Excellent idea and a very well written letter. I'm mailing mine tomorrow.

 

So I'm lazy, and didn't write my own letter. However, I did use your formatted letter. I sent it to every senator on the list that you provided. Hopefully, this does bring about some actual change to the aviation industry.

 

I am unclear on the changes sought in this 'new movement'. It seems fatigue is being addressed. Being that, I am missing it. The movement is full of emotion but seemingly little else. Yes, the purpose of running an airline business is to make a profit. And to put Colgan's name on this movement is confusing at best. There is no clearer case of pilot error bringing down an airplane that what happened in Buffalo that night. Pilots want to rush now to deflect attention to aircrews due to hearings. But best thing a professional aircrew can do is take this pill and accept responsiblity.

 

Da Magic:

While your effort is noble and your letter eloquent, consider what outcome may result--perhaps opposite of what you intended.

I think your intent is to (somehow) legally force airlines to increase pay, which would (hopefully) reduce the number of commuters/jumpseaters, as they could then afford to live in lovely domiciles such as Newark. Or, give those who commute more days off to accomodate their commute.

And your argument is that commuting results in crews showing-up at the last minute, or sleeping illegally in the crew lounge, which could lead to an accident.

In an economic doldrum like this, I think it unlikely that Congress would force private enterprise to raise wages for "professionals." Oh, they'll raise minimum wage, which sounds good on paper. But the real result is that if wages go up, the employer keeps his payroll expenses even by laying-off more workers. The ones that kept their jobs got a raise--the rest lost theirs. Similar in this industry.

But I could see them enacting FARs that would require pilots to report to the crew desk the actual time they arrived from jumpseating, and there would be rest minimums; they couldn't call you out until the time had elapsed. They might go so far as to require you to provide a verifiable address to prove where you stay(ed). Violations would be hefty fines or loss of license.

It might force you to commute two days before a trip or reserve cycle.

And, if you're like me, that would mean I would be home perhaps ONE to THREE days a month, as my schedule is likely to be mostly two and three-day breaks in reserve duty.

No one would stand for that, so the airlines would have to build a second set of scheduling rules for commuters. They would have longer breaks in their schedules, and as such, might not get as many work days or hours. ALPA would have to negotiate the new guarantees for commuters--which I could see as being as low as 15 working days a month and 45 hours.

Which means they would be poorly-paid, again.

I have a heinous commute. I don't have faith in the industry to sell my house and move...and houses aren't selling, anyway. Hell, I've been assigned 4 domiciles in the last 10 years. I commuted in good faith, and have always made it. I always got a good night's sleep when I got to my domicile, too. And I would not have hesitated to call in fatigued or sick if it just didn't work.

I will write my letter to ask for protections against reprisal for those who commute, due to the poor wages, and the fear of recrimination if they do call in tired. I will suggest that airlines acknowledge that in some domiciles, a full 50% of all pilots commute (example: SFO for UAL), and the company cannot make them use up a day-off to guarantee compliance with a new FAR. Rather, they will have accept the possible loss of a reserve/line-holder due to the nature of the business, when a pilot tries to commute in good-faith but can't get on the flights. This might require tracking of CASS (and modification thereof) to show when a commuter actually did commute, or attempted to, but didn't get on.

We need to be careful what we ask for. Without commuters, this industry will collapse. We just need to protect them so they get adequate rest.

 

There may be a way to obtain the government's help in improving safety without yielding them operational control of our wages and working conditions: tax breaks. Unions and management negotiate the improvements needed and the IRS allows some kind of deduction or credit for provable increased costs. This method is often used when the feds want to encourage a certain kind of behavior but don't want to get into the details of running the program. Among the issues to be addressed here would be how this would motivate a company which already has no tax liability, who would certify that the "improvements" are not bogus, etc. but it might be worth thinking about.

 

I am not sure the details but did that captain commute? And was he not off for a few days before this accident?

Just because you have a 22 hour overnight does that mean you are sleeping for 20 hours.

Lets not lose all of our own self accountability over these topics such as getting some sleep at night.

I commute and I am yet to have any accidents as a result of my choice to live out west where I am happier.

 

Here’s the airlines’ spin on terms and conditions. All employees knew the pay and benefits schedules when interviewing. Base assignments are usually known during initial training. During basic indoctrination, the instructor pointed out that the use crew room as a rest area prohibited. Instructors warned about the evils of long distance commutes. The subject of crash pads came up during training.

It is equally clear that the airlines have to create in a benefit package for hotel accommodations so crews won’t have to commute cross country all night and strap the jet to their backs and work another 12 hours. And yes… starting wages need to be increased. But equally it is the responsibility for the airman to walk away from substandard conditions without reserve. New entrants to the airline business need to quit clicking their heels three times in the hopes that any employer is going to be altruistic and provide a livable wage on their own. Remember… airplanes don’t fly by themselves.

 

I agree with you that we must be careful and clearly define our goals in this effort. That is why I am more disappointed right now in ALPA and what should be huge opportunity to address long standing issues of substandard pay, fatigue, unrealistic scheduling, and the fraud that the mainline carriers conduct through their proxy regionals. These should be carefully addressed and planned, but ALPA so far has been silent. We only have a week or so for this to be news before the public and the politicians move on to something else. Ir it is not accelerated and marketed now, we will miss the opportunity.

However, I strongly disagree with you on simply calling this pilot error. Why must we assume that every pilot that bends an airplane is an incompetent, and fool. It is clear to me that their were some other serious mitigating conditions here, specifically fatigue. Are you Newark based, or at any of the New York airports? Do you have any idea what that operation is like, and how it can break one down physically and mentally? Look at the slow response in the animation, I beleive that these two were seriously fatigued. And as far as converation below 10,000 feet... there have been times that I've conducted conversations on late flights, just to keep alert. There are some serious structural problems in this industry. What I absolutely hate, is there are lot of people who use these situations to fan their own egos!

Onfinal

 

Onfinal, I agree with your first paragraph, we(Pilot Unions) have a window of opportunity that we need to press for improvements in our industry.
However, we can't have it both ways,if we want to be paid like professionals we have to constantly act and perform like professionals. In our industry fatigue will happen and then we rely on training and experience.I have never flown at a regional but I bet they train to the same standards as a major,and I bet they train approach to a stall(stick shaker) the same way. This pilot had not 1 but 2 chances to recover and messed up both of them ! I'm sorry but that is pilot error pure and simple.He wasn't trained that way but for some unknown reason he reacted that way and gave all professional pilots a black eye. He also brought bias against all the Regional pilots who are very professional and doing a great job day in and day out under less than ideal conditions.We also have to police ourselves to make sure that consistent sub-standard performers seek another profession,harsh but in an industry where mistakes are often fatal I can see no other way.I'm ready for the darts. Finis

 

No need for the darts!

I agree definitely pilot error. What I was trying to say, is that its not just good enough to make the Pilot Error call. Perhaps "Fatigue Induced Pilot Error"? Whatever the case, you and I know, there is likely more to this than simply a guy that was so incompetent that he augered an aircraft into the ground. The media and the public may not know better, but we certainly do!

We have got to deal with some of these issues that have grown up like weeds, before they choke the entire industy. Renslow and Shaw, God be with them, perhaps albeit tragicly have provided the catalyst.