We did, you can call him ALPA President!

Still waiting, deus. You talk the talk, you have any credentials?
Simple questions, you shouldn’t have too much trouble answering.

Who is saying adopting 117 over the CBA? If the CBA is more restrictive, then we go with the CBA, just like we do now. We can already block over 8 in a duty period without an RFO. The CBA is currently more restrictive than the FAR's regarding RFO's.

It wasn't pilots that tried to get us cut out of 117, it was the cargo companies. Why do you think that is?

oh snap! oh no he didn’t oh yes he did. and a neener neener and a bwwoop bwooop!

Really? When can we block over 8 in a duty period without an RFO right now?

As to the rest...Hopefully no one is saying 117 over anything. My point is very little of what I see in 117 is going to be better than what we have right now.

But if enough people b!tch about the cargo cut-out and it eventually goes away and we're under 117 - now we have to be able to justify what's in our contract and use negotiating capital to do so.

If this supposedly "science based" regulation that ALPA has been championing since it's inception now becomes gospel in the cargo world, how are we going to be able to sit on the other side of the negotiating table and say, "Yeah...we still need an RFO at 7:36 block even though the rest of the industry is going 9:00 with two pilots".
"Oh, while we're at it, let's stick with 4-pilots over 12 hours of block even though industry standard is now 13 hours".

Because most cargo companies don't have the contract we have and would have to jump through a lot more hoops to make their contract line-up with 117. For FedEx specifically, the minor benefits the company might gain by chopping an RFO here and there are probably offset by the ass pain of putting pilots in hotels or sleep rooms for 2 hours or whatever other noise level adjustments to duty or rest might be necessary.

My point is that anyone at FedEx complaining about the "cargo cut-out" probably hasn't taken the time to look into what they're complaining about.

Why would we have to give up what we already have? Isn't that the argument that the union used to sell the last contract, look what we didn't give up?

Using your argument of other carriers already blocking 9 hours without an RFO, then I guess we are going to have to spend negotiating capital to keep us from giving up RFO's at 7+36. Of course, non bid pack trips that block over 7+35 don't require an RFO already, so X pairings and a lot of charters are already excluded from that contract provision.

As far as assuming that people who don't like the cutout haven't taken the time to look into what they're complaining about, you know what assume does.

But not a FedEx pilot... there is your out...

I'd hope we wouldn't have to give up what we have already, but my confidence level is low should it come to that. A "line in the sand" evoked a "gee, I guess they really mean it" response from our NC. Science based FARs already in force versus us bucking the industry trend doesn't bode well for us, IMO. We had age 60 in our CBA when the age changed to 65 and we all saw how that worked out.

I've been out of the charter biz for a while now. I've never seen an X pairing on the 777 without an RFO between 7:36 and 8:00. Wasn't aware a distinction was being made in either case. But, I'm still not sure what you're referring to when you mentioned we can block over 8 without an RFO. When does that happen (other than unscheduled delays, etc.)?

Well, if someone cares to pipe up and explain how 117 will be a major improvement to what we already have and worth the negatives that I've identified, I'll gladly acknowledge being the ass due to my assumptions.

Maybe you guys can start a 117 thread?

Thought this was a thread about Tony C running for block 3.....

Who were nominated in block 3?