New FAA rules....tidbits

[waveflyer]

Why? I continue to vote against Dems because they stole my vote in 2000 (FLA "disenfranchised" absentee voter). Many of us also vote Republican because we don't want Socialistic policies and there's no other alternative.

Last fall one of my FOs was telling me how I should vote for Obama from the labor perspective. I looked at him and said: "F--- my job, I'm voting to save the country." I'll continue to do so and it looks like the public is finally waking up to November's huge mistake.

And the country was doing so well too.... you're an idiot. And on behalf of all proud airline pilots who actually think they are worth something- thank you for F---ing our job. Because that's EXACTLY what you do. There's no argument- patriotic or otherwise to vote republican. Some conservative values have merit- but Republican's sold out a LONG time ago.

And if that makes me a blue v red guy- so be it= stop burying your head in the sand about why we've suffered so much the past 10 years.

 

[waveflyer]

Most likely if it adds to the present pilot list to do the same amount of flying, then that will raise the cost of tickets, which will reduce the number tickets purchased, which will result in fewer flight and fewer Captain and fewer yet F/O's. Like anything that adds cost to an airline, he reduces seats sold. Like many things it will be good for a few and not so good for many more. Or the other side is the same amount of pilots doing less flying, more timer in hotels on road and getting fewer hours per month. Adam Smith figured it out about 240 years ago.

have you ever read the Wealth of Nations?

 

[ThreeGreens]

Do you guys think that with these new changes, we might end up with less days off a month, or simply inefficient schedules ? That might make it worse for commuters.
Don't get me wrong I am still for safety first. Just looking at the side effects on our lives.

 

[Fly4hire]

Do you guys think that with these new changes, we might end up with less days off a month, or simply inefficient schedules ? That might make it worse for commuters.
Don't get me wrong I am still for safety first. Just looking at the side effects on our lives.

Agreed. We'll see several weaker regionals go TU which will help with the capacity cuts the mainlines need, as well as driving the cost equation in favor of reversing Scope back towards the mainline, pilots hired and recalled, but predict we will see either more days at work or less hours with a larger pilot group. Still a win when you weigh in the pro/con's. Too bad there was no discussion of programmed "napping" in the cockpit.

 

[deadstick]

I can see the max price increase of $13-15, but don't forget that many travelers spend 4 hours on travelocity to save a buck. So if one airline has to raise the price by $15, and another by $13, the first one just lost a sale. I think government fees may also be increasing. This combined with the increased operating costs may reduce the demand.

Just some thoughts, and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, either.

 

[Papa Woody]

Just because the FAA doesn't make rules on commuting doesn' mean the company won't make it's own rules.

Good point.

But when a company has to lower hiring standards to attract pilots who agree to live in, say, Atlanta or some other undesirable place, they will have a hard time attracting applicants. ESPECIALLY the puppy mills with ultra-low wages.

Newark, as we know it, would be unviable as a hub without commuters.

Atlanta would wither.

JFK.......HAhahahaha!

 

[slaquer5]

I had a long conversation with a member that is helping write the new FAA rules for duty, flying time etc. He said that what they are drafting is going to happen and very quickly. He said they have already heard from large numbers in Congress who are very unhappy about the Cologan accident! They want change and not tired pilots. Here is some of the things he shared with me:

1. Commuters don't have anything to worry about. They know they cannot track where people live or commute from.

I take it he has never hear of CASS, or a computer.

 

[NEDude]

I take it he has never hear of CASS, or a computer.

The problem is that does a person ALWAYS commute from the same place - in a different town to see a girlfriend or family member? If there is a seat available in the back, does the agent ALWAYS run a CASS check? Does a person always fly to commute, or could they be driving 4 hours before a report? Could a pilot be giving crashpad address to the company as his "official" place of residence? You cannot track or regulate every aspect of a pilots life.

 

[pilotyip]

Sure did

have you ever read the Wealth of Nations?

Yes, great book, recommended by my Mirco Econ Prof., I loved the part where he said, "Barristers and Clergy are parasites upon an economy"

 

[pilotyip]

The customer make choices

If you do you are idiots. PASS ON THE COST OF DOING BUSINESS TO THE CUSTOMER. It's simple logic. Hell, you've spent the last 100 years trying to figure out a way to screw employees out of every penny you can, why not apply some of that screwing knowledge to your business venture instead of furloughing 147 pilots that will save you at best $10 million bucks in A F-ING YEAR??? (See previous thread for the 5th grade math on that conclusion). It's so frustrating to read such stupidity.

