Inhofe offers two amendments to faa reauthorization

[dontpost2]

It shouldn't be ABOUT YOU. Or your paycheck. What it right is right. This is the first time a scientifically based rest plan has been on the table. If it doesn't work then a change can be made, but if it doesn't pass this time it will be years or decades before it is considered again. If you have/get a trip rig then the paycheck will take care of itself. The increased cost will be equally passed on to the customers just as an increase in fuel.

Very well said. Excellent post.

 

[atpcliff]

The new Flt/Duty/Rest rules are VERY similar to the current CAA rules. Europe, and other CAA areas, have been using rules similar to our new ones for years.

 

[skypine69]

If you complain about the rest rules taking money out of your pockets then you are putting a price on safety....the same thing we get pissed at companies for doing.

 

[txpilottj]

It shouldn't be ABOUT YOU. Or your paycheck. What it right is right. This is the first time a scientifically based rest plan has been on the table. If it doesn't work then a change can be made, but if it doesn't pass this time it will be years or decades before it is considered again. If you have/get a trip rig then the paycheck will take care of itself. The increased cost will be equally passed on to the customers just as an increase in fuel.

No...it's not about me. I'm simply using examples to point out what the effects are going to be. We are ALL going to take it in the shorts. I'm concerned for ALL OF US cargo guys because I think this is the wrong way to go.

We do a different job than the passenger carriers. Our operation is completely different. Why should we be forced to accept rules designed in a knee-jerk reaction to a problem caused by people doing a different job?

Perhaps there was some science applied, but it was applied by people with a reactive agenda to one or two egregious situations....NOT the industry as a whole.

You say right is right...OK...explain to me why we need rules built this way? Explain why we shouldn't have rules tailored to protect us, but that also account for the differences in what we do? Right is right...tell me what's right about the current proposal, because I don't see much for us. There's plenty for the RJ crowd that started this mess in the first place, and rightfully so.

We DO need changes...I AGREE with that. I don't agree with THESE changes. And you're right...once this lands in our lap...its NOT going to change for a long time, whether it fits us or not. I want change, but I don't want the wrong changes.

Finally....trip/duty rig? Not everyone has that option available.....sucks, but it's a fact of life. After the beating our profession has taken since 9/11...do you still have that much faith in collective bargaining? Really?

 

[txpilottj]

If it has gone too far and needs to be adjusted, then they need to adjust it for all. Your body doesn't care what is in the back, what certificate you're on or what part your flying under. Pilots should be given proper rest using science, not money as a guideline.

If there was an exemption, do you really think they'd spend the time and money to figure out new rules for the cargo operations or do you think they'd just get the exemption and forget about it?

Cargo is getting the rest because the passenger carriers are getting it. No one cares about a couple of pilots sleeping their way into the ground with a load of Shrek dolls and Amazon orders. The move to make a change in the rest rules came about because they are afraid of riding a plane helplessly into the ground while their pilots are asleep.

Furthermore, trying to fragment our industry out is a bad, bad idea and a slippery slope that we should have learned our lessons from 10 times over by now.

Tell me why rules designed for us, that account for our needs AS WELL AS our safety are a bad idea? Come on.....let's get real. Yes a 12 hr nonstop is fatiguing....yes there should be adequate rest on the end of it. There's no question about that.

But....I say a 12 hr day in an RJ flying 5 or 6 approaches with no chance for rest and minimal time to eat is VERY DIFFERENT from 12 hrs in a 747-400 or MD-11 with an augmented crew, decent bunks and decent meals aboard. I've done BOTH....so I do have some room to comment here.

As I said previously, sure, some science was applied, but it was applied by people shooting at a different target. Just because someone waves a wand and declares it scientific doesn't mean it's right.

 

[dash8driver]

Tell me why rules designed for us, that account for our needs AS WELL AS our safety are a bad idea? Come on.....let's get real. Yes a 12 hr nonstop is fatiguing....yes there should be adequate rest on the end of it. There's no question about that.

