I see the posting on PFC. I admit I do not fully understand every aspect of Part 117.

Talking to my pax-carrier buddies, particularly those who fly long haul, it seems like it did unnecessarily complicate their trips, and in many cases extended their trip footprints to comply with the Part 117 crew rest requirements.

From my limited perspective, I don’t think we want Part 117 in cargo. Am I missing something? Wouldn’t it potentially wreck a commuter’s flexibility?

I’m all ears.

I’d say if the company is putting this much effort into swaying us away from it, it’s probably good for us.

I like how he doesn’t think we have a fatigue issue and our sig and psit is worthwhile. Having three and four legs a night isn’t fatigue mitigation. How bout actually have us fly two legs max three a night. Two in / one out would be the most fatigue reducing, but the company won’t do it because it’s not cost effective. International trips the layovers get smaller and smaller, again not fatigue mitigating.

My opinion is that if the company wants to change the fatigue problem, how About actually change the pairings anytime the sig requests it! It’s always a fight over dollars/fatigue.

I can’t wait to see these mock pairings/lines, I’m sure they’ll be nicely optimized.

How does Dillman know anything about our schedules? He was hired from the outside and has been in training.

Anything that causes an ALPA pilot group to need to hire more pilots, is what they will push for. Even if it will take away QOL. The more pilots, the more union dues. Our schedule flexibility is about to go away.

Why would 117 negatively impact commuters in cargo, when it didn’t for pax?

Commuting here is quite a bit different then at the pax carriers when you consider many pairings begin at an out outstation, the deviation bank policy, and less weekends. There's very little about our schedules that resembles pax schedules.


All that said the fact that management is visit against it bears trying to understand why.

Beware the unintended consequences

Anytime management tries direct negotiations with the pilots, which is what this PFC "article" is, they are lying out their ass.

And what about 117 would change any of that?

Also, you can do 5 consecutive night time ops provided you are provided a suitable rest facility for no less than 2 hours in between legs. Not 3 night time Ops as was was stated.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/117.27

What they probably really don’t want is the duty day limits. No more 16 hour limit. You can only extend 2 hours once before getting 30 hours of rest. No more back to back 16 hour days.

I haven't the slightest clue and the truth is neither do you nor does anyone else. Any survey of work groups will find plenty of voices pro and con. An anecdotal survey of my own personal contacts provides a very mixed set of responses. I'd also be willing to bet that the research data used to support implementation of part 117 did not include the kind of operations we do. (Prove it to me).

I mean there are people who swear up and down that PBS is wonderful.

regulations are tricky things and we cannot solve for the mechanisms that management will employ to mitigate any negative effects on the bottom line.

I'm not advocating for any particular position but the devil you know MAY prove to be easier to deal with.