Notices
Regional Regional Airlines

New Fatigue Rules Soon

Old 09-10-2010 | 05:31 AM
  #41  
Moderator
 
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 13,088
Likes: 0
From: B757/767
Default

Originally Posted by gloopy
If that's true I wonder how much the 13 hour max duty day is "extendable".
I don't think it is extendable. Your max duty will vary based on your scheduled flight time for the day, so it may be less then 13.
Reply
Old 09-10-2010 | 05:36 AM
  #42  
seafeye's Avatar
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,203
Likes: 0
From: Hot tub for now
Default

I am sure the FAA looked at most companies contracts and came up with an average of what we already have. Then put together this new law. Now they can go to congress and tell them what a bang up job they did, hand out pay raises and go back to doing what they do best. Nothing.
Reply
Old 09-10-2010 | 06:10 AM
  #43  
rickair7777's Avatar
Prime Minister/Moderator
Veteran: Navy
 
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 45,114
Likes: 794
From: Engines Turn or People Swim
Default

Originally Posted by gloopy
Not going to happen. There may or may not be some downright draconian regs that hammer commuters, but they can never force you to "live" anywhere. Ever. It can't even be defined. What about a "local" New Yorker or LA'er that has a 2-3 hour by car sitting in traffic commute? Is that "living in base"? What about pilots with multipile residences? Will they require you to vote and pay taxes in your "domicile" versus somewhere else? LOL! What if you live out of base but have a relative close to the airport at your base where you can stay?
A company could probably require that you live in a certain geographic area as a condition of employment but airline's don't WANT to do that...it would drastically reduce their pool of applicants (depending on the domicile) and would require higher wages in long run.

The government however, has no legitimate basis for making such a requirement. Cops can be required to live in their jurisdiction, but that's because they want their stabilizing presence, it's not to babysit them. It wouldn't hold up in court.

Originally Posted by gloopy
Again I can see some sort of tracking for non revving by air before the start of your trip and maybe some sort of "time off after that" requirement to be considered rest or whatever.
They will actually not be able to do this either, I think it would run afoul of legal requirements for consistent treatment of all employees. They cannot just require the commuters to be "in domicile" ten hours early...what the hell is "domicile"?

Also being present in domicile does not guarantee rest, if I arrive early do I go to sleep? No, I go to the gym What about the local guys who stayed up to party the night before (while I went to bed early because I had an early commute), or the guy with the screaming baby who's up all night? There's no way to apply that fairly.

They only way they could do this would be to require ALL flight crew to arrive at a company-provided rest area 8-10 hours early to ENSURE that rest occurs. That would actually be just fine with me...but I will damn well get PAID block for it

Then what about layovers? It would be arbitrary (and therefore probably illegal) to apply silly rules on day one but not regulate layovers. The hotels would have to track our comings-and-goings and provide a report to the company to ensure we are getting rest behind closed doors. The internet, cable TV, and most lights would of course be de-activated during rest hours.

Actually I was told by someone who should have some insight that the FAA dropped any attempt to regulate commuting early on in their review process. There was no way to do it fairly and legally and the airlines would have been opposed because it would drive up labor costs.

The Bloomberg article matches exactly with what I heard. I'm OK with ten flight hours as long as there is a leg limit (preferably two). If I'm allowed to be on duty anyway, may as well get paid.
Reply
Old 09-10-2010 | 06:20 AM
  #44  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,792
Likes: 0
From: Doing what you do, for less.
Default

Originally Posted by EWRflyr
Some "major aviation announcement" from the FAA at 1pm today.

U.S. Airline Pilots Said to Get More Rest Under FAA Overhaul - Bloomberg

Minimum 9 hours rest
Minimum 30 consecutive hours off each 7 days
Maximum 10 hours flying w/ max duty reduced to 13 hours

Be interesting to see if the max flying and duty time limits vary based on length of day, start time, etc. as had been rumored.

With more rest and shorter duty required to go with higher hours permitted in a duty period, this will probably end up being a wash as far as staffing goes.
So based on this alone, essentially they eliminated reduced rest, made changes that we all already have, and upped the block allowed in the day. Looks like things got worse. Hopefully the announcement has more details that are missing here. When considering the fact that the next change could be in 2050, I'm pretty disappointed so far.
Reply
Old 09-10-2010 | 06:33 AM
  #45  
captscott26's Avatar
Line Holder
 
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 949
Likes: 1
From: A320 CA
Default

I like what I see, but...

Have they changed max allowed in 7, 30 days, and for the year? If it gets reduced we take a pay cut!
Reply
Old 09-10-2010 | 06:34 AM
  #46  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 732
Likes: 0
From: Phoenix
Default

give me two 4 day trips at 35 hours a piece. Good thing!
Reply
Old 09-10-2010 | 06:35 AM
  #47  
rickair7777's Avatar
Prime Minister/Moderator
Veteran: Navy
 
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 45,114
Likes: 794
From: Engines Turn or People Swim
Default

MOD INPUT: I merged the two threads on this subject, into the regional forum thread which was larger and started first.
Reply
Old 09-10-2010 | 07:55 AM
  #48  
bassslayer's Avatar
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Default

Unfortunately this "public comment period" aka "airlines counter offer" period will end with something less restrictive than what the proposal is. The airlines will fight tooth and nail over the 9-13 hr max duty day.
Reply
Old 09-10-2010 | 07:59 AM
  #49  
JoeMerchant's Avatar
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 822
Likes: 0
From: CRJ200 Capt.
Default

Two of my better trips this month won't be allowed under this proposal. A very productive 3 day trip and a great CDO/Highspeed/nap.

A downside to this proposal is that only the really bad naps with a short RON will still be legal. The great naps that pay well will no longer comply. In addition, it will be very hard to build productive 3 day trips, especially for those airplanes that primarily do short legs. Get ready for more 4 day trips.
Reply
Old 09-10-2010 | 08:05 AM
  #50  
skywatch's Avatar
Gets Weekdays Off
 
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,053
Likes: 0
From: Economy Minus
Default

Originally Posted by JoeMerchant
Two of my better trips this month won't be allowed under this proposal. A very productive 3 day trip and a great CDO/Highspeed/nap.

A downside to this proposal is that only the really bad naps with a short RON will still be legal. The great naps that pay well will no longer comply. In addition, it will be very hard to build productive 3 day trips, especially for those airplanes that primarily do short legs. Get ready for more 4 day trips.
Like someone said earlier - be careful what you wish for. Those of you that seem to think you are going to get paid more (or the same) to fly less hours with the same number of days off, you might be dreaming...if you think this means working 8 hour days, like the rest of the world, then you can probably plan on two days off a week, like the rest of the world.
Reply
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Jetjok
Cargo
16
11-24-2013 04:55 AM
Naven
Hangar Talk
12
04-22-2010 02:43 PM
EWRflyr
Major
2
01-09-2009 03:12 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Your Privacy Choices