But....I say a 12 hr day in an RJ flying 5 or 6 approaches with no chance for rest and minimal time to eat is VERY DIFFERENT from 12 hrs in a 747-400 or MD-11 with an augmented crew, decent bunks and decent meals aboard. I've done BOTH....so I do have some room to comment here.

As I said previously, sure, some science was applied, but it was applied by people shooting at a different target. Just because someone waves a wand and declares it scientific doesn't mean it's right.

You didn't even read what I wrote...

 

[pilotyip]

The same pay for less work.

how does that work, right now most of our pilots break guar, with the new rules they won't be able to as easily, so how to they make the same pay? Not to mention more days on the road in hotels

 

[dontpost2]

What is up with my fellow cargo guys here? For the life of me I cannot figure out why some think these rules shouldn't apply to supplemental carriers and were designed as a "knee jerk" reaction to problems at the passenger carriers. As professional pilots, fatigue is a problem for all of us. I believe cargo pilots will benefit more from this than anyone.
This isn't a problem specific to, and in reaction to, the Buffalo tragedy. This is a problem that started years ago with the crash of a supplemental cargo flight. Yes indeed, that would be Kalitta in Guantanamo. Incidentally, this was the first accident attributed to fatigue. Another crash around about that time attributed to fatigue was operated by another small supplemental by the name of ATI (Kansas City). This one is actually referenced in the NPRM were arguing about.
Some of you seem to be against it for the noble reason that it will hurt your paycheck or you might have to spend an extra day in a hotel. WTF?
Get off your butt and get a decent contract with the pay you deserve. Go for some duty rigs as well. How 'bout a provision to ferry the jet to a safe nearby island after dropping off the freight so I don't have to hear you whine about staying the extra day at the hotel in Lagos.
Spare me the bs about how the boss can't afford it, I just read about one operator who enjoyed a 102% increase in revenue and record profits last year. If you work for one of the smaller outfits the: we can't afford this crap wont work either. One small supplemental owner is building a luxury waterpark in Mcminnville OR. with a 747 on top.

 

[txpilottj]

You didn't even read what I wrote...

You didn't even answer my question.....

 

[stupidpilot]

I love this part of Inhofe's testimony:

A possible fourth incident report could be in the works: The FAA is looking into a landing that Inhofe made this month on a closed runway at the Port Isabel-Cameron County airport in Texas.

One of the key issues for the FAA is expected to be why Inhofe would land on a closed runway, where a crew had been working for several days, despite a Notice to Airmen, NOTAM for short, that the runway was closed.

Inhofe conceded that checking for a NOTAM about a closed runway "probably'' is "technically'' something a pilot should do.

"People who fly a lot just don't do it,'' he said.

Really? I've been flying for 20 years and I always check NOTAMS. I guess I don't fly a lot.

 

[Victor Meldrew]

The provision in Senator Inhofe’s amendment to the FAA Reauthorization Bill which would exempt supplemental carriers, operating under 121 subpart S, from proposed changes to flight, duty and rest regulations was withdrawn early this week.

 

[pilotman700]

Give us a new set of rules that fit what WE do, not some nitwits in an RJ or some turboprop.

Stay classy.

I guess you were a non-nitwit when you flew the SAAB and CRJ?

 

[pilotyip]

This isn't a problem specific to, and in reaction to, the Buffalo tragedy.

But these new rules would still have made that a legal flight. Being legally rested has nothing to do with being alert and capable of not flying when fatigued. There is no way anyone who lives on their days off on a 7AM to 11PM wake cycle with their family, can now pick up three nights of 11PM to 7AM flying and not be exhausted. I have been there and done that when I used to fly the Emery sort at KDAY, if you did not sleep in the cockpit, you did not survive. The biggest sham in Part 117, is no controlled napping ion the cockpit like some int’l air carriers. I am betting a result of this is going to be more time in hotels on the road in order to make guarantee.

