FDXMEC email soft parameters(must read)
03-06-2021, 11:57 AM
#21
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2017
Posts: 2,099
Originally Posted by IQuitEagle
117 is no panacea. I flew under 117. It sucks. It is not the answer to our scheduling issues. A better CBA is the only real solution.
Maybe it depends on where you were when you flew under 117. For me, 117 was better. But I came from a place that already had decent work rules, considering. Or maybe you and I value certain things differently.
But maybe at this point, it might be better to use negotiating capital for safety related items.
03-06-2021, 12:06 PM
#23
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: B767
Posts: 795
Originally Posted by FXLAX
Maybe it depends on where you were when you flew under 117. For me, 117 was better. But I came from a place that already had decent work rules, considering. Or maybe you and I value certain things differently.
But maybe at this point, it might be better to use negotiating capital for safety related items.
But maybe at this point, it might be better to use negotiating capital for safety related items.
03-06-2021, 12:09 PM
#24
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2017
Posts: 2,099
FDXMEC email soft parameters(must read)
Originally Posted by kronan
TonyC,
1st welcome back and thank you for your service.
Some thoughts regarding this issue, not all of which in response to your post.
Weren’t you still a block rep in January? I’m assuming you were aware of the companies January letter. And I’m hoping you’ve read the most recent letter outlining the ramifications of managements decision to abrogate two of the soft parameters that have served us so well. (It also helps explain the disputed pairing email as well as the disputed pairing text released on the day the bidpacks were produced)
I’m certainly not privy to internal MEC/LEC discussions as you were, but I’d like to think we’d both agree that the psychological 1-2 punch of bidpacks published, WTF, then a this is Why WTF is stronger than a January message of things are going to go to hell in April. The extra Day Sorts gonna be wildly disruptive unless we can force management to see the error of their thinking.
(And how many would read/think of it? We still have people asking what happens to a block of R days if a C/O trip or training touches it.)
As to 117, a lot of the trips/lines I’ve deleted would fit within 117. 0230 to 1030 is within the 9 hour duty day of 117. Certainly didn’t do a detailed, day by day check of the DDH pairing-so possible might trigger a different 117 issue. But the Duty Period that had me saying oh hell no to a slew of lines would fit.
PAX carrier 117 versus us isn’t a valid comparison. Domestic Pax carrier flying is hugely concentrated to day/evening hours. It’s been a long, long time since I’ve seen a legacy bidpack, but their lines tended to be 2-3 days on with 2-3 days off. Strings of single day trips, back off the clock in domicile (and off the per diem/ hotel $$). More like our O&Bs versus the majority of our existing flying.
FedEx management has thrown out every hard earned lesson about fatigue, and using system form as an excuse to do so. It’s really about FedEx wanting to have their cake and eat it too versus staffing properly to make it work, in a safer/more reliable form
1st welcome back and thank you for your service.
Some thoughts regarding this issue, not all of which in response to your post.
Weren’t you still a block rep in January? I’m assuming you were aware of the companies January letter. And I’m hoping you’ve read the most recent letter outlining the ramifications of managements decision to abrogate two of the soft parameters that have served us so well. (It also helps explain the disputed pairing email as well as the disputed pairing text released on the day the bidpacks were produced)
I’m certainly not privy to internal MEC/LEC discussions as you were, but I’d like to think we’d both agree that the psychological 1-2 punch of bidpacks published, WTF, then a this is Why WTF is stronger than a January message of things are going to go to hell in April. The extra Day Sorts gonna be wildly disruptive unless we can force management to see the error of their thinking.
(And how many would read/think of it? We still have people asking what happens to a block of R days if a C/O trip or training touches it.)
As to 117, a lot of the trips/lines I’ve deleted would fit within 117. 0230 to 1030 is within the 9 hour duty day of 117. Certainly didn’t do a detailed, day by day check of the DDH pairing-so possible might trigger a different 117 issue. But the Duty Period that had me saying oh hell no to a slew of lines would fit.
PAX carrier 117 versus us isn’t a valid comparison. Domestic Pax carrier flying is hugely concentrated to day/evening hours. It’s been a long, long time since I’ve seen a legacy bidpack, but their lines tended to be 2-3 days on with 2-3 days off. Strings of single day trips, back off the clock in domicile (and off the per diem/ hotel $$). More like our O&Bs versus the majority of our existing flying.
FedEx management has thrown out every hard earned lesson about fatigue, and using system form as an excuse to do so. It’s really about FedEx wanting to have their cake and eat it too versus staffing properly to make it work, in a safer/more reliable form
With that said, the comparison with passenger in regards to 117 is absolutely valid. The reason why is because pilots from each are all humans who, with know scientific research, experience the same sleep physiology. Some parts of 117 are not conducive to efficiency or a bigger paycheck. But that is a different discussion.
03-06-2021, 12:15 PM
#25
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2017
Posts: 2,099
FDXMEC email soft parameters(must read)
Originally Posted by BluePAX
I disagree. Safety should never come out of our pocketbooks (negotiating capital).
I tend to agree. But we are past that already. The FERC process, the FRMG, the SIG, etc., have already been negotiated into the contract, mainly for safety purposes. Even management touts that. So there are two legitimate arguments. The thing that management wouldn’t be able to do, is change system form that violates a regulation. Which it seems as 117 would’ve helped in this recent situation. Suffice it to say, I’m persuadable.
03-06-2021, 12:27 PM
#26
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2017
Posts: 2,099
Originally Posted by UnusualAttitude
I agree. People need to remember with 117 there are no operational emergencies, no legal to start legal to finish, it’s actual hard limits.
