I think I saw you at one of our recent townhall discussions on possible health care proposals. Your high-volume voice sure helped get your point across to the congressman in an effective and rational manner. :rolleyes:

I guess ALPA has been on its knees so long in front of management that they have to fly 9 hour days and screw everybody else that's trying to negotiate a decent contract. There was absolutely no safety reason to propose an INCREASE in fatigue levels.

But here's the rub. ALPA's proposal DECREASES fatigue levels, while allowing for greater pilot productivity in a very limited set of circumstances.

These proposals (and that's all they are right now) are BETTER for the pilot profession compared to what we have...RIGHT NOW!...but you can't see that, amazingly.

Your increase in "productivity" is just a code word for increasing fatigue levels to unacceptable levels for the sake of your own personal greed. What are you going to answer when the fly day is increased to 10 or 11 hours at the demand of your buddies at the ATA?

Duty days DO and WILL be reduced as they should be. For a pilot group to propose INCREASING fatigue levels under ANY circumstances is not acceptable nor safe. It's dumb, greedy, and self-serving.

It's obvious to me that the concessionists at DALPA are behind all this. Richard Anderson has really got you guys on the leash. Thanks for screwing the profession once again DALPA.

ALPA's proposal is based on fatigue science. Your opinion is based on what you've pulled out of your ass. I'll stick with science.

Change that increases fatigue levels is NOT good change. Only a disengenuous idiot could try and sell that with a straight face. If you bothered to read the ATA proposal you'll see that they claim their proposals are also "science" based and they want 11 hours fly time per day and 15 hours of duty day. I suppose that's ok too since it's "science-based?"

The 9 hour fly day has NOTHING to do with science, but is ALL about being able to cram more hours into less workdays and compromise safety by flying tired.

Both the ATA and ALPA are FOS and can create whatever "science-based" numbers they want.

I don't need some geek in a lab coat to do a study to come up with whatever numbers the payer wants.

Over 30 years of flying experience flying heavy jets internationally tells me that 8 hours behind the controls is enough.

This "science" is so fuzzy, it probably came out of Al Gore's ass.

Hope that helps.

But ALPA's proposal decreases fatigue levels from what you currently have...and somehow don't mind. You don't want to address that, however.

No, they are full of feces. However, that is also why you have a union and a lot of science-based research.

As opposed to 6-legs a day up and down the East coast blocking 7.57? But hey...that's "safe"....right? Duty day and addressing a pilot's home-based time zone are far more critical fatigue issues than the amount of time you may or may not be in a cockpit with the beacon on.

Possibly. That's why you have neutral parties working on your behalf.That's also why you won't see the ATA's proposals as anything but lunacy.

I got an idea. I will claim that "after xx amount of years flying, that two hours behind the controls is enough." Then, anyone who advocates that anyone anywhere should even be able to fly two hours and one minute will be labeled a wimp, management wannabe, spineless, trashing the profession, blah blah blah.

Hey, ALPA's proposals are just that--proposals. However, I still see you as sticking head in sand and wishing it was 1974 forever. Guess what? It isn't.
When I was in the AF we had far stricter rules regarding duty day and minimum layover (far more than the ridiculous 8 hours in the civilian world), but far more lenient ones regarding block time. I have never understood the idea the 8 hours block is some sacred number on high, while pilots could have 0500 wakeups, heinous duty days, and numerous legs a day into and out of congested airports. But hey, as long as it is scheduled to block in at or below 8 hours, that's "safe."

There is absolutely no reason to increase the fly day to 9 hours, unless it's another cave to management. There are other major pilot unions that disagree strongly with extending the flight time day.

I AM for change. The right kind. Your false inuendo that I'm stuck in "1974" (sorry, I didn't even have a pilot's license then) and support the all current rest and flight time rules is a nice try to discredit me, but it won't wash. I strongly support major reductions in the ridiculously long duty days, flight time per day depending on the time of day, legs per day, and increases in mandatory rest. I also strongly support requiring international reserve availability periods, like domestic via the Whitlow ruling.

