Petition to Oppose Part 117
 

Hello, here is an online petition to sign if you want Congress to oppose the "SAFE SKIES ACT of 2019" which puts cargo into Part 117. Petition is on the homepage, other info on other pages.

http://saynoto117.com

Hmmm, 25 posts since June of 2007. Wonder why that could be?

Rumor is Fedex will need close to 1000 more pilots if we go 117. Sounds like a nice seniority bump. Schedules get better as you get more senior so 3 day multi leg hub turns will go to new guys on property and week long one in and one out will be for people on property.

not sure why we’d oppose 117?????

I like safer schedules, and more seniority to boot

Thanks for posting this link. Filled out and submitted...

Sign here to oppose science backed rest regulations! Brilliant!

If it will cost FedEx and UPS, both of which have more restful schedules than Atlas for example, upwards of $100M/year, then how much more will it cost companies similar to Atlas to comply? This will hurt the competitors of FedEx much more than FedEx AND advance safety, health, and the careers of the pilots of cargo operations. Do NOT take certain communications from management as truth. The recent letter was extremely limited in scope, spun like a top, and let’s say not comprehensive in nature.

On a related note, this thread is further evidence of the fact that we as pilots should not negotiate against professional negotiators of a major corporation. Hire outside council.

Oppose FAR 117? Why would we do that? Are we that stupid?

We've beat 117 dead in another thread, so all I'll say is that there is no guarantee that our schedules will be any safer under 117. Unintended consequences as addressed in the web site above are a very big threat.

Adding 1000 pilots to what appears to be a correctly staffed FedEx sounds like the regulators introducing a pretty significant level of inefficiency into our system form. Inefficiency is a two way street. Of course the company isn't going to like it. But, does that mean we will? Homogeneous, city pure hub-turn pairings built into week-on/week-off schedules are efficient for pilots too. In my experience, efficient schedules (that comply with our already safe CBA) means less work days per month and less circadian swaps - that in and of itself could be argued is less fatiguing. But now, potential inefficiency is a good thing because while we'll still be inefficient, we'll be able to "out-inefficient" our competition like Atlas? Genius. :rolleyes:

But, I'd like to understand how you think adding pilots due to 117 is going to make you more senior. Unless 117 is going to magically drum up additional business and as a result, additional flying, how is adding 1000 pilots to deal with regulatory requirements make you more senior?

Pilots below you are a furlough buffer. If there's enough flying to build 900 lines, 50 reserve lines and 50 secondary lines and no flying is added but 200 pilots are, show me how #900 gets more senior. He's still got 899 pilots ahead of him scooping up the same trips he wants. Still gets to pick his vacation behind the same 899 pilots.

You want an end to 16 hour extensions, get some extra sleep time on the turns and 10 hours behind the door no matter what, then negotiate it in our next contract - or just call in fatigued if it happens tomorrow. Effing up our schedules with inefficiencies just to get those "one-offs" that don't happen that often doesn't seem too smart.

Wonder if ppl against 117 were against the whitlow letter

https://blog.aopa.org/aopa/2013/02/0...hitlow-letter/

Complete overhaul of the industry regulation vs. stopping 24/7 reserve call-out followed by a 16 hour duty day. Yeah, that's the same thing. :rolleyes:
Add something worthwhile to the discussion or maybe just lurk. You're 0 for 2 on your lasts posts.