That’s correct, two hour max extension to duty limits is all they get. And it also gets rid of tail end repositioning flights loophole. On the other hand, it does expand block hours in a duty day up to 9 hours in certain show times, changes block time limits (100 in 28 & 1000 in 365), adds cumulative duty time limits (60 in 7 & 190 in 28), and changes the rules for reserve pilots, just to name a few.
03-06-2021, 12:38 PM
#27
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2006
Posts: 1,804
Originally Posted by FXLAX
That’s correct, two hour max extension to duty limits is all they get. And it also gets rid of tail end repositioning flights loophole. On the other hand, it does expand block hours in a duty day up to 9 hours in certain show times, changes block time limits (100 in 28 & 1000 in 365), adds cumulative duty time limits (60 in 7 & 190 in 28), and changes the rules for reserve pilots, just to name a few.
Isn't the 2 hour extension at the discretion of the crew and not a company imposed extension like we have now?
I looked at many of the new turns and the 0230 type show to the Indy sort and then an outbound falls right around the duty limit for FAR 117. With the sort delays we have I cant imagine that we would be legal to take off on the second leg without the extension.
Wouldn't FAR 117 also stop us from multipole night hub turns due to thew WOCAL limit? No more week long hub turns? Trips would have to be built with the day night swap which is basically what the new twilight sort has imposed on our schedules.
Reading as much as I can and trying to learn about 117 before I talk to my rep.
03-06-2021, 01:01 PM
#28
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: B767
Posts: 795
Originally Posted by USMCFDX
I am not smart on 117 and need to talk to people that have flown under it.
Isn't the 2 hour extension at the discretion of the crew and not a company imposed extension like we have now?
I looked at many of the new turns and the 0230 type show to the Indy sort and then an outbound falls right around the duty limit for FAR 117. With the sort delays we have I cant imagine that we would be legal to take off on the second leg without the extension.
Wouldn't FAR 117 also stop us from multipole night hub turns due to thew WOCAL limit? No more week long hub turns? Trips would have to be built with the day night swap which is basically what the new twilight sort has imposed on our schedules.
Reading as much as I can and trying to learn about 117 before I talk to my rep.
Isn't the 2 hour extension at the discretion of the crew and not a company imposed extension like we have now?
I looked at many of the new turns and the 0230 type show to the Indy sort and then an outbound falls right around the duty limit for FAR 117. With the sort delays we have I cant imagine that we would be legal to take off on the second leg without the extension.
Wouldn't FAR 117 also stop us from multipole night hub turns due to thew WOCAL limit? No more week long hub turns? Trips would have to be built with the day night swap which is basically what the new twilight sort has imposed on our schedules.
Reading as much as I can and trying to learn about 117 before I talk to my rep.
03-06-2021, 02:45 PM
#29
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: FO
Posts: 3,031
Originally Posted by USMCFDX
I am not smart on 117 and need to talk to people that have flown under it.
Isn't the 2 hour extension at the discretion of the crew and not a company imposed extension like we have now?
I looked at many of the new turns and the 0230 type show to the Indy sort and then an outbound falls right around the duty limit for FAR 117. With the sort delays we have I cant imagine that we would be legal to take off on the second leg without the extension.
Wouldn't FAR 117 also stop us from multipole night hub turns due to thew WOCAL limit? No more week long hub turns? Trips would have to be built with the day night swap which is basically what the new twilight sort has imposed on our schedules.
Reading as much as I can and trying to learn about 117 before I talk to my rep.
Isn't the 2 hour extension at the discretion of the crew and not a company imposed extension like we have now?
I looked at many of the new turns and the 0230 type show to the Indy sort and then an outbound falls right around the duty limit for FAR 117. With the sort delays we have I cant imagine that we would be legal to take off on the second leg without the extension.
Wouldn't FAR 117 also stop us from multipole night hub turns due to thew WOCAL limit? No more week long hub turns? Trips would have to be built with the day night swap which is basically what the new twilight sort has imposed on our schedules.
Reading as much as I can and trying to learn about 117 before I talk to my rep.
03-06-2021, 04:14 PM
#30
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2017
Posts: 2,099
FDXMEC email soft parameters(must read)
Originally Posted by USMCFDX
I am not smart on 117 and need to talk to people that have flown under it.
Isn't the 2 hour extension at the discretion of the crew and not a company imposed extension like we have now?
I looked at many of the new turns and the 0230 type show to the Indy sort and then an outbound falls right around the duty limit for FAR 117. With the sort delays we have I cant imagine that we would be legal to take off on the second leg without the extension.
Wouldn't FAR 117 also stop us from multipole night hub turns due to thew WOCAL limit? No more week long hub turns? Trips would have to be built with the day night swap which is basically what the new twilight sort has imposed on our schedules.
Reading as much as I can and trying to learn about 117 before I talk to my rep.
Isn't the 2 hour extension at the discretion of the crew and not a company imposed extension like we have now?
I looked at many of the new turns and the 0230 type show to the Indy sort and then an outbound falls right around the duty limit for FAR 117. With the sort delays we have I cant imagine that we would be legal to take off on the second leg without the extension.
Wouldn't FAR 117 also stop us from multipole night hub turns due to thew WOCAL limit? No more week long hub turns? Trips would have to be built with the day night swap which is basically what the new twilight sort has imposed on our schedules.
Reading as much as I can and trying to learn about 117 before I talk to my rep.
Yes, that is correct. It’s at the crew’s discretion. They can “force” a 30 minute extension. Duty periods cannot be built with assumed extensions though.
There is a provision to get credit for 2 hour naps during the WOCL. And even then, I think it’s limited on the number of night hub turns. The alternative is to build week on week off schedules that start on Tuesday or Wednesday morning and have a weekend overnight.
Personally, I don’t mind swaps if it’s preceded by a 36 hour rest period.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
