freightguy

Reply to ACL's post:

Not drinking any sort of Kool Aid. I have an opinion on this issue that is not that of a rumored position of ALPA. I have my own opinion. What I am illustrating with the Emirates issues and the Foreign Military Base issues, Cabatoge, and Foreign Ownership issues, the 1500 v 500 hr rule, and the NPRM is that we as pilots like to isolate each issue and take a stand on each issue. Well the ugly truth is that many other entities combine all of it, and it becomes a game of best option for everyone.

ACL..just to clear, my issue is with ALPA and not you. What you told us last week (Emirates vs. 1500hr issue) was very similar to what the union reps I talked to last week stated as well. The union rep I talked to specifically told me that we are supporting lowering the 1500hr requirement to keep Emirates away. This week the reps I talked to changed their tunes and now they are talking about MPL, cabotage etc. Heck..may be they are reading the crack-pipe! To date, no union rep has been able to give me a consistant explanation on why ALPA is not supporting the 1500hr rule. Their opinions and reasons change week by week...which is leading me and others to believe that it is BS.

I would not be pleased with a 500 hr rule as I see that as an area of time that is still in the range of many to purchase. You go to the 800-1000 hr range and it tied with, strict AQP 300 course work, and min standards on a variety of procedures that airline data shows as lacking in addition to minimum work experience you probably have a better safeguard in place. Add to it, having aviators seeking accredited degrees does a lot more for this profession in the long term.

Then why are you defending ALPA which publicly stated they support lowering the requirements to 500hrs in agreement with the' FAA committee led by the regional airline official'? ACL, I see so significant difference between implementing what you're suggesting and implementing 1500hrs. If you can't find pilots with 1500hrs, where are you going to find pilots with 1000hrs+aviation degree+AQP 300 course work (whatever that is)? So how is that going to keep MPL, cabotage, foreign pilots etc away when 1500hr rule cannot?

ACL, like some previos posters mentioned:

Never negotiate anything away for a future promise....remember how taking a paycut to save the pension worked out for our folks.

Peace

Carl Spackler

Funny stuff man.

Carl

DAL 88 Driver

On a side note: The exchange back and forth between ACL and Reroute a few pages back just kinda cracked me up. It reminded me of one of those late night TV infomercials with a couple of actors having an "impromptu" conversation (obviously reading a teleprompter) and going on and on about how great whatever it is they're selling. I kept waiting to hear the canned audience applause.

I know you two mean what you say. I just thought it kinda came off that way. Just sayin'...

slowplay

It's another one of your "fair and balanced" comments!

Just sayin'

Carl Spackler

Back to MSNBC dude. Rachel's waiting for you!

Carl

DAL 88 Driver

While I find that I seldom agree with ACL and Reroute these days, it was only an honest observation of the tone and (overly?) enthusiastic nature of the exchange. It just struck me as funny and reminded me of a couple of actors doing a "paid endorsement." I'm not saying that's what it actually was.

Maybe I should just lurk next time so I don't get hit with another "drive-by posting" from you! Have a nice night!

slowplay

How long ago was it that she left you for that other woman, Carl?

YouTube - Rachel Maddow- Carl Spackler reading poetry to construction workers

Scoop

All other things being equal 9 hours will probably be more fatiguing than 8, but this is only part of the equation. The other, and equally important part is the length of your duty day.

For me personally, 8 hours of hard flight time during the day 0800 -2200 is not limiting. I would much rather fly 9 or even up to 10 hours of hard time if all the other variables were tightly controlled Say at least 12 hours rest prior, two legs maximum, extended rest on the back end, circadian rhythm based etc. To me this has always been much less demanding than 6 or 7 hours of hard time with 3 or 4 legs and a sit thrown in on a 15 duty day.

Other Pilots might feel that 8 hours is their limit - that is fine, everyone is wired differently. I guess the rule should be viewed as superior by a solid majority of Pilots and backed by science - we will never get something that every one thinks is an improvement.

The one thing that ALPA should ensure is that whatever rule changes they back do not allow the company to run leaner regarding pilots. These proposed rule changes are very complicated and could really hose us over if we are not careful. Logic would dictate that any improvement in crew duty/crew rest would require more, vice less pilots, but this wouldn't be the first time that Lucy pulled the football out from under us.

I have heard guys say the FAA limits are still in place so we are protected. Not true, most DAL pilots do not even come close to the quarterly and annual FAA minimums. So we could be burned with new rules under the same FAA limits.

I have heard other say that we have contractual protections in place that would protect us. Well maybe we do now, but it would obviously be up for discussion in contracts talks.


Scoop

Pineapple Guy

Yes, lets. At the conclusion of YOUR review, you posted this:

Please put down the weed, so you can follow along. Here's the actual wording.


To which I replied:
And FlyingViking felt compelled to jump in:

What I actually said was:

So where are we?

tsquare states its UNSAFE, and Flying says that must be true because COMMON SENSE says so.

I say there's no SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that its unsafe, but do freely admit its more FATIGUING. But is it TOO fatiguing?

Do you see the difference, Carl? Of course 9 hrs is more fatiguing than 8. But then again, 8 hours is more fatiguing than 7, and I'm pretty sure 7 is more fatiguing than 6, etc. etc. etc. But making the leap from fatiguing to unsafe has no scientific basis.

And if we go by FlyingViking's standard of "common sense", I'm pretty sure the ATA's "common sense" expert will testify that 10 hrs is perfectly safe.

ALPA is relying on science, and has crafted a comprehensive package that, in total, reduces fatigue significantly; not in EVERY situation, but in most. And in those situations where it increases fatigue, it is still within scientifically verified "safe" regimes.

The ATA would like nothing more than to rely on "common sense" and accept status quo. Of course, all of us would prefer much tighter standards everywhere, but we don't have veto authority, and its better to get 90% of what you want than 0%. APA has finally figured that out, CAPA will too.... maybe.

tsquare

Tent
Camel's Nose