A lot of the airlines are already doing this to cut cost. Look at ASA for example; they have had more red days recently than one can count on both hands. Many other regionals have also had days off decrease as they continue to furlough.

This legislation will create a demand for a larger workforce, not only on the regional side but for the majors as well.

 

it stands to reason that shorter duty time means less opportunity to maximize flt hrs/day. consequently, fewer days off - commutability proves difficult, and the most significant - less time off.

 

Watch out for the laws of unintended consequences, they are a *****.

Today: 8hr scheduled overnight can be covered by 1 flight crew

Tomorrow: 8hr scheduled overnight can only be covered by 2 crews. Is the route still profitable with the added expense of overnighting another crew? Would it be more profitable to reduce frequency of flights(less pilots needed) and have 1 crew cover a 10hr overnight?

 

There is plenty of airlines out there with contracts that have 12 hour rule already and they get 18 days off... When I worked at XJT they max scheduled day was 13.5 hrs of duty and yet we had more days off than other regionals without that provision. All this talk about reducing the days off is just managment scare tactics and you suckers are faling for it.

 

Lets not forget that this legislation is about safety. Even if it means a reduction in time off we will all be a little bit safer for it. Particularly those who work for carriers that have no trouble with squeezing the regs every way possible.

 

For the very senior guys that pack 4 days of work into a 3 day trip to get the extra days off they will be hurt. For those of us eternally on reserve being abused daily with no reguard to sleep patterns it will greatly help us since we always get minimum days off anyway...

 

I thought there was supposed to be an announcement about this sometime soon?

Wassup PKunzip? A----------------B bro

 

I, too, don't understand why the 12 hr rule would be bad for QOL. Couldn't mgmt just make the duty days more efficient/productive so that we fly the same amount as we do now but with the shortened duty day? Or is that too much to ask for? Because flying 7 hrs a day doesn't tire me out - 14 hr duty days do. Personally, the optimum work day would be a high block with short duty day which would also result in a shorter work week due to the 30/7 rule.
Some airlines contracts already have a limit on duty day, does that affect the quality of their schedules?

 

Don't any of you know people who work for major airlines? Most majors are 12-13 max duty. They fly during the same banks regionals do. They don't all have 10 days off. This is just a scare tactic by the senior guys who fear losing their 18-20 day off schedules (this fear is actually true, most lines will be 14-16 off).

 

One: They're not going to reduce frequency. If the route could already be covered with fewer flights, they would have already reduced the frequency to save money. The extra couple hundred bucks it will cost them for an extra crew is completely irrelevant. Hell, the gas you burn while taxiing out costs more than it does to overnight another crew. Absolute worst-case, they DO reduce it, and change to bigger equipment (ie: mainline rather than an RJ). That means more flying for mainline and we all win.

Two: This is about safety. There are very few things I would risk giving up QOL for, but safety is one of them. We have to be better than the management types who say "Safety is the most important thing" and mean "Money is the most important thing". I'd rather improve a dangerous situation and fight for more days off on the next contract than risk being the next guy that ends up a smoking crater 'cause we were too tired to handle X emergency correctly.