Inhofe offers two amendments to faa reauthorization

[HA25]

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.

Music to my ears.....

 

[txpilottj]

Stay classy.

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

Give it a rest.

I'm in a good mood today so I'll get the Crayola's out & help you color it all in....

A minute or 2 of thought and you would figure out the reference to the 2 REGIONAL accidents that started this whole mess. Both crews in those incidents have been called a whole lot worse by a whole lot more people on here than me, so you stay classy there chief.

 

[txpilottj]

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. 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.


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.

You're obviously referring to my comments. Normally I let blatant ignorance slide, but today I can't resist.

If you stop looking for a way to get out of work long enough to actually READ what I've said several times, you'd see that I've said I AGREE THERE NEED TO BE CHANGES.

Tell me how that statement in any way means "Keep the current rules"?

You still can't answer my basic question in this....What is so bad about Supplemental operations being governed by rules that STILL PROTECT US, STILL GIVE US ADEQUATE REST, BUT AREN'T DEVELOPED FOR A DIFFERENT TYPE OF FLYING???? Rules that require rest facilities for airplanes that don't have them....I could go on.

We're beating a dead horse here anyway because the amendment has been pulled.

When all this happens and you get what you THINK you want, I'm really looking forward to 12 hours of listening all the bitching and moaning about getting stuck in Lagos(or worse) or losing a trip(oh wait I forgot you're too lazy to care).

THAT might put me to sleep faster than anything else.....

 

[HA25]

there's nothing worse than an RJ pilot getting to fly a 747 for RJ wages telling the rest of us how we should get paid, how hard we should work and under what rules... Major case of SJS there mac?

Just leave it to the experts please... "One level of safety" IS the mantra.

 

[txpilottj]

there's nothing worse than an RJ pilot getting to fly a 747 for RJ wages telling the rest of us how we should get paid, how hard we should work and under what rules... Major case of SJS there mac?

Just leave it to the experts please... "One level of safety" IS the mantra.

Nice try.....but there's a lot more in my background than RJ's sport. You can attempt to insult me all you like, but you still haven't answered the question I've posed.

What is so bad about rules that fit our needs, give us proper rest AND give us the flexibility to still do what our customers want? What is so bad about not being hamstrung by rules built to address one group's problems that have little to do with what we actually do?

Until you answer that, you can try to insult me all you want, and nothing will change. BTW, who named you an expert....all I see is another lazy FI loudmouth.....

 

[HA25]

Nice try.....but there's a lot more in my background than RJ's sport. You can attempt to insult me all you like, but you still haven't answered the question I've posed.

What is so bad about rules that fit our needs, give us proper rest AND give us the flexibility to still do what our customers want? What is so bad about not being hamstrung by rules built to address one group's problems that have little to do with what we actually do?

Until you answer that, you can try to insult me all you want, and nothing will change. BTW, who named you an expert....all I see is another lazy FI loudmouth.....

IF we're going to have a double standard in safety... I'd argue the Supplemental operation needs MORE, not less strict rules. Due to working at all hours of the day (inconsistently), different timezones, and long haul operations, for me, that's 3 strikes.. so if anything I expect heavy crews on all over 8 hour legs for all 2 or 3 man cockpits, and I'd expect a 12 hours duty day limit except for on aircraft with approved rest facilities, with a maximum of 16 hours (Pumpkin). No provisions for extending more than 2 hours for ANY delay, even acts of God. In cases where duty exceeds 16 hours... a minimum of 36 hours rest. I'd also expect a minimum of a ban on the 24 hour over night (any who's a real international airline pilot knows why I say this).. with either 16 hours block to block rest or 36 hours.. working with the natural sleep cycles.

Lastly.. I want to see all pilots paid by the duty hour... not flight hour.

Anyway, I don't think you and I are going to meet eye to eye on this one Chief... Out.

 

[txpilottj]

Believe it or not...I do agree with your position on 24 hr layovers and 36 off after 16. You still haven't answered the questions I've posed.....

