Larcifer

And how do you acct for the pilot that drives 4hrs to domicile to start a trip with a 6 am report and 12hr duty day. While I'm napping for an 11/2 in the back with my 3hr door to show commute?

Pilot41

And what if you drove? Or just had a lousy nights sleep? Or sat in a traffic jam for 3 hours? The problem isn't pilot commuting, there will never be a full proof system. The true problem is the airlines abusing the system, extracting every possible loophole in the FAR's.

The problem with the Colgan crash was a combination of poor piloting and judgement from the crew and with Colgan/Pinnacle hiring pilots with a bare minimum resume for the love of money. Compounded with the fact that were routinely pushing crews to the maximum limits of the FAR's.

DeadHead

I think the biggest thing about these new rest rules are that even if they were in place 10 years ago, I fail to see how the rules would have prevented the Buffalo accident.

galaxy flyer

Clearly, a four-hour drive to a 6am report is as unsafe and unreasonable as an overnight flight trying to catch 40 winks in the jump seat or the crew lounge. Two hours transportation time before duty is "reasonable" and in some circumstances that might stretch it--snow, traffic. The idea is to snow up rested, after all.

GF

rickair7777

I think (but not sure) that Renslow slept in the crew room...I'm sure that was quality rest.

The FO definitely spent all night commuting on multiple legs to start a day shift which ended with a fatal crash late that evening. She failed to do the right things (backup the CA and take control when he failed catastrophically) and she did do about the worst thing she could have: raised the flaps in a stall.

Would the new rules have prevented the crash? Hard to say. But it's easy to see why some people think we need the rule in light of circumstances surrounding that accident.

The problem is that the rules does not allow for a reasonable commute without impacting duty time...and is absolutely inconsistent given that it singles out pilots who commute by air, without accounting for the guy who rides his motorcycle three hours in freezing weather to save gas (yes I know this guy, he arrives 30 minutes early to warm up before check-in). Or the guy who stays up all night and parties.

If pilots are not to be trusted, then make it consistent...all pilots check into a company rest facility at the airport (private sleeping rooms) ten hours prior to block out...and get paid block the whole time of course.

The million dollar question is how are airlines going to deal with this? Will they allow you to eat into your max duty as long as you leave a couple hours padding above your scheduled duty? Or will they require you to always be available for the full legal duty period from scheduled check-in? That would essentially forbid commuting. In that case I would probably ignore the rule until I got caught, then find a new job.

galaxy flyer

Why is it so hard to expect pilots to live within reasonable ground travel from their base? No other employers, in or out of aviation, would stand for commuting as it is done.

Now, if the company closes a domicile, they should pony up and pay for the move. Employers elsewhere do exactly that.

GF

rickair7777

In the past guys did it because the could, but it has evolved into necessity today.

Few industries expect educated white-collar professionals to live an itinerant lifestyle (military officers, mine engineers, some petro engineers, some civil engineers, broadcast professionals). Those that do, tend to offer pay and benefits well above the norm. Also none of those industries expect you to airdrop your family into a strange town and then leave for half the month (military yes, but they have a very tight family support system).

Bottom line in todays world: airlines don't pay enough for the spouse to stay home. Moving every time you need to more pay on larger equipment, upgrade, change airlines, base downsize/closure makes it impossible for most spouses to have a career.

The compensation structure is based on the current system..if they screw with commuting, they are not screwing with me...they are screwing with my family. And that is going to cost them more than they can probably afford.

If you have to live in domicile, places like LGA, JFK will become VERY junior...and how are the junior guys going to afford to live there on airline pay? Move their families into two-room slum tenements? I don't think so...they will have to pay and pay bigtime to get people to sign up for that.

I (and many others) would never have gone down this road if the deal was a career of military-style forced relocation every 2-5 years.

BTW, no other employers generally require their people to live near work (except a few law enforcement agencies who want some blue presence in the hood).

They have unilaterally changed the deal enough in the last ten years...if they are going to require us to live in domicile they had better have an endless supply of experienced pilots to fill their ranks.

Everything I said applies x10 to the regionals.

block30

Good post. I hope things work out the way you predict/desire. I know fleixbility in where one lives is key....I left a good 135 job for a regional, because of that. Well, at least to live the where the wife wants!

galaxy flyer

We did in the past; I did it at EAL in the '80s based at LGA. Affordable within two hours. Loads of pilots, airline and corporate, live within two hours ground transport from the NY airports. One of our guys is furloughed AA and lives in Wilton, CT. Not wanting to live in domicile doesn't mean you cannot afford it.

i disagree, most employers expect their employees to live somewhere near their employment, certainly not an airline commute away. My employer considers 1+30 a reasonable distance and we all live within that circle. In the Northeast. Moving is a normal part of most white collar jobs; most of our pilots have moved 4 or more times in their aviation careers. One has moved three times with this company alone. While the military has better family support programs, the pay isn't that much better, wives have little chance at careers. Your employer doesn't owe your wife a career.

Who said "every 2-5 years"? Just when the company closes a base or when the company wants you domiciled elsewhere. I agree the compensation system is based, to an extent, on commuting. I'm saying it shouldn't be. If one doesn't want to move, don't bid a category that requires one.

GF

rickair7777

Most employers expect their employees to show up for work on time. With very few government exceptions none dictate where you live unless your job requires being on-call.


Corporate aviation is inherently an itinerant occupation.


It's a lot better than you think because much of military compensation is not taxable and the benefits are second-to-none. I would need to make $180K as a civilian to match my military take-home pay.


Absolutely not, but if they change the rules mid-stream there are going to ramifications. If they have an endless supply of pilots with turbine PIC who are willing to work for ever-decreasing compensation under ever-worsening QOL circumstances then they will have no problems.


2-5 years seems about right if you assume that you will want to make each progressive career move in a reasonable timeframe. Probably more frequent early on, less frequent later in life. You can always camp out in a lower-paying seat to enable QOL but that's not how you get your best financial return on the career.


Ultimately I'm whining. Market forces will determine how this plays out, but I suspect airlines may have to offer soft-compensation (home-basing, positive space commutes) in order to avoid pilots quitting for equally-crappy cubicle jobs which allow you to be home every night.



But with all that said... I skimmed through the new rules this morning and I can't find where it says that commuting counts against duty time??? The reference to deadheads CLEARLY specifies travel performed at the direction of the company which is not commuting.

Anybody know where the new rule addresses commuting specifically?