Three major changes sought
 

Looks like some new rules in store for all of us.

Not sure I like the "Big Brother" part of Majors being partly responsible for the training, schedules and pay of their regional partners.

"......Since 1995, the FAA sought but failed to revise pilot flight schedules to reflect modern science on stress, fatigue, sleep patterns and actual flight conditions. Backing from Congress may finally force revisions to current rules, even though both pilots and carriers resist certain changes. A full application of "sleep science" may require that consumers accept the idea of pilots napping in cockpits, or using Ambien and other sleep drugs to help readjust their bodies for optimal alertness....."

"Consumers who demand rock-bottom ticket prices may face higher fares to pay for better pilot training, altered shifts that force more crew hiring, and airline costs for software management systems or new supervisors. "....

The rest of the story..

FAA retool rules to keep pilots trained, refreshed - The Denver Post

"More extensive use of "hypnotic" sleep medications such as Ambien."

Everyone I've known who used that stuff ended up seriously psycho.

I see you've met my ex-girlfriend:eek:

Long past due . The majors have been outsourcing the liability for to long, some accountability would be a nice change.

Not to mention the "sleep walking" or sleep driving that can occur with little or no memory of the event. I don't touch that junk.

I work for a 'regional' carrier on the CRJ. I certainly wouldn't mind the 'Big Brother' aspect to the training standards oversight. After all, we are flying the routes of our partner carrier under their brand name. I don't think it's unreasonable at all for the customers to expect that their crews are all trained to the same high standard, regardless of who provides the seat they are sitting on.

The thing that scares me more is the idea that pilots would take something like Ambien or any other sleep aid at the behest of the company. That's far more 'Big Brother' in my eyes and totally inappropriate.

I'd much rather see prohibitions on trips that have the first two days with 4 AM showtimes and the next couple days with 5 PM showtimes, flying until midnight or later.

I've got trips like that all month with 24+ hour layovers to get us to the afternoon shifts. Nobody can tell me that these shifts in rest period and the odd sleep pattern it creates is healthy or safe. I'd far rather see regulations preventing BS scheduling than suggestions we take sleep aid drugs to help out large corporations.

When trying to think the commuting "problem" through, it seems obvious to me that there are few outcomes that work well for commuting as we know it. If we have to account for commuting time, and insert a rest period, then either commuters will need to show up much earlier (i.e. a day early), at their expense, or the trips would have to be built with a commute (presumably paid). There is a clear loser to either outcome.

Which makes me think the key will be to remove the commute altogether. If companies want to hire only pilots that live "in base", then they'll have less pilots to chose from. Furthermore, what do you do with the pilots currently commuting (about 50% of us)?

Which in turn makes me think one of the only possible solutions to removing commuting is via more satellite basing, where pilots are offered many more bases to chose from, with the stipulation that they must live within X distance from any such base.

Which in turn makes me think there is even a more ambitious way to solve the problem(s): a NSL. Open up the entire country. Let people bid across airlines, and get to the nearest airport. This would also address the regional/major training/pay differential issue nicely. Here is how...

ALPA takes on training, and becomes an exclusive crew-leasing company. We own and operate our own training center, the costs of which are passed along to airlines in leasing contracts. Training would be strict, and new pilots would be very, very thoroughly scrutinized. Porbation would be lengthy, and evaluations frequent. But we provide pilots that are standardized, and trained to a single FAA standard, following the best practices available. Costs are fixed for aircraft types and longevity, leveling crew costs acorss the industry. Enough bases are available for pilots to bid something close to them, especially if using a stalelite base logic (crews are based where planes overnight, not a hub).

You can also set it up so that ALPA is insured against liability for pilot error, the cost of which insurance is borne by the customer.

The net positive result of such a scheme, form an airline perspective, would be:
a) Liability for accidents or errors is partly transferred, since the comapny doesn't train pilots. There is no longer an incentive to have lesser-trianed/lower cost pilots on regional aircraft. Mechanical problems are still a company problem, unless they contract for manufacturer-provided maintenance.
b) Crew costs are fixed, and no longer represent a competitive issue.
c) Scope issues go away entirely, since all aircraft are flown by ALPA pilots (again, assuming we have exclusive contracts with each airline). We would need to have a way to ensure proper representation/right to strike issues. I think you could handle this by having pilots bid for positions at each airline, in seniority order, with a modest seat lock. They could be nominal employees of that airline for that purpose druing such lock, for the prupose of maintaining legal rights. Or, if this creates a solution the airlines also like, perhaps we can jointly lobby to have the RLA modified to allow for such a structure while preserving basic labor rights.

From our perspective, it would remove several huge problems, and offer a path to better pay:
a) We're no longer getting whipsawed, and we're no longer "married" to an individual carrier. Your airline can't manage its' business? No problem: it goes under. You bid something else.
b) As stated earlier, the scope issue is solved.
c) We no longer commute: we bid the right place, and we drive to work. Nobody I know commutes for fun: they commute because they can't get trips that start where they live.

Before you tell me what a fool I am for even thinking such thoughts, or why "they will never go for it", please tell me how you think the commuting "issue" as potrayed by the media and FAA can be managed better, and tell me why we shouldn't aspire to the outcome I describe. I'm trying to see an opportunity in the challenges presented by such new rules.

Thanks.

The article states that these new rules may require an increase in crew staffing. What is everyone’s opinion? How much of an increase do you think this may require if it does happen? I would be willing to say about 10% to 20%, considering the fact that the majority of the workforce will become significantly less productive when these rules are implemented.

Never the less, this article was written well and I look forward to seeing the change.

Cockpit nap. Now we're talking. Dozing for dollars, while newbee handles the radios.

I agree with this 100% I would also add there should be no overnights less than 10 hours period. Time we waste waiting for the hotel shuttle van and 30 minute van rides to the hotel SHOULD NOT under any circumstances count as a REST PERIOD. We have way too many trip pairings that change from 4:30 AM show to late night arrivals due to too many 3 to 4 hour ground times between legs. If you arrive 11:30 pm or later, you should have at least 10 hours before you have to show up the following morning.