ALPA FT/DT Recommendations - WRITE ALPA NOW!

WolfManPack

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 24, 2004
Posts
86
Total Time
5000+
Please join me in opposing the proposal from ALPA on the Flight Time / Duty Time proposal. Write ALPA at communications@alpa.org

See my e-mail to them below:

To Whom It May Concern:

I find it incredible that ALPA, an association that is supposed to represent the
interests of its members and keep their safety in mind at all times, has proposed increasing
the amount of flight time from 8 hours to 9 hours.

This is yet another example of how out of touch the Association is with its membership.
First it was the Age 60 rule change and now this. In an effort to reduce pilot fatigue,
ALPA has proposed flying longer hours in the air without supplemental crew.

With a supplemental crew, anything above 7 hours gets my support but increasing the
amount of flight time without supplemental crew is simply unacceptable.

Again the membership was ignored in a career changing process. No polls were taken no
feedback garnered other than hand-picked representatives that are known to have advocated
contract concessions, etc.

When will my union begin to stand up for safety instead of its own, selfish motives?

Concerned,

Brad Day
ALPA # 243699
 

sweptback

Guess that wasn't solid
Joined
Sep 18, 2003
Posts
1,876
Total Time
.
I don't get pilots.

Some were complaining that the new FTDT rules would lead to more days of work and less days at home. Now we're up in arms that we're being asked to work one more hour of block, only during a period of 6 hours when the human body is at its most alert state, and we're complaining?

These FTDT rules weren't pulled out of somebody's rear end. They're based on all the heaps of fatigue research over the last 50 years. We all knew that we would win some and lose some, because you can't cherry-pick what research you want to follow and be credible at the same time.

Have you looked at the industry's proposal at all? It's linked in the ALPA email. If you really want to see the screwjob that could happen, read that. How about flying for 12.5 hours of duty, with no set flight time limit, and then having a 10 hour overnight reduced to 9? That's what you should be lobbying against.
 

WolfManPack

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 24, 2004
Posts
86
Total Time
5000+
I understand there are some like you, that believe productivity should trump any concern with safety and fatigue. But, just to let you know, most pilots would rather be safe than productive.

I've flown the trans-cons. I've flown 8 hours a day with multiple legs a day. I know that flying 8 hours in one day without suplemental crew is NOT safe. You know if you had to do that just once a week, it might be different. But you don't just fly one, 9 hour day a week.

Again, let me reiterate, if they want to fly us up to 9 or 10 hour a day WITH suplemental crew, then by all means let's explore that. But just two pilots flying any more than 6 or 7 hour a day is NOT safe. I don't care what you say!

For those of you interested in protecting safety in aviation and stopping the continued downward spiral of our profession, write ALPA, write you congressmen and do it now.



I don't get pilots.

Some were complaining that the new FTDT rules would lead to more days of work and less days at home. Now we're up in arms that we're being asked to work one more hour of block, only during a period of 6 hours when the human body is at its most alert state, and we're complaining?

These FTDT rules weren't pulled out of somebody's rear end. They're based on all the heaps of fatigue research over the last 50 years. We all knew that we would win some and lose some, because you can't cherry-pick what research you want to follow and be credible at the same time.

Have you looked at the industry's proposal at all? It's linked in the ALPA email. If you really want to see the screwjob that could happen, read that. How about flying for 12.5 hours of duty, with no set flight time limit, and then having a 10 hour overnight reduced to 9? That's what you should be lobbying against.
 

spanishfly

New member
Joined
Apr 12, 2004
Posts
1
Total Time
6500
WolfManPack, who are you to say it is not safe. You have no idea what you are talking about.
 

Max Powers

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 26, 2005
Posts
1,136
Total Time
9000+
Wolfpack reminds me of the tea beggars or as they like to be called TEA party members. Afraid of change and seeing any new ideas and reasons only in the form of absolutes.
 

ThisistheDream

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 18, 2004
Posts
293
Total Time
99
If the FAA increases the max flt hours to 9 and reduces the max duty from 16 hrs to maybe 14 or even 12.5 I dont see any relief on fatigue. Most airlines have a max duty day to be scheduled around 13 or 14 hrs MAX any way with the contract so you will still get shecduled 12hr and 59 min duty days with and extra leg or 8.5 or 9 hours of flying vs 8hrs.
 

PCL_128

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2002
Posts
15,296
Total Time
5000+
I think ALPA's proposal is excellent. Flying up to 9 hours of duty, only during peak circadian rhythm, and limiting the duty day, is a wonderful solution. It increases allowable productivity (pay) while not sacrificing safety in the slightest. In fact, it increases safety because the duty day is reduced and the 16-hour Whitlow limit is replaced with a stricter standard. Good all around.

