Keep the law of unintended consequences in mind. Bottom line is that airline flight schedules won't change, but your personal schedule and lifestyle may. Somethings gonna give and it won't be THE MAN, it'll be you. Be prepared for more stand up layovers andmonthly schedules with shorter days but lots more of them.

I'm not against change at all and recognize we need a bunch, but due respect must be paid to the law of unintended consequences

I heard that the ATA member of the ARC wants the 8 hours in 24 increased to 9-10 hours. I wonder what effect an increase in block hours and decrease in duty time have on schedules/pay?

See now that's just silly. Granted this is a "I heard" situation but increasing the rest 1 hour a week seems like it would hurt the airline more than benefit the crew member. I mean what does 1 more hour of rest per week actually do? If there is a change and we are going to possibly loose pay and QOL at least make it worth while.

1 hour a week of extra rest? :confused:

'8 in 24' is a 'look-back' issue for rest, but then 'Nevets' mentions "an increase in block hours", so I assumed that he was talking about the maximum 8 hours of flying that could be done in a duty period - though the 8 hours of flying is a duty period limitation, not a 24 hour limitation (though most pilots only work 1 duty period per 24 hour period).

Assuming he WAS talking about rest, it'd be 9-10 hours of rest in a 24 hour period, which would increase minimum rest 1-2 hours per 24 hour period, not per week (it'd be 2-12 hours increase in rest per week, depending on how long your trip is and a variety of other factors).

This is the real issue with the FAR's, to me. Not only are they outdated, but they are unnecessarily difficult to remain in compliance with, IMO. Reduced Rest, Compensatory Rest, look-back, 1 in 7, 8 in 24, etc; when one pilot writes "8 hours in 24 increased to 9-10 hours" and it's not even clear whether they are talking about flight time in a duty period or min rest in a 24 hour period to another pilot, that should be a sign that things are too complicated.

I hope that the new regulations not only reflect a modern understanding of the science of fatigue, but also are easier to interpret and implement for both pilots and airline staffing departments.

Well said sniper... it just seems to me that over the years rest regulations are just a series of patches ...thus leaving us with the mess we have.

Hi!

Congress is involved here, and they can do whatever they want, just like with how they changed the Age 65 rules.

According to another thread, they are basically revising the British CAA rules, which are MUCH more stringent than the US rules. If the rules are changed as they were stating in that thread, the airlines will be forced to hire a LOT more pilots to maintain their current schedules:

No standup overnights, min rest 10 hours, non-reducable, I think a 12 hour duty day, possibly with no flight time limitations, a shorter duty day if starting on the back side of the clock, shorter reserve periods, a shorter duty day if lots of legs, etc., etc.

cliff
NBO
PS-Here in Kenya the international rules are min rest 11 hours, non-reducable. 15 hours is the max duty day (NO flight time limitations), and that requires 17 hours of rest.

We have a 13 hr scheduled max duty day. It seems to work out well most of the time.

I agree that there are a lot of in intended consequences to moving too quick with this.

Yeah, I didnt do a good job at making myself clear. I was talking about raising the 8 hours between rest period rule. Apparently the ATA wants to increase that to 9 or 10 hours. Seeing that many people say that if they increase minimum rest will reduce pay and or decrease days off, my question was, how will an increase in the amount of hours you are scheduled to fly between rest periods have when also considering an increase in minimum rest/decrease in max duty day?