Airlines say pilot fatigue rule would cost jobs

[BUDDHA145]

scare tactics!! Classic dark side..

 

[Smarta$$]

Wow, that article is complete made up bull crap.

 

[Jon Rivoli]

I'll spoon feed it to you. To comply would require hiring significantly more pilots, this would result in a cost structure that isn't viable. Therefore, instead of pilots being hired, schedules will be cut back, markets will get dropped, airplanes will get parked and pilots will be laid off.

Pretty simple. If the cost of compliance makes it uneconomic, air service will curtailed.

No contradiction at all.

Have a nice evening.

 

[On Your Six]

I'll spoon feed it to you. To comply would require hiring significantly more pilots, this would result in a cost structure that isn't viable. Therefore, instead of pilots being hired, schedules will be cut back, markets will get dropped, airplanes will get parked and pilots will be laid off.

Pretty simple. If the cost of compliance makes it uneconomic, air service will curtailed.

No contradiction at all.

What would happen to continuous duty overnights? I bet they would become illegal, which is a regional staple. This would create even more inefficiency within your airlines, and the number of legs per day might also be reduced, all in the name of safety. Hey, what about those proposed minimum hiring hours? Was it an ATP minimum, or 800 with an Embry Riddle degree? I hope that passes too, so those RJ captains don't have to be flight instructors for years...


Godspeed!


OYS

 

[On Your Six]

Double post.

Godspeed!

 

[Freebrd]

Double post.

Godspeed!

and you're a double putz GL/Oy-yo-yo

 

[pilotyip]

What would happen to continuous dutyI bet they would become illegal, which is a regional staple.

Yes the standup overnight may go away to be replaced by an 18 hour RON. Less flight hours per hours away from home base. More pilots to cover the same schedule, which means more cost for the same revenue. This result either higher tickets prices or elimination of service to the former stand-up over night location. The question is, will that market support the additional cost? At the regional level that would be determined by the major partner when determines if the feed from that location is worth the additional cost.

 

[Smarta$$]

I'll spoon feed it to you. To comply would require hiring significantly more pilots, this would result in a cost structure that isn't viable. Therefore, instead of pilots being hired, schedules will be cut back, markets will get dropped, airplanes will get parked and pilots will be laid off.

Pretty simple. If the cost of compliance makes it uneconomic, air service will curtailed.

No contradiction at all.

Have a nice evening.

Wrong. That is the over-simplified FOX news version. But, it has little to do with reality.

That article was nothing more than political opportunism trying to scare us with the "jobs" buzz word. The markets that are on the margins of being cut, will more than be offset by the increase in staffing required for the markets that are still served. Most major airlines will be affected very little, this burden will mostly be borne by regional airlines, which can use some of their guaranteed profit margin to cover the costs. U.S. pilots have the most inadequate rest regulations of almost any industrialized nation. They CAN afford this, and they must.

 

[pilotyip]

Wrong. That is the over-simplified FOX news version. But, it has little to do with reality. They CAN afford this, and they must.

The airlines and gov't do not decide what they can afford. The market and the consumers individual self-interest will dictate what can be afforded in the way of airline ticket prices. It is basic economics, if you raise the price of commodity to cover more pilots for the same flying, less people will purchase that commodity. With less people purchasing there is not as much demand for that commodity, therefore there will be fewer pilots.

 

[Smarta$$]

The airlines and gov't do not decide what they can afford. The market and the consumers individual self-interest will dictate what can be afforded in the way of airline ticket prices. It is basic economics, if you raise the price of commodity to cover more pilots for the same flying, less people will purchase that commodity. With less people purchasing there is not as much demand for that commodity, therefore there will be fewer pilots.

Sorry, the actual ticket cost will be very negligible. Very small amount of many, especially since most non-regional airlines aready use shorty duty periods with longer overnights.

Since the entire industry will be subject to the same rules, the consumer cannot choose an alternative carrier over $2. And the actual increase in costs will be so insignificant, it will have NO perceivable affect on bookings.

You can pedal your ATA and Rush L. bullcrap elsewhere.