Originally Posted by FXLAX

So just because I support 117 you personally attack me as someone who simply “spouts off their talking points.” As if I don’t have an independent way of coming to my opinions? Can you just please stick to arguing against my opinions and not attacking the sincerity of them?

This isn’t just about you or about just me. The fact is that fatigue is insidious, it can impair judgement, and calling in fatigue has human factors issues attached to it. I’m glad you are immune to all of that all of the time. 117 is designed specifically so you won’t find yourself in a situation to have to call in fatigued. That’s not an issue about having the FAA do everything for you. It’s simple an extra layer of safety that we don’t have.

I can from one of the good regionals as well, and although it’s obviously not the same type of operation, fatigue calls went down. For many, it was a good thing. There is nothing wrong with signing up to work here for the current pay rates. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t make them better in the future.

Originally Posted by gatorhater

I’m not trying to make a personal attack, more a general observation. Maybe you wrote the ALPA support article, they sound awfully similar.



You can hold your opinion, I’ll hold mine. no issues there, it’s what makes this country great. We can debate our opinions. Hopefully ALPA will actually let us vote like they’ve said we already did. At that point we will actually know where we stand.

Originally Posted by CloudSailor

Security and airport requirements and guidelines have to do with DHS/TSA, you are confusing two separate issues. I am talking about being carved-out of FAR's that other air carriers have adopted - not TSA guidelines. I see our carveout as a strategically bad position for us to be in, career-wise. I am glad that ALPA National and our MEC see it that way too.

Originally Posted by MX727

I'll never understand the side that says "117 is science based and we MUST have it" but then turn around and say it won't be so bad because FedEx can get AMOCs to get around the rules. Essentially advocating an AMOC as another "carve-out." If pilots want this, then they need to want it WITHOUT any AMOC relief. The assumption that FedEx will spend time and money for an AMOC is flawed when they can just let the PSIT build legal lines with extra commutes.

Originally Posted by FXLAX

What I meant by capitulating is that you seemingly made the point that since we are already carved out of other things and that since it’s hard to stop, we should do nothing.

As far as me not understanding, all I know is that you asked for evidence of when there has been an AMOC. I simply answered by pointing out that the MEC pointed out three distinct AMOCs. I don’t know anything about them or what other AMOCs have been approved but I know that if the MEC wanted to know about them, they simply call their counterpart at the other MECs and find out. Personally, AMOCs or the lack of them are not a concern of mine. The process is there already with plenty of precedent and if there is data to support it, I’m sure the FAA can issue an AMOC if there is an equivalent level of safety. Again, that’s not my concern. I was just answering your skepticism with facts.

Originally Posted by FXLAX

Bingo! This is a feature of 117. No one is required to extend beyond 30 minutes.

Originally Posted by BoilerUP

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.

Originally Posted by TallFlyer

Back when I was doing more ALPA work I'd suggested to JD and others that if "one level of safety" is the goal than ALPA should be aiming for forcing ALL foreign airlines to be 117 compliant when flying in US airspace.

Originally Posted by magic rat

One level of safety, PERIOD. FDX will work out our schedules just fine.