ATA: New rest rules 15X more costly
11-16-2010, 05:11 AM
#1
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: 737 CAPT
Posts: 1,882
ATA: New rest rules 15X more costly
Well, you just had to see this coming. The ATA out with their lies about how they can't afford anything, blah, blah, blah. 15 times more expensive than stated??? I don't think so.
Pilot-Rest Rule May be 15 Times More Costly Than Projected, Airlines Say
By John Hughes - Nov 16, 2010 12:01 AM ET
A Federal Aviation Administration plan to give pilots more rest in response to a fatal crash in upstate New York will be 15 times more expensive than projected, the airlines’ trade group said in opposing the rules.
The Air Transport Association in Washington, representing the nation’s biggest carriers, said the plan is “onerous” and would cost $19.6 billion in the next 10 years, not $1.25 billion as projected by the FAA.
“The factual record that the FAA organized is riddled with mistakes and the analysis fails to make a rational connection between the facts, science and operational experience,” the trade group, whose members include United Continental Holdings Inc. and Delta Air Lines Inc., said yesterday in comments.
Labor unions for pilots also faulted the agency proposal, signaling the FAA failed to reach a consensus on a plan that would revamp fatigue rules that have been in effect for decades with results of research showing the number of takeoffs and landings, not just hours worked, affects tiredness.
The rule proposed on Sept. 10, which could change after the comments are reviewed, must become final by next August, under a deadline set by Congress.
The agency is proposing that airline pilots would get nine hours of rest between shifts, a 13 percent rise from current schedules. The changes, prompted by an airline crash that left no survivors last year near Buffalo, New York, also would require that pilots get at least 30 consecutive work-free hours a week, a 25 percent increase from existing rules.
Pilots Object
Pilots for carriers such as AMR Corp.’s American Airlines and US Airways Group Inc. also object, saying the FAA should scrap part of the plan that in some cases would let crews operate the controls as long as 10 hours, up from eight.
“You cannot reduce pilot fatigue by increasing the time the pilot is at the controls,” Jeffrey Skiles, first officer on the US Airways flight that crashed without fatalities into the Hudson River in New York in January 2009, said at a Nov. 10 news conference.
The FAA began overhauling the rules in June 2009, four months after a regional jet flying for Continental Airlines Inc. crashed near Buffalo, killing 50 people, including both pilots. The National Transportation Safety Board concluded the pilots’ performances probably were impaired by fatigue, though it couldn’t determine the extent of their tiredness or the role that may have played.
Captain Marvin Renslow, 47, “had experienced chronic sleep loss,” the board said in its report, which blamed the crash of the plane from Pinnacle Airline Corp.’s Colgan Air unit on his incorrect response to a cockpit stall warning.
Magnitude Faulted
The Regional Airline Association, a Washington-based group with members including Pinnacle, said in its comments yesterday that it would support any FAA effort to withdraw and replace the current pilot-fatigue plan.
“The magnitude of the necessary changes that we see is beyond what we would have hoped for,” according to the association, whose members include Republic Airways Holdings Inc. and SkyWest Inc. “Airlines strongly believe that getting the regulation right is more important than getting it out quickly.”
The proposal limits workdays to as few as nine hours when a pilot flies seven or more segments. Those who start between midnight and 4 a.m. also face a nine-hour limit. Pilots who begin from 7 a.m. to 1 p.m. could work as long as 13 hours.
The maximum workday would be trimmed to 13 hours, from 16 under the 1940s-era rules last updated in 1985. Unions have said the current eight-hour break between shifts is insufficient, because after waiting in airport security lines and traveling to hotels, pilots may have only a few hours for sleep.
To contact the reporter on this story: John Hughes in Washington at [email protected].
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Larry Liebert at [email protected]
Pilot-Rest Rule May be 15 Times More Costly Than Projected, Airlines Say
By John Hughes - Nov 16, 2010 12:01 AM ET
A Federal Aviation Administration plan to give pilots more rest in response to a fatal crash in upstate New York will be 15 times more expensive than projected, the airlines’ trade group said in opposing the rules.
The Air Transport Association in Washington, representing the nation’s biggest carriers, said the plan is “onerous” and would cost $19.6 billion in the next 10 years, not $1.25 billion as projected by the FAA.
“The factual record that the FAA organized is riddled with mistakes and the analysis fails to make a rational connection between the facts, science and operational experience,” the trade group, whose members include United Continental Holdings Inc. and Delta Air Lines Inc., said yesterday in comments.
Labor unions for pilots also faulted the agency proposal, signaling the FAA failed to reach a consensus on a plan that would revamp fatigue rules that have been in effect for decades with results of research showing the number of takeoffs and landings, not just hours worked, affects tiredness.
The rule proposed on Sept. 10, which could change after the comments are reviewed, must become final by next August, under a deadline set by Congress.
The agency is proposing that airline pilots would get nine hours of rest between shifts, a 13 percent rise from current schedules. The changes, prompted by an airline crash that left no survivors last year near Buffalo, New York, also would require that pilots get at least 30 consecutive work-free hours a week, a 25 percent increase from existing rules.
