Could new work and duty rules bump the need for pilots?

[lionflyer]

They could try...

Don't think it would get them very far. Shutting off CASS and revoking pass benefits is akin to "cutting off your nose to spite your face". You're saying they'd DELIBERATELY cut off 70% of their pilot force from being able to get to work?

No other way to say it, after 17+ years in the business, I completely disagree with you.

Sorry Lear, but I disagree with you. I've seen companies "cut off thier nose" to keep labor in check. Delta/Comair 2001 comes to mind. How much did that cost them again? If you think you'll get more days off and more pay because these new rules might conflict with your CBA, you're dreaming. And yes, trying to make pilots live in domicile will cause a backlash unlike anyone has ever seen (many flights X'ld). In my 12 yrs experience at more than one airline i've learned this: Management does not give up even the simplest of things with out a huge fight.

 

[wms]

My fear is that this will mean more days at work with less pay. I'm sure management is already thinking of ways to screw over the pilots with this.

Bingo. A dark lining around a silver cloud.

 

[wms]

Sorry Lear, but I disagree with you. I've seen companies "cut off thier nose" to keep labor in check. Delta/Comair 2001 comes to mind. How much did that cost them again? If you think you'll get more days off and more pay because these new rules might conflict with your CBA, you're dreaming. And yes, trying to make pilots live in domicile will cause a backlash unlike anyone has ever seen (many flights X'ld). In my 12 yrs experience at more than one airline i've learned this: Management does not give up even the simplest of things with out a huge fight.

Back then airlines had money to burn, they're in a tougher situation now.

They might be able to curtail commuting, but I already know pilots who are driving 4-5 hours to work because commuting has gotten so tough. They won't be able to end commuting, they'll just change the way pilots do it, and crews won't be any more rested.

 

[maxcackel]

Good luck requiring thousands of people to move to base. I could not sell my house due to it being worth less now than I paid for it. I want to sell now but no way to come up with the difference. Pay for two homes to work at a regional? I don't think so.

 

[B-atch]

Gate way basing. You start your trip out of your hometown airport. The fractionals and most supplemental air carriers do this, and it seems to work.
If commuting rules are implemented in such a way as to increase time away from home, I predict many pilots will seek other careers. Including myself.

 

[CFI2766]

Gate way basing. You start your trip out of your hometown airport. The fractionals and most supplemental air carriers do this, and it seems to work.
If commuting rules are implemented in such a way as to increase time away from home, I predict many pilots will seek other careers. Including myself.

There just isn't any easy solution for this.

If the airlines are forced to eat higher labor costs, tickets will become more expensive. More expensive tickets mean that there will be less of a demand for pilots, eventually.

There are many possible outcomes to this initiative, but all of them have downsides for pilots as well as benefits.

 

[pilotyip]

Nice touch of reality

There just isn't any easy solution for this.

If the airlines are forced to eat higher labor costs, tickets will become more expensive. More expensive tickets mean that there will be less of a demand for pilots, eventually.

There are many possible outcomes to this initiative, but all of them have downsides for pilots as well as benefits.

Again a recognition that there are down sides as well as up sides

 

[Smarta$$]

Simple answer. Same airline revenue ='s more pilots at less pay. Increased ticket prices to pay for more pilots ='s fewer riders, fewer trips, and fewer pilots at the same pay.

OR less money to share holders and EXECUTIVES to pay us what we are worth.

 

[Lampshade]

In base requirement will never fly maybe a in network requirement so that airlines can keep better track of the commuting. But realistically nothing is going to happen maybe more emphasis on the pilots to self policing rest.

 

[pilotyip]

down side

OR less money to share holders and EXECUTIVES to pay us what we are worth.

Who would invest money in business that does give them a return? How would an airline rasie money to buy airplanes and create jobs? The consumer determines what you are worth by buying tickets on your airline. If your ticket prices are higher than another airline, they will purchase the other airlines tickets. I saw an article in ATW in 2001 that stated at DAL there were 17 members of top management made more than the top DAL Captain. The combined top 17 salaries equaled less than 1/6 of 1% of the combined pilot salaries. If top 17 managers worked for free all pilots in the company would get a 1/10 of 1% raise. (for a $100K per year pilot that would be $3/wk increase in take home) Boy that raise would really make the pilot group happy. Top management possesses skills that allow them to move from job to job and command high salaries. And every one of these managers wants to see his/her airline prosper. They just can not do it.

 

[JustaNumber]

You'll see a very large backlash from the commuters, and it may have a very nasty side-effect for the airlines.

Most contracts have a "minimum day off" stipulation. If a commuting day would now count towards duty time, it's not a day off. Remember, Duty or "on call" is not rest - Whitlow interpretation. Therefore, a day off is ONLY one on which you did not fly OR commute, if commuting is now counted as duty.

So what happens to the guy who holds a 14 day off line, 16 days on, 4 4-day trips, uncommutable on BOTH sides for this rule? He just got chopped to 6 days off. Oh,,, wait,,, contract says 12 calendar days off minimum for lineholders.

2 choices: build all trips commutable, or remove me from one of my 4-days and pay protect me to bring me back up to 12 days off minimum. HUGE increase in staffing levels required.

Remember what I said in a thread a few months ago... EVERY SINGLE TIME you change a reg, there's fallout about 3 or 4 levels deep that NO ONE thought of when creating/modifying the reg.

One workaround could be classifying "commute time" as a separate entity that is neither duty time nor rest time. (Similar to "on call" time: neither "duty" nor "rest"). The reg could be a simple update to the Whitlow Letter, saying that at any given moment, you must be able to look back 24 hours and find 9 hours of rest (or hopefully more) that are free from all "duty," "on call," AND "commute" time. But "commute time" could still occur on an off day. The definition of an "off day" would not change: a day free of all duty or obligation to the company (i.e. "on call" time). Hard to argue with that, since pilots are currently okay with commuting on an off day.

 

[JustaNumber]

Simple answer. Same airline revenue ='s more pilots at less pay. Increased ticket prices to pay for more pilots ='s fewer riders, fewer trips, and fewer pilots at the same pay.

I'm not saying you're incorrect, I'm just trying to follow the circular logic of your second theorem. Let's say it's true; management is not stupid, so instead of hiring and then later firing more pilots, they just sit tight. As the new rest rules are implemented, they simply cancel the flights they can't cover. I assume it would be a significant number of flights.

Now in the public's perception, there are far fewer seats available, and the value of that commodity would naturally rise. For simplicity's sake, let's say the number of flights is cut in half, and the price of a seat doubles. Therefore the airline sees the same amount of revenue. Pilot gross pay remains the same for less work. The airline also sees another upside, in that they can eliminate additional unnecessary overhead. One could possibly say, "Mission Accomplished."

The downsides would be, that overhead would include mechanics' and gate agents' jobs, and it wouldn't be such a good deal for the consumer. (Of course we would be less likely to kill them, which is a plus).

As someone already said, there would certainly be far-reaching consequences that would be difficult to predict. That's not to say that revising the rest and duty rules in accordance with the actual scientific limitations of the human body is not the morally correct thing to do.