Huh? Are we talking about the same thing here? Now that the proposed rules are out, and closely mirror the ALPA proposal, let's take an example shall we?

IAD-BRU. Leaves around 5PM, so max duty un-augmented is 13 hours and 10 hours (ridiculous) of flight time. No problem.

BRU-IAD. Time change is 6 hours. Scheduled departure is 12 noon, or 6 AM body clock time. Showtime is 1.5 prior, so 4:30AM. Flight time is 8:15, so illegal for 2 pilots.

But what if UAL moves the departure back to 12:30, which still easily feeds the bank in IAD? Then the show time is 5AM, which allows for 9 hours of flight time and 11 hours of duty, both easily accomplished. Do you think UAL would move the departure time back 30 min if it meant saving a pilot?? Hell, the thing left at 12:37 today and will have no problem with connections. Most Europe destinations will now be doable with 2 pilots with minor schedule tweaking.

Thanks ALPA. How many more mainline jobs is this going to cost?

 

Is there a carve out for supplemental and/or cargo? Or do we finally treat everyone the same?

 

As someone who has had the opportunity of constantly and consistantly operating to the absolute minimums of the rest regulations, this is my opinion. It's the bottom feeders that are a big part of what make this necessary (at least the sections of the proposed regulations that would apply to my operations). Those airlines that view the minimum regulations as an operational goal, rather than minimums to be rarely used, and only during IROPs; those airlines who have absolutely no regard for safety, beyond what the regulations require. You might say,"Hey, your airline is just trying to make money." Yes, but how much further ahead will they be, when we pile one in? Trading safety for money; it's not a wise investment. I have flown 12 legs in a day. I have waited 1.5 hours for a hotel shuttle during reduced rest, to operate 8 legs the next day, with a dead-head thrown in there. I have flown all night (6 legs, 15 hours of duty) on a stand-up overnight that was originally scheduled for 4 legs (with added repos/ flagstops, etc.). I have made numerous informational reports to my company, regarding fatiguing pairings and schedules, and have never received any acknowledgement, or response. These are just a few of the situations that I seem to always find myself in. Why do I not call in fatigued? If I called in fatigued for every fatiguing situation I'm placed in, I don't think I would ever complete a trip. Sometimes, you just don't know you're fatigued until you're in the aircraft, at the controls, and start noticing how many things you are missing; how poor your situational awareness is becoming; how poor your scan is, etc. Plus, start making numerous fatigue calls, and you can certainly expect to be on the company blacklist...good luck on your next PC, buddy, and you can forget about ever having the opportunity to make LCA. Yes, I operate under a crappy CBA. However, the level of safety of my passengers shouldn't be so heavily dependent on the quality of my CBA. Passengers don't buy tickets based upon the scheduling rules in a CBA. They buy tickets fully expecting that all airlines operate under the same level of safety, whether it's a bottom feeder, or top of the industry. For those who have operated to the very minimums of the regulations on a constant basis, I'm sure you understand what I'm talking about.

 

Fully agreed, and understand your plight. I did the commuter thing as well, and it's atrocious. This new rule will go a long way to improving the QOL at the crappiest carriers, and that is the segment that needed the most improvement.

What I struggle to understand is why ALPA decided to make things worse on the other end at the potential cost of the higher end pilot jobs. I'm not sure how many pilots UAL will be able to shed if this passes, but it will be a decent amount. Sigh. It's been a long decade.

 

The ALPA proposal of INCREASING allowable flight time combined with age 65 are both good reasons to FIRE Prater and get some new leadership. Two of the biggest changes in our careers and Prater and his cronies blew it. I am pro union, just not the leadership of this union.

 

I'm glad someone could put an actual pairing up here to back me up. People talked about how these rules would increase staffing but as of right now I don't see how it won't decrease staffing. If all they have to do is push back the departure time 30 minutes, it a no brainer what their going to do. Its funny how the creating of these rules were based on pilots working to long and hard and now fewer pilots will be needed to do the same amount of flying.

 

If you take a look at the footnotes on page 43 it explains why there are two charts there. One is from the industry, one is from ALPA.

Take a look at page 44, ALPA is proposing a maximum of 8 in the situation you described.

It is going to come down to the comment section on what is the final rule.

 

Got it. I see where you are now. I do wish ALPA hadn't even proposed anything with the flight time over 8, but you are right. It's going to come down to the comment.

The rule as written puts IAD-CDG, FRA, AMS, LHR, BRU in play with 2 pilots and marginal tweaking, and IAD-GVA and ZRH in play with a little extra tweaking. That's just at UAL! Add CAL at EWR, AMR and DAL at JFK, and US at PHL and you have hundreds of pilot jobs at stake here. Hopefully ALPA will repond appropriately. We will see.

 

I know this affects everyone and I haven't read through the document but are these new rules better or still worse than ICAO rules?

 

That is incorrect. It will depend on what time of the day the flight departs. Most flights that will be allowed to fly over 8 hours will have to depart at 8 or 9am. That means transcons. Also, there would be a limit on duty hours, like 13 hours max per day, and only 2 legs. If you do a 10 hour roundtrip, with an hour on the ground in LAX, that doesn't give you much wiggle room for running out of duty day. For North Atlantic crossings and allnighters in general, the regs will be tighter.