 

[lionflyer]

how does that work, right now most of our pilots break guar, with the new rules they won't be able to as easily, so how to they make the same pay? Not to mention more days on the road in hotels

I'm refering to longhaul ops. The new rules would require more heavy or double crews for many flights especially night flights. Right now a single crew on a classic 747 can fly up to 12 hrs. That same flight under the proposed rules will require more crewmembers. All those crewmembers will get paid 12hrs but only operate for a portion of that and hit the bunk (or watch porn etc) for the other portion. Hence, the same pay for less "work". I'm for the new rules because I pesonally don't like flying over 70hrs/mo and I would like live a few years beyond 60. I know they're guys on here that will disagree with me because they like busting their butts and getting their 150hr credit and that's fine. I've done the brutal days and something needs to change. After about 13-14hrs on duty, you start going downhill quick.

 

[OrionFE]

I do believe that rules need to be changed. Companies should never be allowed to put a crew in a position where they have to "call fatigue". I also believe that Supplementals should not be stamped with the same cookie cutter as sheduled carriers.
However, with all due respect Lion, do you honestly think monthly pay guarantees will not be whittled down as a result. Even with today's (temporary, since the industry is cyclical) "hand-over-fist" income, how can companies afford to effectively double current staffing with their current revenue, yet continue to pay 60 to 70 hour guarantees, especially if crews are only allowed to fly maybe 40 hours under the new regulation?

You really need to look at the whole effect. This won't be a good deal for any of our paychecks.

On the bright side, we'll be well rested for our side jobs!

You hit the nail on the head! Next will be two to a room, because the hotels will be full with all the well rested crews that are flying <40 hours/month!

 

[HA25]

I do believe that rules need to be changed. Companies should never be allowed to put a crew in a position where they have to "call fatigue". I also believe that Supplementals should not be stamped with the same cookie cutter as sheduled carriers.
However, with all due respect Lion, do you honestly think monthly pay guarantees will not be whittled down as a result. Even with today's (temporary, since the industry is cyclical) "hand-over-fist" income, how can companies afford to effectively double current staffing with their current revenue, yet continue to pay 60 to 70 hour guarantees, especially if crews are only allowed to fly maybe 40 hours under the new regulation?

You really need to look at the whole effect. This won't be a good deal for any of our paychecks.

On the bright side, we'll be well rested for our side jobs!

it's really simple actually. Since they ALL have to comply by the same rules, they'll ALL experience the same additional costs and pass those on to their customers who will in turn bare them. That's how.

 

[hkgorbust]

it's really simple actually. Since they ALL have to comply by the same rules, they'll ALL experience the same additional costs and pass those on to their customers who will in turn bare them. That's how.

WOW! That is simple.
You must have an "Easy" button.
There is NO simple solution to ANY complex problem. This, my friend, is more complex than you may realize.
Maybe you can balance the Federal budget too. And then you can solve world hunger, and then institute world peace while you're at it.

 

[HA25]

WOW! That is simple.
You must have an "Easy" button.
There is NO simple solution to ANY complex problem. This, my friend, is more complex than you may realize.
Maybe you can balance the Federal budget too. And then you can solve world hunger, and then institute world peace while you're at it.

I have an engineering degree from Stanford.. I can "grasp" what ever you like... explain to me how the cost wouldn't be passed on? There aren't any mechanisms to allow non-US based competitors, and even if there was, ICAO will pick up on this very soon. Furthermore, the nature of the work is such that the rules effect everyone equally, so there is no competitive advantage to anyone. Finally, there is (last time I checked) no other way to get something from A to B fast. So how do we as pilots lose in this again?*

*Note, I didn't say there weren't costs, just that they will have no effect on us with the shift in supply and demand for pilot labor that will occur. Between age 65 sunset, work rules, and 1500(ATP) mins to work... we now have the ball in our court, and you want to pass it to their point guard?