They are only increasing it to 9 hours for duty days starting from 0700 to 1259 Hrs... when most people would normally be fully awake and functional anyway. They are keeping maximum flight time at 8 hours for the majority of the time, and reducing it to 7 hours maximum for the odd ball hour start times.... seems to fit in line with the majority of the ftigue studies...

and in ALL cases they are reducing the maximum duty day to 13 hours instead of 16 hours.... seems to be an improvement to me. I'm just more concerned that they include language so that the 10 hour overnights can only be reduced by weather or other delays, not by intentional scheduling of reduced rest which seems to be the practice at many regional carriers of late.

The flip side is, if you understand the FAR's properly, many regional schedules would be considered violations anyway, and the airline and the FAA currently just wink and nod that it isn't happening when in reality it happens every day. If you are flying on day 1 starting in the afternoon for 7 hours of block, then having reduced rest to fly another 7 hours of block starting the next morning, I'd bet money that you're illegal. Over 9 hours of block in a 24 hour period requires 11 hours of rest, reducable to 10. The BS of people getting 8-9 hours with that type of schedule needs to stop. I know several cases where pilots refused to work such schedules and were given Missed Assignments..... only to have the MA's and pay restored once it was shown to be a FAR violation schedule... and then what happens? The airline builds the exact same type of schedule the following month, and most people do it becuase they do not fully understand the current FTDT regulations. Point of interest, assuming the schedule example I just provided, if we take the 11 hours rest away from a 24 hour period, it leaves.... are you ready for this... 13 of 24 hours available for duty period.... the same 13 hour duty period being "proposed" in the new regulations....

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

And it will coerce pilots into flying tired when managements remove the 3rd pilot from >8 hour flight time on such things as Caribbean turns. A further result of this will be less pilot jobs.

I'm hearing a lot of guys on this BB nebulously cite all this "studies." Can anybody specifically point to chapter and verse these supposed studies, or is it just cheap talk. This is not an exact science. There's a lot of subjective judgment that goes with it. Unfortunately, ALPA's judgment regarding increasing the fly hours is rooted in greed and actually decreases safety.

8 hours has been the traditional MAXIMUM flying time per day. It should stay the MAX, and then only during the 0700-1259 LBT start block.

My understanding is that there is significant scientific support for duty day limitations, but not much research in the area of actual flight time. If there are studies that support increasing flight time, please cite them.

Actually I agree with everything you wrote in the second paragraph. I don't, however, agree with your assertion that increasing flying time in VERY limited circumstances is by default a bad thing--it may in fact be, after all is said and done; I'm just not immediately rejecting the idea.

Why can't others respectfully disagree without your insinuating that anyone at least considering ALPA's proposals is just a management tool?

I will give you the respect to conclude that increasing hours above 8 is a bad idea (because that is your genuine position) if you give me and others the respect to at least consider concluding differently.

Yep, you're right.... so why don't we just forget about the times they are reducing it to 7 hour maximum then and just keep those at 8 too....

How can it not make sense to you that shifts starting very early, or very late get the least flight time, and that shifts starting at normal working hours gets the longest? They basically have broken the day down in to five start windows... two start windows have no change at all to maximum flight time, two start windows have reductions of maximum flight time, and one start window has an increase of one hour of maximum flight time.
In ALL cases they have limited the max guty day down from 16 to 13 hours... and they have increased minimum rest to 10 hours, reducable to 9...

You are definately a glass is half empty person.....

Sure, I think that what ALPA, and the FAA, is trying to do is good, however this is not like negotiations. There is a lot of pressure on the FAA to make changes to these rules right now and there was no reason for ALPA to "give" 9 hrs on the flight time limit, in fact I don't feel that there was any reason to change the 8 hr limit either up or down, if the duty limits are implemented the fatigue issue is solved.

For a lot of the regional airlines this will result an overall improvement to their schedules however, as you said, it could result in more days of flying. On the other hand, most mainline airlines are in high compliance with these rules already (just my guess) and the 9 hour flight time is a big win for airline managements.