Pilots Object
Pilots for carriers such as AMR Corp.’s American Airlines and US Airways Group Inc. also object, saying the FAA should scrap part of the plan that in some cases would let crews operate the controls as long as 10 hours, up from eight.
“You cannot reduce pilot fatigue by increasing the time the pilot is at the controls,” Jeffrey Skiles, first officer on the US Airways flight that crashed without fatalities into the Hudson River in New York in January 2009, said at a Nov. 10 news conference.
The FAA began overhauling the rules in June 2009, four months after a regional jet flying for Continental Airlines Inc. crashed near Buffalo, killing 50 people, including both pilots. The National Transportation Safety Board concluded the pilots’ performances probably were impaired by fatigue, though it couldn’t determine the extent of their tiredness or the role that may have played.
Captain Marvin Renslow, 47, “had experienced chronic sleep loss,” the board said in its report, which blamed the crash of the plane from Pinnacle Airline Corp.’s Colgan Air unit on his incorrect response to a cockpit stall warning.
Magnitude Faulted
The Regional Airline Association, a Washington-based group with members including Pinnacle, said in its comments yesterday that it would support any FAA effort to withdraw and replace the current pilot-fatigue plan.
“The magnitude of the necessary changes that we see is beyond what we would have hoped for,” according to the association, whose members include Republic Airways Holdings Inc. and SkyWest Inc. “Airlines strongly believe that getting the regulation right is more important than getting it out quickly.”
The proposal limits workdays to as few as nine hours when a pilot flies seven or more segments. Those who start between midnight and 4 a.m. also face a nine-hour limit. Pilots who begin from 7 a.m. to 1 p.m. could work as long as 13 hours.
The maximum workday would be trimmed to 13 hours, from 16 under the 1940s-era rules last updated in 1985. Unions have said the current eight-hour break between shifts is insufficient, because after waiting in airport security lines and traveling to hotels, pilots may have only a few hours for sleep.
To contact the reporter on this story: John Hughes in Washington at [email protected].
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Larry Liebert at [email protected]
11-16-2010, 05:19 AM
#2
seeing the large hubs...
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: 73N A
Posts: 3,706
11-16-2010, 05:32 AM
#3
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Position: A320
Posts: 1,308
As I always say, so much for safety first. All the science in the world points towards the need for an adjustment to these rules but once again, executive salary and greedy shareholders is winning the battle at the moment.
, stopped there, to tired to go further.
11-16-2010, 05:51 AM
#5
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,001
Originally Posted by EWRflyr
Pilot-Rest Rule May be 15 Times More Costly Than Projected, Airlines Say
As the FAA and others will recall, in 2001 the certificate holders resisted Whitlow on the grounds that the cost would put certificate holders out of business. We anticipate the same approach to this NPRM. In their request to stay enforcement of Whitlow, the RAA stated that the Whitlow interpretation would “bring about the demise of smaller carriers.” They would be required to hire numerous flight crewmembers and the cost would mean elimination of service to smaller cities. Likewise, the ATA complained that enforcement of Whitlow would inconvenience the traveling public as their members would have to delay and cancel flights. Additionally, the ATA carriers would be subjected to having to hire many additional flight crewmembers incurring tremendous costs for salaries, benefits and training.
For this reason they engaged in litigation to overturn Whitlow. When that effort failed, the certificate holders implemented the interpretation with little or no impact on their operation. They adjusted their scheduling practices with minimal or no cost. It can be anticipated that the certificate holders will take the same position on hard limits as they did with Whitlow. The sky is falling approach should be rejected.
For this reason they engaged in litigation to overturn Whitlow. When that effort failed, the certificate holders implemented the interpretation with little or no impact on their operation. They adjusted their scheduling practices with minimal or no cost. It can be anticipated that the certificate holders will take the same position on hard limits as they did with Whitlow. The sky is falling approach should be rejected.
11-16-2010, 05:52 AM
#6
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
I agree. Well this is the ATA proposal. With it this far off from the NPRM and with no science to back it up, there is probably a good chance Babbitt take that void in to account, or the ATA will get what they want, and there will be no changes to the rules.
11-16-2010, 06:34 AM
#8
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: maddoggy dog
Posts: 1,026
Rhetorical question.........How much do a couple fatigue related accidents cost an airline?? These bean counters need to wake up.
I once had a scheduler give me crap about getting 8 hours behind the door. "What about the miss-connecting pax?" she said. I told her I'd fly with much less sleep in the freezing rain that was outside my window if she'd put her kids on my flight. At that point a light bulb turned on above her head and she got my point.
I once had a scheduler give me crap about getting 8 hours behind the door. "What about the miss-connecting pax?" she said. I told her I'd fly with much less sleep in the freezing rain that was outside my window if she'd put her kids on my flight. At that point a light bulb turned on above her head and she got my point.
11-16-2010, 06:41 AM
#10
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: maddoggy dog
Posts: 1,026
Originally Posted by buddies8
insurance pays
....and then your rates go up, your management leases back planes you once owned. Managers leave with big bonuses. Company goes bankrupt. Pilots get furloughed and take a 40-50% paycut.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