 

[ClippedWings]

Bingo!! You took the words right out of my mouth.

IF we're going to have a double standard in safety... I'd argue the Supplemental operation needs MORE, not less strict rules. Due to working at all hours of the day (inconsistently), different timezones, and long haul operations, for me, that's 3 strikes.. so if anything I expect heavy crews on all over 8 hour legs for all 2 or 3 man cockpits, and I'd expect a 12 hours duty day limit except for on aircraft with approved rest facilities, with a maximum of 16 hours (Pumpkin). No provisions for extending more than 2 hours for ANY delay, even acts of God. In cases where duty exceeds 16 hours... a minimum of 36 hours rest. I'd also expect a minimum of a ban on the 24 hour over night (any who's a real international airline pilot knows why I say this).. with either 16 hours block to block rest or 36 hours.. working with the natural sleep cycles.

Lastly.. I want to see all pilots paid by the duty hour... not flight hour.

Anyway, I don't think you and I are going to meet eye to eye on this one Chief... Out.

 

[ClippedWings]

It never made sense to me why the RJ driver that crosses 2 time zones in a day needs more restrictive rest rules and the Non-Sched long haul driver that crosses 10 time zones in a day needs less restrictive rest rules. It sounds backwards to me.

 

[dash8driver]

It never made sense to me why the RJ driver that crosses 2 time zones in a day needs more restrictive rest rules and the Non-Sched long haul driver that crosses 10 time zones in a day needs less restrictive rest rules. It sounds backwards to me.

It is backwards unless you're willing to forego safety in the name of of the almighty dollar.

 

[pilotyip]

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.

I was thinking pax, with big cargo probably less elastic

 

[tailwindz]

txpilottj,

Here's the thing. IF we don't get it now, we never will in our careers.

It will be much easier to go back after the fact and relax the rules, IF WE need too.

Bottom line, too much is much better than NOTHING.

 

[txpilottj]

txpilottj,

Here's the thing. IF we don't get it now, we never will in our careers.

It will be much easier to go back after the fact and relax the rules, IF WE need too.

Bottom line, too much is much better than NOTHING.

And here is where we greatly disagree....too much is NOT better than nothing, because once we get stuck with this...it won't change in our careers. You're right...this is the only shot we get to get it right and so far, we're not doing too well....

We will have to agree to disagree this time bro.....fly safe.

 

[dontpost2]

Here we go again

Sorry friends to have to get this debate going again, but just got the fastread:

(March 21, 2011) Despite years of hard work and a congressional mandate to update federal pilot fatigue rules, there are those who are attempting to derail the pending flight- and duty-time rule through legislative carve-outs. When the U.S. House of Representatives considers the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Reauthorization bill (H.R. 658) next week, a proposed amendment is expected to exempt some all-cargo and charter air carriers from the FT/DT rule. The amendment would permit subpart-S carriers to operate under a separate set of fatigue rules. All ALPA pilots are urged to participate in our nationwide Call to Action to send a strong message to Capitol Hill that any exemptions from the pilot fatigue rule are unacceptable. Take action now! Send a message to your U.S. representative.

 

[HA25]

Seriously? when will these idiots quit?

 

[Front Office]

I may of missed something. I just read HR 658 and it dosnt say anything about subpart-S carriers to operate under a separate set of fatigue rules. Maybe I missed something??

 

[HA25]

I may of missed something. I just read HR 658 and it dosnt say anything about subpart-S carriers to operate under a separate set of fatigue rules. Maybe I missed something??

some republican probably will try and staple an amendment to it when it goes into vote.

 

[pilotyip]

as they say it ain't over till its over.

 

[inline]

some republican probably will try and staple an amendment to it when it goes into vote.

" Some republican" It's all their fault. Got it.

 

[HA25]

" Some republican" It's all their fault. Got it.

Hey, I like my guns and hate abortion too, but find me a case where a Democrat went against ALPA, rest rules or anything that was going to cost the companies any money in the past 50 years?