If you think that 9 hours of flight time will have no impact on your flying you aren't being very realistic with regard to not only the Caribbean flying but also the west cost turns. The 9 hour rule will result in higher productivity and the need for fewer staged crews which will result in the need for fewer pilots.

I believe that you have made the argument that Delta's avg productivity increase over pre 9/11 and bankruptcy numbers has resulted in a sizable decrease in the total numbers of pilots. If you don't think that the 9 hr rule and the introduction of cross country turns as well as the Caribbean turns you are not being honest about the issue. At least with the more restrictive duty limits there will be some offsetting of the productivity increases.

Over the last 8 years there has been a lot of giving in the productivity area there is no need for ALPA to propose any increase block hours and allow further increases. That is my problem with the proposal. Let the APA make the increased productivity proposals.

The APA is dead against increasing fatigue levels, increasing the flight time per day and decreasing pilot jobs.

Cross country turns will cause no reduction in pilot jobs at Delta. Again pilot jobs are based on block hours. If you can have all your pilots fly 80 hours in 10 days or 80 hours in 16 days the manning required is the same. In fact if you build a lot of turns it tends to make your 3 and 4 day rotations less efficient and can lead to more credit time which increases pilot jobs. Even if allowed it might be the company chooses not to build a lot of turns because of that credit increase. It can be difficult to get a 4 day trip up to the 1 for 3.5 duty rig without a couple of long legs. I once helped try and build better rotations and the key was getting the long legs otherwise credit kicks in.
There will be a reduction in pilots needed on some turns to the Caribbean if we make the contractual changes to allow it. Since we currently require the company to double crew those flights and FAR's only require a relief pilot I am not sure we will change things. If we do it will be more then offset by all the Europe flying going to 3 man crews.

Actually, there is plenty of research regarding actual flight time, but none of it supports the idea that limiting flight time is the key to reducing fatigue. All research indicates that the duty day and the number of cycles are the imporant factors.

The APA also seems to be dead against getting a new contract anytime in the next century. Reality has to enter the mix at some point, and 53% pay raises are not reality. I wouldn't use the APA as some grand example of a smart union.

I must have missed something. Hub bank times permitting, management could just schedule the Europe flights to leave on west bound legs between 0700-1259 Home base time and not augment flights less than 9 hours instead of the normal 8. If the schedule change is acceptable to management, then you could actually reduce augmentation needs to/from Europe if the contract permits. This comment isn't airline specific because I don't know every carriers augmentation contract language.

This would also be pretty crappy for Hawaii to mainland flights like HNL-ORD and HNL-ATL if they moved those departures to the 9 hour home base time window. If you were based on the East Coast you could be leaving at either 0200 or 0300 Hawaii Time depending on DST.

In Asia some eastbound legs to the west coast could also possibly lose augmentation in winter time. Example: east coast based pilot could leave Japan at 9pm japan time and fly unaugmented for 9 hours at night to the USA.

It doesnt sound bad unless you have been in Asia for 10-12 days and have fully acclimated to the Japan/Asia timezone. Allowing a 9 hour redeye based on Home base time really doesn't help with fatigue at that point.

The problem with that is the landing times in Europe. Many stations have quiet hours. Business travelers would hate the wasted day in the air. Leaving at 0700 gets you to London after 1800 and anything further east even later. We take off in the evening for a reason.

UAL has flights that leaves East Coast (IAD) at around 9 am for London Heathrow. I have taken these flights and I arrive relatively well rested versus taking 9 pm flights that gets in to London at 6 am. Flying all night takes a lot out of you period.

+1! A really good post. I agree 100%. Regionals have ridiculously long duty days and both major airline and regional pilots have been giving generously for increased productivity for the airline management way too long. This is comparable to indentured servants who were virtual slaves to Lords in Europe.

Look at the type of employment contract airline executives write for themselves versus pilot contracts. Airline executives like BB at RAH can be fired for misconduct and still the company will owe him bonus plus several years of his pay, which, by the way is probably more than enough to give all RAH guys a pay raise. This has been highlighted in other threads by MD80.

I think you missed the part about "WEST BOUND" in the text you highlighted for Europe flights.