Or you could read it this way.

You may now throw up.

Speech to be re-written by new FAA Admin as "Moving Forward With Two Levels of Safety."

Speech – "Moving Forward with One Level of Safety"

It's just another government bueacracy that needs to go away. What a joke.

ALPA Comment
 

"Today's pilot fatigue rule release marks historic progress in what must be an unrelenting commitment to ensuring the highest safety standards throughout the airline industry. The Air Line Pilots Association, Int'l (ALPA), is gratified that the Department of Transportation and the Federal Aviation Administration have delivered on their pledge, and a Congressional mandate, to issue new flight- and duty-time regulations and minimum rest requirements for airline pilots," said Capt. Lee Moak, president of the Air Line Pilots Association, an independent aviation safety organization.

Not sure why ALPA didn't take the opportunity to make a stance on ONE LEVEL OF SAFETY.

Perhaps this is all that got quoted in the article - but I think they should have been very thorough in ensuring that the concept of one level of safety for all members of ALPA was stressed. From top to bottom.

He was drunk when he wrote that.

We'll probably never know if it would have turned out differently if Capt. RB was still there?

this outcome had nothing to do with the FAA.

it was all the OMB (White House)

Chew on this....


You need to pay me more…..because I work longer hours and fly much more productive and rigorous schedules than those pax pilots…

You need to pay me more….because I work in a much less safe environment than those other pilots and am less insulated from the risks of fatigue and circadian issues… Cargo pilots are working harder than pax pilots at night as we share the same airspace. As we fly over and around each other in the night skies, you can rest comfortably knowing all those UPS pilots and other supplemental operators that are “used to working at night” will be stumbling working on that “second level of safety” that “is not cost effective to fix”. We will have to work even harder to keep our working space safe, and we will. But it will cost you.

You need to provide me better health care, vacation, and benefits…because I will not be as rested, nor will I have the protections afforded our pax brethren, and the toll on my health will be higher at my second level of safety. I am forced to work harder to make sure I am safe, rested and ready, and I will be. That will require a certain amount of time off and the guarantee I can take care of the my health needs—both mental and physical—because it is harder working at this second tier of safety.

You need to provide my family superior insurance and benefits…because I fly cargo that is not always screened (too costly) for security threats, and since we fly lithium batteries and other hazardous cargo routinely that has been proven to be deadly at times to aircraft, we understand that many times in our industry the bottom line trumps safety. It does not, however, trump the requirement to take care of our families. Therefore we require industry leading insurance so we can fly knowing our families will be okay in the event of our demise burning up over the North Pacific or halfway across the Atlantic Ocean.

So—yeah—I agree we are “different” is cargo. We work harder. We make more profit. We have a much more dangerous work environment. Therefore, our compensation going forward has absolutely, positively nothing to do with what else happens on the passenger side of the industry. Their pay, benefits, and concessionary contracts have ZERO to do with us. After all, we are “different”.

And that difference, my friends, makes all of us worth a lot more money…. So, keep your new work rules. But the industry better reach for their wallet, because they just demonstrated to us that this is all about the dollars, not safety. And we speak that language too…

Great post. I hope it swings the 15% or so we need to swing to no votes before the next contract vote in about 4 years.

Curious as to how the "WH" had the final say in this Rule. Did you read the final ruling, it is very enlightening. http://www.faa.gov/regulations_polic...-FinalRule.pdf

It is spelled out (in 300 some pages) The WH OMB has the responsibility for cost analysis, but the FAA under the DOT has the final decision making authority (what to decide based on the cost analysis..(and industry "comments" i.e. lobbying) of the rulemaking. The report delineates the actions that the opposing lobby presented for the cut-out.

I'm disappointed with the rule, and disagree, but would like to know how the WH "made" the cut out, when the FAA makes the ruling? Read the report.

--maybe we can have a alchohol cut out for cargo pilots, so we can legally drink more & sooner befor we fly?!?

The FAA’s authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the
United States Code. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in 49
U.S.C. § 44701(a)(5), which requires the Administrator to promulgate regulations and
minimum safety standards for other practices, methods, and procedures necessary for
safety in air commerce and national security. This rulemaking is also promulgated under
the authority described in 49 U.S.C. § 44701(a)(4), which requires the Administrator to
promulgate regulations in the interest of safety for the maximum hours or periods of
service of airmen and other employees of air carriers.