1500 Hours required to be in an airine cockpit

[Lear70]

I'm sure the 3 year hold-off was put in to appease the airline industry who was screaming that they wouldn't be able to staff...

3 Years likely

1. gets them through the worst of the next hiring curve,

2. gives them time to try to get a Republican President back in office and,

3. gives them time to try to get NEW legislation enacted. Remember, this is a TEMPORARY bill, part of a temporary FAA re-authorization bill to continue to give the FAA funding until a majority can agree on a final re-authorization bill. There's a good chance this could be completely different in a couple years.

As a previous poster said, make SURE you write your Congressmen / Senators on this. The battle is FAR from over; it's a good START, but it's not a sprint, it's a marathon towards a better industry.

Fly safe, ya'll...

 

[Captain X]

"1500 Hours required to be in an airine cockpit"

Let's all just pray that they don't come up with a literacy requirement...

Dude. The rule only applies to aircraft manufactured in Asia.

 

[atpcliff]

The FAA changes are permanent legislation added on to a temporary funding bill for the FAA. Of course laws can be changed, but these are not "temporary" changes to FAA rules.

 

[Dumb Pilot]

Dude. The rule only applies to aircraft manufactured in Asia.

Like the 787 for example?

 

[2000Easyguy]

Dude. The rule only applies to aircraft manufactured in Asia.

Funny!

 

[surplus1]

I'm sure the 3 year hold-off was put in to appease the airline industry who was screaming that they wouldn't be able to staff...

3 Years likely

1. gets them through the worst of the next hiring curve,

Makes sense.

2. gives them time to try to get a Republican President back in office and,

I thought this passed the Senate by acclamation (a miracle) so, what would a Republican President change? Would you expect him to demand that it be repealed if airline management doesn't like it? I guess that's logical seeing as how with a Republican whatever "business" wants, business gets.

3. gives them time to try to get NEW legislation enacted. Remember, this is a TEMPORARY bill, part of a temporary FAA re-authorization bill to continue to give the FAA funding until a majority can agree on a final re-authorization bill. There's a good chance this could be completely different in a couple years.

Perhaps I'm wrong but the way I read it the only part of the legislation that is "temporary" is the FAA funding. All the new "safety rules" are permanent, unless repealed.

As a previous poster said, make SURE you write your Congressmen / Senators on this. The battle is FAR from over; it's a good START, but it's not a sprint, it's a marathon towards a better industry.

Fly safe, ya'll...

What should I ask my Senator to do; have it repealed? Make it tougher? I'm trying to figure out if I should write the Republican or the Democrat. What you think?

No one's mentioned the new investigation and upcoming rules on commuting. What will happen when they tell you all ya can't commute any more [because ya can't comply with the new rest rules]? Should be fun.

 

[pilotyip]

No one's mentioned the new investigation and upcoming rules on commuting. What will happen when they tell you all ya can't commute any more [because ya can't comply with the new rest rules]? Should be fun.

New rule 8 hours prior to duty assignment pilot must report to company barracks and be locked in a room to ensure you are resting.

 

[Auburn MD Flyer]

I have no problem with those that commute into rest before their duty period begins. But then, why is it that a company can DH a crew for 12 hours (on the company aircraft) on an 8-hour international flight, and proceed right into "operating" the 2nd continuation leg of another international flight.... and think that it is safe???

 

[Lear70]

I thought this passed the Senate by acclamation (a miracle) so, what would a Republican President change? Would you expect him to demand that it be repealed if airline management doesn't like it? I guess that's logical seeing as how with a Republican whatever "business" wants, business gets.

Exactly.

Perhaps I'm wrong but the way I read it the only part of the legislation that is "temporary" is the FAA funding. All the new "safety rules" are permanent, unless repealed.

That's what I'm concerned about, that the rules would be repealed, softened, then put back in the permanent funding bill and leave us with something even *MORE* watered down than they already put in there.

What should I ask my Senator to do; have it repealed? Make it tougher? I'm trying to figure out if I should write the Republican or the Democrat. What you think?

Make it tougher, or at least not allow any softening of the rules. Don't like the loophole for academic reduction of experience, as there's no LIMITS to how much "reduction" there can be - for all we know the FAA could cut it in HALF. They leave it completely up to the FAA, and we know how much of a help THEY have been in fixing the safety issues in our system... Not.

No one's mentioned the new investigation and upcoming rules on commuting. What will happen when they tell you all ya can't commute any more [because ya can't comply with the new rest rules]? Should be fun.

Won't happen. The airlines would melt down, at least until they hired more people. Too many pilots would say "I don't think so" and simply start calling in sick en masse every 3rd or 4th trip to get their days off back from having to commute in a day early for every trip.

I put my comments in the system (senate.gov) and ended up getting a phone call from my Senator several months ago on this issue - not just a staffer, my actual Senator - out of the blue, shocked the heck out of me.

I explained very clearly to him that unless they planed to buy us homes in our domicile equivalent to what we have where we live now (pretty expensive in NY, D.C., L.A., etc), pay our moving expenses, and buy our previous homes back at previous market values, that most pilots based in those major cities couldn't afford to be FORCED to live in their domiciles.

Furthermore, REQUIRING us to move would be essentially depriving us of our homes and forcing us into servitude, both of which are basically unconstitutional - forced relocations haven't worked out so well in this country.

I also explained to him what would happen if he made it to where pilots were forced to give up even MORE days away from home to commute to work early - they would demand it BACK from their employers in negotiations, thus dramatically increasing staffing costs at an airline, not to mention the huge number of sick calls. I even discussed my personal situation - having a child I share joint custody of here in Nashville. You can BET MONEY that I'm not going to give up my time with him, and there are thousands of other divorced dads in similar boats - we simply can't move.

If pilots have shown us one thing over the years, it's that they'll GET their days off back, one way or another. You can mess with a lot of things and a pilot will still peacefully come to work... even his pay... but mess with his days off dramatically,,, bad things happen.

 

[Lear70]

New rule 8 hours prior to duty assignment pilot must report to company barracks and be locked in a room to ensure you are resting.

No, that's just the YIP freight operators...