Petition to Oppose Part 117
 

Yes, like I said, three night hub turns is not the limit. As you now stated, you can have put to five (the actual limiting number because nothing in the reg allows you to go over that) night hub turns if you meet the provisions of the regulation as written.

My comment on AMOCs was not meant to say the bill has passed, only that current airlines under 117 have had AMOCs approved by the FAA, setting precedent.

The former UPS, ATLAS and other cargo guys at FedEx will likely agree with the statement that our existing contract and schedules are better than their former employers. That could explain the lower amount of fatigue calls here.

117 does not prohibit week on/week off schedules but it certainly doesn’t facilitate them. The company won’t choose to implement 117 in a way that benefits us if it is inefficient for them. They will look to contain their costs. If that costs us QOL, that will not register in their decision matrix at all.

I find it funny when a senior pilot (good for him to post his name in the about section of his website) voices his opinion on rules effecting junior pilots.
Not sure how many multi leg hub turns he does.

but I’d suggest to our junior pilots to voice their opinion when it comes time in contract talks for us to approve a rule that only effects people 50 or 55 and older on date of signing for a financial bonus out the door. (Like we have in this contract)


my voice is that multi leg night hub turns are unhealthy and unsafe. If there are rules to limit the fatigue I think us and the company should welcome them.

Just curious. Does 117 talk about single pilot ops at all? If it does.....well. That’s a no brainer

Not senior in his seat. And I see plenty of am hub turns and am out and backs on his schedule.

Don’t confuse where a guy is on the overall list with his seniority in his seat. Plenty of pilots senior to you are not senior in their seats. Conversely, there are some “new guys” here who don’t know what being junior here is. Within a year they were at 60% in the right seat of a wide body. They had great/lucky timing. Some folks senior to them on the overall seniority list are far more junior in their seat. They have flown plenty more of those trips in the past and will fly plenty more in the future. The absence or presence of 117 affects them just like you.

Agree with you though about making your voice heard if ALPA negotiates another Young Guy Carveout.

Alpa code of ethics? Thats funny. Are we POW’s? Alpa code of ethics is pure bs made up by union leadership.

And management is laughing all the way to the bank. Sigh when will we get it as a pilot group. WE are the union ffs.

Debate is fine, I’m all for it. Talk to your Reps, the MEC Chairman etc. Go to National.

I disagree with the public debate on the subject.

Either you get it or you don’t.

Do you feel the same about a contract? Or the pancake retirement proposal? How about political endorsements? All debate should be between individuals and the union? I don’t know enough about 117 to offer an opinion, but discouraging public debate is wrong.

You are a reasonable man, always have been on this forum.

Not debating the right to debate, I'm debating tactics. Frankly, I think this entire discussion has more impact on Contract 2021 than 117 for FedEx in particular. Yet the 117 Debate goes far beyond just FedEx.

Remember the pitch for PiBS by the company?