Inhofe offers two amendments to faa reauthorization

[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supplemental carriers, operating under 121 subpart S, from proposed changes to flight, duty and rest regulations was withdrawn early this week.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..