8 in 24 exemption by HAL

[inseattlewa]

Does anyone have any news on the proposed exemption that HAL management and the HAL MEC are working on relating to the 8 in 24 rule?? My limited understanding of it is that they are trying to get relief from the 8 hour flight time limitation (in 24) for 2 person crews. I believe they are thinking Mainland and back turns in their 767's. Is it me, or does this open up a huge, almighty, and ugly can of worms?

From the union's standpoint, they will be losing positions and they are already on schedule to furlough something like 90+ pilots. Someone help me out here! I don't see how this can be in any way positive!

Thoughts....

 

[FearlessFreep]

I don't know too much what the current internal machinations are at HAL. I have worked for a few companies in which any flights that departed CONUS locations to either Hawaii or Alaska were considered International flights and as such duty/flight time restrictions were for a maximum of 12 hours scheduled flight time.

Since that represents an increase of about 33% available flight time I am sure that management sees would see this as an opportunity to cut their operations cost. It's the old "do more with less" kind of thing. Of course this does not help any of us, and the fatigue factor will I am sure have a dramatic effect on operations.

 

[RUhiring?]

Flag Ops

Operations "Between any point withing the State of Alaska, Hawaii......and any point outside the same" are considered Flag operations.

The crew duty limitations for Flag operations allow for two pilot crews to be scheduled for more than 8 hours of duty, but they must have specific rest requirments.

The way I see it, the company could legally schedule their crews for more than 8 hours in a 24 hour period, but they are limited by a union contract. I would think that this is an entirely in house discussion.

From my point of view, you are correct, this can't be in any way positive.

 

[HAL]

Well, here it goes;

The exemption isn't something the airline can directly petition the FAA for. It must be done as a change to the FAR's, much like the allowance for pilots in Alaska to fly 500 hours in three months during the summer. It is done by having someone in Washington (i.e. Senator) work with the FAA to put out an NPRM for a rule change.

The change being asked for is to allow up to 12 hours of flying by a two man crew in Flag operations, if the trip begins and ends in the same time zone, with no more than two legs, and it is 'daylight' flying - meaning no red-eye or 'back of the clock' flying. Whoever is pushing the change must show an 'equivelent level of safety' in the new way of flying over the present rules.

This however, would NOT change the 7 day, monthly, or yearly totals allowed for two pilot crews in Flag flying. The company sees this as a way to improve efficiency, by figuring you do more flying in less days, so you have less chance of calling in sick (less exposure time). Also there's less per-diem pay, and no hotel bill. Aside from that, I'm not sure how much improvement in efficiency there is, because each individual pilot flies the same number of hours per month, so you don't need fewer pilots.

Many of the pilots on the west coast would like this to come about, because it would be like we were back on the DC-10: Work seven or eight days a month, and home every night. Also, the company has come to the union in the past few weeks requesting a closure of the LAX and SFO bases, leaving only SEA and HNL. Needless to say, the pilots on the west coast are doing almost anything they can to show the company it would be in their best interest to keep the bases open. Flying more efficently might be enough to allow LAX and SFO to remain. My own opinion doesn't count much here. I know a lot of people want it, and even though I remember getting pretty beat-up and tired flying turns on the DC-10, if it allows us to do more of the flying we want (from the bases we want), then so be it.


On a side note, 15 more furlough notices for May 1st went out last week, and the company advised another 23 are scheduled for June 1. That brings the total to 93. Another 10 or 15 may go after the summer as the busy season ends. None of this however includes new flying that is widely rumored to be coming. It would be long distance flying to Asia and the eastern US, requiring augmented crews (more pilots). At an estimated 22 to 24 pilots per announced city pair, it wouldn't take much in the way of new flying to get a lot of our people back in the air. Lets hope for a quick turnaround in the economy, and less tension in the world.

HAL

 

[Full of LUV]

No Problem, what???

The Navy doesn't have a problem sending a DC-9 (talk about staring at a gas guage) from San Diego to HNL and back in the same day. Used to do it quite a bit, and it blows!