 

[pilotyip]

it's really simple actually. Since they ALL have to comply by the same rules, they'll ALL experience the same additional costs and pass those on to their customers who will in turn bare them. That's how.

This normally results in fewer customers. The market and individual self-interest will dictate what usage should be. It is basic economics, if you raise the price of commodity, less people will purchase that commodity. With less people purchasing there is not as much demand for that commodity, therefore there will be fewer, but better rested pilots.

 

[HA25]

This normally results in fewer customers. The market and individual self-interest will dictate what usage should be. It is basic economics, if you raise the price of commodity, less people will purchase that commodity. With less people purchasing there is not as much demand for that commodity, therefore there will be fewer, but better rested pilots.

look up elastic and inelastic demand and get back to me..

 

[HA25]

oh.... and as an aside, if I have to chose between more pilots making less money and working their a$$ off... vs less pilots making more money and being rested, I'd take the latter. However I don't have to worry about that since I'm sure unit labor costs will go up for pilots, even if these rules don't come into effect. Age 65 alone will assure that.. much less 1500 & ATP to drop gear on an RJ.. How many guys will have the money to pay their way to 1500 hours in order to go make $14K/yr? not too many I'm sure.

 

[tailwindz]

To the OMG the sky is falling crowd:

You guys would like to keep the existing regulations so that you can WHORE out yourselves for the coin. That is you have to do so to makeup for the financial situation you find yourself in, or is it just because you want too? All the while you expect me (or whomever) to sit next to you and do your job while you sit and sleep or vegetate in your seat. Don't make your problem, mine.

For the Supplemental operators, I think the least effect will be on the 74 cargo operators. It will mean more heavy crewing, but I think that will make trip rigs a priority for those that do not have them, thus again leveling the field. The biggest effect is going to be on the passenger operators, especially the narrow body ones. It will remove alot of floor space to create Class 1 rest facilities.

"Class 1 rest facility: a bunk or other surface that allows for a flat sleeping
position, is separated from both the flight deck and passenger cabin to provide
isolation from noise and disturbance and provides controls for light and​

temperature."

The added cost of crewing will just be passed on to the customer as an operational cost just like fuel. Adding say even $350 per hour to a 747 crew cost is not near as much as fuel price increase. Do the math.

As for cargo demand, it either has to be there ASAP or it can take the slow boat. Heavy crews alone will not make the switch.

Maximum Flight Duty Period (hours and minutes) based
on
Rest Facility and Number of Pilots
Class 1 Rest
Facility
Time of
Start
(Home
Base)
3 Pilots 4 Pilots
0000-0559 13:50 16:05
0600-0659 15:10 17:40
0700-1259 16:30 19:20
1300-1659 15:10 17:40​

1700-2359 13:50 16:05

So, really? The sky is falling? IMHO, I think not.

 

[HA25]

Every company's got 'em.... most of the time their the rough around the edge type, maybe a former trucker, or cop... they're now a big airline pilot and they whore out for the OT like nobody's business.. Wish we still had real unions in this country, the type with thugs who pay you a visit with baseball bats.

 

[pilotyip]

Does this help?

look up elastic and inelastic demand and get back to me..

Elasticity: The degree to which a demand or supply curve reacts to a change in price is the curve's elasticity. Elasticity varies among products because some products may be more essential to the consumer.

Elastic Demand: As an example, if a 2% increase in price resulted in a 1% decrease in quantity demanded, the price elasticity of demand would be equal to approximately 0.5. It is not exactly 0.5 because of the specific definition for elasticity uses the average of the initial and final values when calculating percentage change. When the elasticity is calculated over a certain arc or section of the demand curve, it is referred to as the arc elasticity and is defined as the magnitude (absolute value)

Inelastic Demand: Products that are necessities are more insensitive to price changes because consumers would continue buying these products despite price increases.