I swear, some pilots will find a way to bitch about anything.
 

FDJ2

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 9, 2003
Posts
3,908
Total Time
10000+
Please join me in opposing the proposal from ALPA on the Flight Time / Duty Time proposal.
Wolf, I think if you look at the proposal as a whole it is much more restrictive and based on science. With the exception of allowing 9 hours of flight time for pilots who report from 0700-1259, this is more restrictive.
 

PeanuckleCRJ

Hurrrrrrrr
Joined
Jul 21, 2004
Posts
1,684
Total Time
mucho
If the FAA increases the max flt hours to 9 and reduces the max duty from 16 hrs to maybe 14 or even 12.5 I dont see any relief on fatigue. Most airlines have a max duty day to be scheduled around 13 or 14 hrs MAX any way with the contract so you will still get shecduled 12hr and 59 min duty days with and extra leg or 8.5 or 9 hours of flying vs 8hrs.

For those of us that work at legacies and majors, you are probably correct. This is directed at the regionals who regularly schedule their pilots to 13 or 14 out of the box...then with delays get to 16.
 

Dizel8

Douglas metal
Joined
Feb 27, 2003
Posts
2,817
Total Time
Huh?
I have no problem with going to 9 hrs of flying if duty period is reduced as proposed, it isn't the flying that makes me tired, it is the 2-3 hours breaks in the middle that does, in addition, I think if allowances are made with respect to number of landings, that will to add to less fattigue and it will prevent the commuters from running their pilot to hard.
 

WolfManPack

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 24, 2004
Posts
86
Total Time
5000+
I'm pretty sure you wouldn't say that to a "Tea Baggers" face would you. If so give me a call so we can meet somewhere you ***********************************!


Wolfpack reminds me of the tea beggars or as they like to be called TEA party members. Afraid of change and seeing any new ideas and reasons only in the form of absolutes.
 

SLUF4

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2005
Posts
1,122
Total Time
7000
How will reserve duty be figured into this? They didn't say much about it in the email.
 

DX Rick

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 6, 2004
Posts
1,622
Total Time
19.7
Have you ever known ALPA National to get anything in return without giving away the whole farm first?
 

atpcliff

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 26, 2001
Posts
4,260
Total Time
6000
Hi!

I hope they make some reserve rules.

It sucks to do 250 hours of consecutive reserve duty, and then be called at 0200 for a 16+ duty day!

cliff
NBO
 

atpcliff

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 26, 2001
Posts
4,260
Total Time
6000
And, two 5 hour transcon legs, in a 12 hour duty day, is MUCH less tiring than doing 7+45, with 7 legs in a 16+ hour duty day.
 

Bringupthebird

Grumpy? Who-Me?
Joined
Feb 7, 2006
Posts
2,182
Total Time
16120
Wolfpack reminds me of the tea beggars or as they like to be called TEA party members. Afraid of change and seeing any new ideas and reasons only in the form of absolutes.
Yah, mein Furher. How is repeating thew same failed mistakes of the 1930's considered "change"? Why not seek improvement?

"Palin in '12. Keep the Change!"
 

quinnlake

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 18, 2005
Posts
101
Total Time
3000
Yah, mein Furher. How is repeating thew same failed mistakes of the 1930's considered "change"? Why not seek improvement?

"Palin in '12. Keep the Change!"
This is improvement! Look at the proposed duty tiimes in total.
 

spitfire1500

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 8, 2005
Posts
835
Total Time
Enough
I think ALPA's proposal is excellent. Flying up to 9 hours of duty, only during peak circadian rhythm, and limiting the duty day, is a wonderful solution. It increases allowable productivity (pay) while not sacrificing safety in the slightest. In fact, it increases safety because the duty day is reduced and the 16-hour Whitlow limit is replaced with a stricter standard. Good all around.

I swear, some pilots will find a way to bitch about anything.
"Peak Circadian rhythm" they vary with time zone and flight schedule. You fly to Osan Japan then do some domestic and try to figure out when your going to "peak".
 

PCL_128

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2002
Posts
15,296
Total Time
5000+
"Peak Circadian rhythm" they vary with time zone and flight schedule. You fly to Osan Japan then do some domestic and try to figure out when your going to "peak".
ALPA's proposal is based on your domicile time zone.
 

PUCK

Active member
Joined
Aug 18, 2006
Posts
25
Total Time
~6200
It was my understanding, talking to our union medical guy, that the 9 hours of flight is a hard time. Meaning no more of this "good-to-start-good-to-finish" crap. I'm 100% OK with that.

Lets be productive within the constraints of a lower duty period.

Jerry Bartelson
 
Last edited:
Top