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.

 

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.