Inhofe offers two amendments to faa reauthorization

[txpilottj]

The current supplemental rules are the only thing that allows us to be make money and be home after a trip! Sure the 11pm trips from Detroit to Toluca are brutal but at least they allow us to fly 91back to the states and to a decent hotel, and the heavy crews make it possible to do the far-reaching out and backs. Far from perfect, but the original proposed rules would kill on demand freight imho.

I agree....IMHO, the current proposals are aimed straight at the regionals. There is very little accommodation for the long-haul freight world, nor the on-demand guys.

The proposed rules simply aren't realistic for long-haul freight, and it WILL take money out of our pockets. Sure, it will generate more hiring, but less work for the same pay? Really? If you honestly believe that, I've got a great deal on a bridge for you......

I agree changes need to be made, but allowances need to be made for different industry segments with different operations.

One size does not and can not fit all.

 

[Hamburger]

Well Sen Inhofe with his 10,000+ hours should get a job with one of these carriers, fly the backside of the clock, numerous time zone changes, min rest's all over the world and see exactly why he is talking out the top of his head!!

Or at least make him travel exclusively on such flights.

 

[FearlessFreep]

I agree changes need to be made, but allowances need to be made for different industry segments with different operations.

Exactly!

In the text of the NPRM it specifically stated that the onerous implementation of these regulations to some companies (read nonsked) operations would create fiscal hardships to the point that smaller companies would cease to exist. Instead of creating a subset of regulations that would be applicable to other operations the government just figured they would adapt the "one size fits all" policy. The government's position is that if it eradicates the smaller carriers, so be it. That would mean less companies for the FAA to police. In the NPRM it was categorized as acceptable losses. It just illustrates how willing the government is to regulate our jobs out of existence and further foster outsourcing.

The current non sked regulations are pretty harsh. They need to be changed. This NPRM is NOT what is needed.

 

[spitfire1500]

Anyone that thinks it's safe for a pilot to sit in a seat for 12 hours at a time because there is an FE on board is F'in nuts!!!

 

[skypine69]

So being tired and unsafe is OK if you work for a small enough airline?

 

[lionflyer]

I agree....IMHO, the current proposals are aimed straight at the regionals. There is very little accommodation for the long-haul freight world, nor the on-demand guys.

The proposed rules simply aren't realistic for long-haul freight, and it WILL take money out of our pockets. Sure, it will generate more hiring, but less work for the same pay? Really? If you honestly believe that, I've got a great deal on a bridge for you......

I agree changes need to be made, but allowances need to be made for different industry segments with different operations.

One size does not and can not fit all.

Well what bridge are we talking about here? When I say the same pay for less work I'm refering having more crews on board for say... Hong Kong to Anchorage. Instead of a single crew flying the 10-12hr haul, one crew would fly half the segment while the other "sleeps". You still get paid for the all flight time but only fly half. I know it's definitly gonna hit the bottom line. I would be happy with 10hrs flight/14hrs duty doesn't matter when duty starts. Oh yeah, Part 91's, get rid of em.

 

[txpilottj]

Well what bridge are we talking about here? When I say the same pay for less work I'm refering having more crews on board for say... Hong Kong to Anchorage. Instead of a single crew flying the 10-12hr haul, one crew would fly half the segment while the other "sleeps". You still get paid for the all flight time but only fly half. I know it's definitly gonna hit the bottom line. I would be happy with 10hrs flight/14hrs duty doesn't matter when duty starts. Oh yeah, Part 91's, get rid of em.

OK great....double crew everything....sounds great at first but you still have the timezone based rest requirements to deal with that will keep you sitting for extended periods, sometimes in places you really don't want to be in(think Lagos, Nairobi, Karachi, Kabul, etc).

Not only that, but if you start double crewing everything, now its that much harder for everyone to get their landings and maintain currency.
Don't forget, you're going to spend a lot more time sitting around so that means fewer legs per month. Combine that with lots of double crews and maintaining currency becomes very difficult. Maybe you like going to the sim constantly.....I'd say most of us don't relish that little task.

What's so bad about 12 hrs flight with an augmented(3 man) crew? I'm on the 747-400. On a 12 hr flight....everybody gets 4 hours rest with a pretty nice bunkroom right off the cockpit.

I say 12 hrs flight/16 duty with limited reference to start time, but the current proposal to tie it to your home timezone is utterly impractical. I do agree with getting rid of tail-end 91s.

Long-haul flying isn't for everyone....those who can't handle it should probably stick to domestic hub turns.

 

[Nevergreen]

What's so bad about 12 hrs flight with an augmented(3 man) crew? I'm on the 747-400. On a 12 hr flight....everybody gets 4 hours rest with a pretty nice bunkroom right off the cockpit.


Long-haul flying isn't for everyone....those who can't handle it should probably stick to domestic hub turns.

What's wrong with it......I fly the 747 Classic. We have 20 PLUS hour days on occasion, WITH NO BUNKS. We have a 3 man crew (the FE counts as the third man), so flight time up to 12 hours. On my plane nobody gets 4 hours of rest, nobody gets any real rest, period.

Do you think that is safe? I can tell you that it is not. Even if you are able to sleep right up to the wake up call, that still means you are awake for 20 something hours before you have to shoot an approach in crap weather, in a 35 year old aircraft.

The time has come for real FT/DT Rules that are based on science. If a supplemental carrier can't afford to stay in business then so be it. They should not continue in business at the expense of the health and lives of the crews.

 

[txpilottj]

What's wrong with it......I fly the 747 Classic. We have 20 PLUS hour days on occasion, WITH NO BUNKS. We have a 3 man crew (the FE counts as the third man), so flight time up to 12 hours. On my plane nobody gets 4 hours of rest, nobody gets any real rest, period.

I flew 747 classics too bro....been there done that. I guess what I was getting at is for extended flight times, there needs to be an acceptable rest facility on board(NOT some sleeping bag concoction!) and augmented crews...so even on your airplane, the regs should require bunks and a third pilot(NOT FE!)

 

[thunderworm]

I fly for a supp. but we are contracted to do another airlines flying. so it is all basically scheduled domestic flying but since it is under our supp. certificate then we don't get the same rest rules as the domestic airlines. Thats not right. I regually do 15 hr days back to back for 5-6 days in a row. I can tell you that it is exhausting and the fatigue word is not used at our company. sure the new rules will hurt the companies bottom line, but it is the companies duty to bid the contracts as such and the customer might have to pay more than $59 to go across the country. If the new rules do not affect the supps. then why wouldn't more airlines sub service out to a supp. that can do it for half as much? everyone flys the same equipment so they should all have the same rules.