MaydayMark

I guess Cargo pilots aren't bothered by "normal" lack of sleep concerns?

Working while sleepy? You might as well do vodka shots at your desk | David Ferguson | Opinion | The Guardian

BigWatchPilot

When cargo pilots (UPS/FedEx) file the fewest Fatigue Reports in the industry the data shows that we dont get tired compared to the Pax guys that fill out the reports regularly when they get tired while flying. Years of instructing 100% of the guys I asked never filled one out or knew what it was...thought it only applied to 'Report Fatigued' (Not the same as Fatigue Report).

The law makers view it as an emotional argument when they look at the stats.

PurpleToolBox

I have to admit, there are times when the flying can be difficult. However, I'd love for the union, or anyone, to show me how FAR117, or any new rule, would keep me from getting tired when flying at night.

Yes, this job can be fatiguing at time. If so, call in fatigued. End of story.

But what are the undesired after affects of us getting FAR117?

FedEx ALPA says they are doing a study and we should know the results soon. I argue we should already know! The new rules aren't new. And this damn TA put 6 week bid periods in for possible fatigue mitigation.

Adlerdriver

Quote:

Originally Posted by PurpleToolBox

I have to admit, there are times when the flying can be difficult. However, I'd love for the union, or anyone, to show me how FAR117, or any new rule, would keep me from getting tired when flying at night.

Yes, this job can be fatiguing at time. If so, call in fatigued. End of story.

But what are the undesired after affects of us getting FAR117?

FedEx ALPA says they are doing a study and we should know the results soon. I argue we should already know! The new rules aren't new. And this damn TA put 6 week bid periods in for possible fatigue mitigation.

Giant +++ONE to this PTB.

If ALPA (especially Fedex ALPA) can’t answer this then shame on them. Maybe someone over at Brown’s IPA can. You’d think someone would know, since both organizations have been clamoring for removal of the “cargo cutout” from day one (about 2+ years now, I think). Heck, IPA sued over it!! They must have some kind of evidence they presented that showed it was better. Maybe it is better for the passenger guys, but are we sure it’s better for us?

Is this just a principle thing? Or maybe a “congress” thing…We gotta pass this so we can find out what’s in it”.

Not to be Captain Obvious, but we all know most of our flying is different than the passenger flying and not only our night domestic stuff. Day domestic hub turns are different (those would be junior trips at a pax carrier). O-dark-thirty show for a 12 hour duty day? One early leg, 5-6 hour sit, one late afternoon leg to a barely 12 hour layover? Rinse-repeat all week? Find me a pax guy who says that’s the schedule he wants every day, yet we have guys waiting 20 years to hold that stuff. I digress…. Our international flying is way different too. Over to STN or CGN and back with 24 hours off is about as close as we come (except for the 0400L takeoff). Pax guys don’t do 12-15 day around the worlds. They also don’t use one long haul leg to Europe or Asia to then “night” hub turn 6-15 time-zones away from home for 7-10 days and then long haul back.

So, why do we think a modernized 121 now called 117 targeting the typical flying at a passenger carrier is going to somehow make us safer, less fatigued or benefit us in any tangible way?

Maybe 117 might reign in the cargo outfits with contracts that say “see FARs” in the duty limits section (I’ve personally seen that). We don’t use 121 as a limit and I doubt 117 will be either. Our contract has usually been more restrictive than 121 except for irregular ops and for that, we can say “no” or use the fatigue card. I’m not ready to fall on my sword to possibly fix some other cargo guy’s bad contract just for the sake of solidarity or ALPA national’s political agenda.

We can’t even negotiate our own contract with a clear understanding of the unintended consequences of the changes made to it. I have little confidence that the unintended consequences of 117 are understood any better at this point.

If 117 limits our current operation and forces FedEx to change the system form, obviously they will have to do that. It will cost them money but in the end, they’ll probably just take it from the big pot they had planned to pay us out of if we had the stones to vote no on our TA. I digress……
My guess is that they’ll have to squeeze the same flying we do now in, say, 13 days into 15 days. Or, maybe stick a few days off in between work days resulting in more “shotgun” schedules. Make it look more like a passenger pilot’s schedule (that’ll fix everything, right?). Still legal by our contract – so no problem. Maybe a little more pay in some cases, maybe a few extra commutes in others. So, we end up possibly commuting more frequently, working more days each month to be less tired on the days we work. Sign me up.

Are we all ready to give up days off and/or commute more to get 117? That’s my semi-educated guess at what some changes might be – not saying I know it for certain. Which brings me back to ALPA.

If FedEx ALPA isn’t ready to show us actual “before and after” pairings and bidlines based on implementation of 117, then they shouldn’t be b!tching about it. Is it really going to make us less fatigued? Show me how.

How about for once, we actually make a truly informed, collective decision based only on facts. Show us what our flying would look like under 117. Don’t sell us – show us, the good, the bad, everything. Don’t get on board just because Captain Canoll and ALPA national need a little air time and this is an easy cause to back since they have ZERO stake in the outcome. I’m not ready for another FAR change backed by ALPA simply because someone thinks “it’s the right thing to do”. I had one of those a few years ago that I’ll never recover from.

Just STHU – give us the facts and call a vote. If we all want 117 after that, then go for it. Until then, we’ve got enough on our plate just getting this POS contract implemented and enforced.

P.S. I post this at 0100L - not because I'm on the turn at the hub or laying over where the sun is up - but because I just spent 12 days in Asia and my body still thinks it's there. Pretty damn sure that I'd be up now, doing this regardless of which FAR my operation falls under. Giving up more days off at home that I need to recover isn't going to help.

Rant over

BlackKnight

Well said Adler. I agree a before and after and honest look at 117 would be hugely beneficial to us.

Raptor

I've heard the push in cargo for 117 is because it restricts single pilot with ground pilot ops? The cargo carriers would be most likely to be the leading edge of this concept? Just what I've heard....does anyone with much more knowledge of 117 than I have know if the above is true?

ALPA is pushing for equivalent measures that would substitute for some of the 117 restrictions that would make our lives worse.

I agree it would be nice to be fully informed instead of trying to figure this all out. There have been some union emails providing information on these topics recently.

CloudSailor

I fully agree with PurpleToolBox and Adler in that we need to be better educated on how 117 could/will impact us. That discussion is a bit late to the table, but at least it's beginning. You can go here to submit questions and have them answered: FAR 117 Question Form | FDX MEC Hot Topics , only 2 Q's so far.

To me the bigger concern is the fact that the company sees the long term big picture, whereas we are concerned with the short term impact to our monthly schedule.

I suspect that given the time and capital spent by several all-cargo operators in Washington leading up to what became the Cargo Carve-Out from Part 117 (TonyC provided a detailed timeline and analysis in the Cargo thread), there are some big picture, long term concerns to operating under a 'lesser-tier' of safety. The two levels of safety, IMO, can really hurt us in the long term, much more so that the few pairings that would negatively impact our QOL under Part 117. Just my barely-educated opinion on the subject.