Like the proof given that inclusion into 117 would lead to more commutes and circadian flops?

 

Only if you build the pairings to creat that result. I dont know about you at UPS but, we at FDX already have a lot of commutes domestically and night day swaps. You have to be in the top 40% of bid pack or more to have less than 3 trip commutes. The data tells the truth not speculation.

 

I guess I’m not following you. Are you saying 117 will help or hurt. More day night flops implies to me you don’t think it’s good.

 

I am 100% in support of one level of safety with regards to flight time and duty rest limits for all airline pilots in the United States.

We should not have to "buy" safer operational limits via the collective bargaining process, and anyone who claims that 117 will cause more commutes, circadian flops, and decimate schedules is spreading nothing but FUD.

If your CBA is more restrictive than 117 in an area, nothing will change; if your CBA is less restrictive than 117 in an area, 117 will become your new 'FAR limit'. The FRMS in 117.7 allows deviations to 117 requirements, and there is zero reason to believe waivers jointly desired by both labor and management (week on/off schedules, for example) and backed by decades of safe operational experience would be denied.

Your employer (and mine and every other company that makes up the Cargo Airline Association) is spending hundreds of man hours and thousands of PAC dollars lobbying against Safe Skies...do we really think they're doing that in OUR collective best interest?

 

I think 117 would end the declaration of a Ops emergency for anything and you go to FAR limits or uncle and call fatigued. Would it not?

 

One Level Of Safety is a nice slogan. However one set of regulations does not guarantee the same level of safety. The implications of 117 on a predominantly day operation are different than the implications on a company that operates much more at night. Yes there are mechanisms to get SOME schedules beyond 3 nights but the ability to get week on week off will be less likely unless it benefits our companies. They will do what suits them regardless of what it does to our schedules and QOL. You did not prove that our schedules will not be adversely affected just by claiming that to disagree with you is nothing but spreading Fear Uncertainty and Doubt. There absolutely is uncertainty and doubt about the benefits you claim. And as stated before, 2 hours of sleep may or may not be safer than a quick turn to a shorter flight and shorter duty period resulting in a longer layover.

 

My bad bolier I thought you were in oposition. I didnt catch your sarcasm.

 

So NOWORK, can you explain why on the China flying discussions you say our HKG, MD and 777 crews need to stop whining about inadequate rest facilities and just use your handy dandy IMSAFE checklist if they need to call in fatigued....but when it applies to you, you can’t possibly use that same approach under the existing rules. Instead you need to re-write the whole system and push for 117. Seems as inconsistent as many of your other positions. The only constant seems to be your ability to point out what others need to do in order to suit your desires.

 

If at 7:30 minutes of driving, you have been awake for 16 hours, then science does actually say you are probably fatigued. So the safe action would actually be to pull over and nap, even if it’s just for 30 minutes. Because if you don’t, you might actually fall asleep on this last 30 minutes of driving.

 

Management doesn’t build lines. ALPA bulls lines with the trips that were built by management with ALPA’s input. So of course ALPA would build week on week off schedules if that’s what we want.

Personally, I would like to have 2 hours behind the door so that I can sleep longer. Maybe I’m different?