 

[HA25]

Inelastic Demand: Products that are necessities are more insensitive to price changes because consumers would continue buying these products despite price increases.

So...

With regards to air commerce, the moving of air freight, whether for AMC, the Chinese, the Arabs or otherwise falls in this area. It is macro economically dependent, but not in and of itself a factor of the business cycle; rather it's driven by it. Moving Business travelers (the only profitable segment of airline travel) is also dependent on the business cycle and not a factor in the demand curve (to the chagrin of all those on-line business meeting companies). So, the only segment that could be argued to be "Elastic" is personal/vacation or recreational travel... and thanks to Priceline.com, Travelocity, et al, that's been the bane of every non-rev airline employee and for all I care .. good riddance!

In the end, pilot labor is insignificant as a cost, compared to the capital costs and fuel costs of running an airline... however, what managers love is that labor costs are flexible (thus why we have unions)... but when you drive a regulatory wedge into the mix... that flexibility is reduced in favor of labor.. squeezing the manager's profits, and their bonus.

 

[tailwindz]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ THE LAST WORD "Bonus"

And there in lies the real problem.

 

[atpcliff]

RH: What is the general plan for the company? How many more pilots, %age wise, will they need?

I hope the transition ends well for u guys!

cliff
LUX

 

[pilotyip]

RH: What is the general plan for the company? How many more pilots, %age wise, will they need?

I hope the transition ends well for u guys!

cliff
LUX

This is no problem on the pax side we meet everything in spades, but cargo side is a new ball game. We hope the US will go like EU, Night time Jet curfew, no jet T/O or Land between 2300L and 0700L, makes crew rest management easy. Looking at a lot of options, like going out of business ha ha!, no fly between 0000 and 0800, having a crew come in every 2 hours stand hot crew for 6 hours, go into 8 hours of rest come back for another 6 hours of hot crew, moving to Canada, having crews in LRD that stand hor crew for six hours. Means more time on the road, less money much harder to rank up 100 hour months. The guys on this kind of schedule will be as fatiqued as anyone flying today, but they will be full legal. This assumes that the final ruling is as it stands now, but legally rested has nothing to do with being alert and capable of not flying when fatigued. There is no way anyone who lives on their days off on a 7AM to 11PM wake cycle with their family, can now pick up three night of 11PM to 7AM flying and not be exhausted. If you did not sleep in the cockpit, you did not survive. The biggest sham in Part 117, is no controlled napping ion the cockpit like some Int’l air carriers

 

[pilotyip]

RH: What is the general plan for the company? How many more pilots, %age wise, will they need?

I hope the transition ends well for u guys!

cliff
LUX

we hope the US will go like EU, Night time Jet curfew, no jet T/O or Land between 2300L and 0700L, makes crew rest management easy. Looking at a lot of options, like going out of business ha ha!, no fly between 0000 and 0800, having a crew come in every 2 hours stand hot crew for 6 hours, go into 8 hours of rest come back for another 6 hours of hot crew, moving to Canada, having crews in LRD that stand hor crew for six hours. Means more time on the road, less money much harder to rank up 100 hour months. The guys on this kind of schedule will be as fatiqued as anyone flying today, but they will be full legal. This assumes that the final ruling is as it stands now, but legally rested has nothing to do with being alert and capable of not flying when fatigued. There is no way anyone who lives on their days off on a 7AM to 11PM wake cycle with their family, can now pick up three night of 11PM to 7AM flying and not be exhausted. If you did not sleep in the cockpit, you did not survive. The biggest sham in Part 117, is no controlled napping ion the cockpit like some Int’l air carriers BTW There nothing here that is company policy, I am not even slightly involved in anything to do with a solution, this is just open chat between a couple old flyin buddies shooting the shut.

 

[atpcliff]

It WILL be interesting, that's for sure!

AA is saying they will need 2300 if the new rules go into effect, and DAL about 500. I heard before CAL would need something like 1300 more.