Coto Pilot

WASHINGTON — Airlines are warning that a proposed regulation meant to reduce pilot fatigue would be far more expensive and burdensome than federal regulators have recognized.
Fort Worth-based American Airlines says the rule would require it to hire 2,325 more pilots and add annual costs of $514 million. Dallas-based Southwest Airlines says the regulation would undermine one of its main advantages over competitors — the higher productivity of its pilots.
The Federal Aviation Administration announced the rule last year, when it said compliance would cost carriers $1.25 billion over 10 years.
The regulation was a direct response to concerns raised by an investigation into the fatal crash of Continental Connection Flight 3407, operated by Colgan Air. The investigation found that the pilots’ long commutes and lack of sleep may have affected their judgment.
The FAA’s proposal acknowledged that some carriers — particularly smaller ones — would have to hire more pilots to comply with the rule. But the FAA said the rule was necessary to improve safety. Administrator Randolph Babbitt said airlines could mitigate any new costs with better scheduling techniques.
But American says the regulation’s costs are “substantially higher” than what the FAA assumed.
In a securities filing Tuesday, the airline said the rule could have a material adverse impact on its operations. The airline currently employs about 8,000 pilots, according to a spokeswoman.
“If AA needs 2,300 more pilots to meet the proposed rules, other certificate holders will need many additional pilots, too,” American said in a public comment on the proposal in November.
“The industry figure will be so large as to raise the question of from where they all will come,” it said.
Sensitive to costs
The airlines’ strong criticism of the proposal comes as Republicans in Washington are focused on paring back regulations they think are onerous to business. Airlines, in particular, are sensitive to new costs as they emerge from a prolonged period of unprofitability. The Air Transport Association, which represents all passenger carriers, has said the rule would cost $19.6 billion over 10 years, more than 15 times what the FAA estimated.
The FAA says the rule is based on the latest scientific research about the risks of fatigue. The agency says the current rule doesn’t ensure that crew members have an opportunity to get ample rest between workdays.
Babbitt said his agency is studying the complaints of carriers as it moves toward finalizing the rule in August.
“In some cases, people point out deficiencies in the way we’ve written the rule, and we consider that,” Babbitt said. “The final rule, you can be pretty comfortable, won’t exactly mirror what was proposed.”
Limits on shifts
The proposal calls for airline pilots to get nine hours of rest between shifts and at least 30 consecutive hours away from work each week. They couldn’t fly more than eight and 10 hours per day, depending upon the time they start work.
The proposal is firmly supported by the families of the 45 passengers who died when Flight 3407 crashed outside Buffalo, N.Y. The group of families blasted the Air Transport Association this week for complaining about the regulation to House Republicans.
The airlines raised numerous complaints but said higher costs would largely stem from a little-noticed provision aimed at assuring more “realistic scheduling.”
In addition to the limit on flight time, a pilot’s total workday, including time spent on the ground, would be limited to between nine and 13 hours a day. The limit now is 16 hours.
Airlines would have to meet the new work limits 95 percent of the time or be out of compliance.
American says that requirement is unreasonable because many flights don’t arrive on time, often because of factors beyond an airline’s control.
To comply, carriers would have to build 30- to 90-minute buffers into pilot schedules to allow for delays, the airlines said. That would require them to reduce the number of segments and flight time they assign to pilots, according to Southwest’s comments.
“Merely adding as few as 15 minutes to every scheduled duty period would cost millions of dollars annually with no enhancement in safety or reduction of fatigue,” Southwest wrote in response to the proposal.
That would especially hurt Southwest’s business model, which relies on squeezing more flights into a day than other carriers.
“We feel that many of the rule changes will impact our operation as dramatically, if not more so, than the impact on any other carrier,” Southwest wrote.
“The proposed rules, layered with multiple restrictions aimed to reduce fatigue, will no doubt serve to lower the productivity of the Southwest Airlines flight crew member,” it said

marcal

Dear American Airlines,

Boo effing Hoo.

Sincerely,
All wannabee pilots and the families of Colgan 3407.

Sink r8

How awful...

sailingfun

Funny that Delta management believes the rule would require between 140 and 400 new pilots. Is AMR not smaller then Delta?

RockBottom

These rest rules will enhance safety, no doubt about it.

So for these airlines to cry over the increase in pilot costs attached to the safety improvements-- especially an accident-prone airline like AA-- is deplorable.

iaflyer

I haven't heard those numbers directly, but the Delta PWA (contract) already provides protections from the FARs, so it's entirely possible we wouldn't see much change/have to hire very many.

teddyballgame

Aren't all the politicians in DC, from both parties, bleating in unison that we need more job creation in this country?

Isn't that the big issue that they all campaigned on last fall?

So here's a way to create a couple of thousand of those jobs. Good jobs.

That's what they all promised to do if they were elected, didn't they?

Well, here's their big chance to actually deliver on a campaign promise (for a change).

80drvr

AMR's numbers are bogus -- artificially inflated to support a lobbying position in Washington. The real numbers are closer to Delta's.

TBucket

It's just disgusting. How can these people have the balls to go out in public and say "We would rather continue risking the lives of our passengers than to have to hire more pilots. It costs us money!"

Anderson

Artificially creating jobs through regulation might help in the short term, but it won't help in the long run. I worry that we as pilots might be short-sighted by supporting this. I want more jobs as much as anyone, but laying more costs on an industry that perpetually struggles with profitability may ultimately prove to be detrimental. I hope I'm wrong.