekends. There's very little about our schedules that resembles pax schedules.


All that said the fact that management is visit against it bears trying to understand why.

Beware the unintended consequences
And what about 117 would change any of that?
HvypurplePylot is offline  
Old 01-14-2020, 02:48 AM   #9  
Gets Weekends Off
 
BlueMoon's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: FO
Posts: 2,736
Default

Also, you can do 5 consecutive night time ops provided you are provided a suitable rest facility for no less than 2 hours in between legs. Not 3 night time Ops as was was stated.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/117.27

Quote:
117.27 Consecutive nighttime operations.A certificate holder may schedule and a flightcrew member may accept up to five consecutive flight duty periodsthat infringe on the window of circadian low if the certificate holder provides the flightcrew member with an opportunity to rest in a suitable accommodation during each of the consecutive nighttime flight duty periods. The rest opportunity must be at least 2 hours, measured from the time that the flightcrew memberreaches the suitable accommodation, and must comply with the conditions specified in ß 117.15(a), (c), (d), and (e). Otherwise, no certificate holder may schedule and no flightcrew member may accept more than three consecutive flight duty periodsthat infringe on the window of circadian low. For purposes of this section, any split duty rest that is provided in accordance with ß 117.15 counts as part of a flight duty period.
What they probably really donít want is the duty day limits. No more 16 hour limit. You can only extend 2 hours once before getting 30 hours of rest. No more back to back 16 hour days.
BlueMoon is offline  
Old 01-14-2020, 03:05 AM   #10  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Shaman's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jun 2015
Position: Fetal in the hub
Posts: 121
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HvypurplePylot View Post
And what about 117 would change any of that?
I haven't the slightest clue and the truth is neither do you nor does anyone else. Any survey of work groups will find plenty of voices pro and con. An anecdotal survey of my own personal contacts provides a very mixed set of responses. I'd also be willing to bet that the research data used to support implementation of part 117 did not include the kind of operations we do. (Prove it to me).

I mean there are people who swear up and down that PBS is wonderful.

regulations are tricky things and we cannot solve for the mechanisms that management will employ to mitigate any negative effects on the bottom line.

I'm not advocating for any particular position but the devil you know MAY prove to be easier to deal with.
Shaman is offline  
 
 
 

 
Post Reply
 



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
FAA, change FAR 117 onecsd Major 23 08-26-2015 11:03 AM
Part 135 change in personnel requirements CLewis Part 135 5 07-11-2011 06:35 PM
ALPA flip on age 60 is official pdo bump Cargo 70 05-30-2007 06:01 PM


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:16 AM.