When you pass it along to the customer, some customers will make the choice not to fly, even at $13 increase. In the end the consumer determines what price a seat will sell for, without sales you don't fill the seats. My wife was a frequent user of SWA, used them all the time. When the SWA TA failed in the spring, the one way DTW-ABQ doubled for advance purchases. I mean six months in advance, went from $99 to $199. She could find cheaper fares at AAL, NWA, Frontier, and CAL. Within two weeks the fares were down to $159, then two weeks later down to $129, now they are down to $99 again. It looks like SWA tried to raise fares and saw significant drop in booking to fill those otherwise empty seats on those Tue, Wed and Sat flights. Again if you have the answers it is your duty to come into management and save the industry. BTW I never siad I was smarter than a 5th grader or that I could speell.

 

[CapnVegetto]

When you pass it along to the customer, some customers will make the choice not to fly, even at $13 increase. In the end the consumer determines what price a seat will sell for, without sales you don't fill the seats. My wife was a frequent user of SWA, used them all the time. When the SWA TA failed in the spring, the one way DTW-ABQ doubled for advance purchases. I mean six months in advance, went from $99 to $199. She could find cheaper fares at AAL, NWA, Frontier, and CAL. Within two weeks the fares were down to $159, then two weeks later down to $129, now they are down to $99 again. It looks like SWA tried to raise fares and saw significant drop in booking to fill those otherwise empty seats on those Tue, Wed and Sat flights. Again if you have the answers it is your duty to come into management and save the industry. BTW I never siad I was smarter than a 5th grader or that I could speell.

Well of course your wife switched dammit, the FARE MORE THAN DOUBLED. I'd switch too. We're talking about $13 to $15 bucks here!!! You mean to tell me that your wife would have quit flying the trip altogether over $15 bucks? No way. You'd bitch and moan a little bit, but in the end you'll pay it because it's only $15 bucks. A small fare increase MIGHT have an impact, sure. I'll concede that. But it won't be that much of one. Simple, plain ol logic. When people fly, they are looking at 2 things. One is price, sure. But the other main thing people look at is schedule. If one flight gets you to where you need to be at a better time, without a layover, or less flight time, or less hassle, you can damn sure bet people will pay an extra $15 bucks. I know I will. I won't take a $15 dollar cheaper fare if it's going to have a 4 hour sit on it and get me there at oh-dark-thirty with me having to get up at 3am to make the flight, especially if I am flexible. Hell I'll spend that much on damn whiskey sitting at an airport bar on a layover.

The point is, management is so f-ing stupid to think their load factors are going to plummet through the basement if they raise fares $10 or $15 bucks. It's completely off the chart on the stupid scale. You're damn right things are going to change in your example......the fare more than doubled. But there's a LOT of things you can do to offset things like this. Raise fares in small amounts. Raise fares in slightly higher than small amounts on consistently high load factor flights. Raise fees. Make up some bull$hit 'fuel surcharge' fee and tack it on at the end of the fare. Hell, charge a fee to a passenger if they have a pecker length under 7 inches. The point is, PASS ON THE COST OF DOING BUSINESS.....even if you have to get creative doing it.

The simple fact is this: If your airplanes are 90% full, and you are losing money, then you are COMPLETELY F-ING INEPT. Go flip burgers or join the Foreign Legion or something, because you have ABSOULUTELY NO BUSINESS IN MANAGEMENT. You suck at it. Get somebody in that doesn't suck at it. There is no excuse......PERIOD. Fuel is cheap, planes are full. Stop making excuses and earn that damn bonus you pay yourself.

 

[pilotyip]

As yes FI and name caaling an enduring tradition

Go flip burgers or join the Foreign Legion or something, because you have ABSOULUTELY NO BUSINESS IN MANAGEMENT. You suck at it. Get somebody in that doesn't suck at it. There is no excuse......PERIOD. Fuel is cheap, planes are full. Stop making excuses and earn that damn bonus you pay yourself.

Ah! FI, where if you don't like a response, you resort to name calling. Such a wonderful tradition. With Internet, if you are $26 RT over a competitor, your competitor gets the fare. And there is always a marginal flyer who will elect not to fly for a $26 raise. BTW I got $500 bonus once in a record year about 9 years ago. With the bonus I made less than most of Captains with my seniority. BTW This is repeat but if fits here. This is a pilot board so saying anything in defense of management is like peeing into the wind, that is, it is going to come back to you. CEO's are not intentionally running airlines into the ground. They would very much like to succeed. For lack of other reason it would make their resume look great, they would be doing something no other CEO had ever done. Top management includes many besides the CEO, the CEO sets direction as requested by the board. The CEO has little control over the airline, the airline is run by regulation and union contracts. They are at the mercy of the purchasing public, who with Internet access has made the airline ticket a perfectly elastic commodity. There is little they can do inside their structure. Other high paid top management personnel, in Operations, Maintenance. Marketing, Legal, Finance, etc. have unique skills in dealing with large organizations. This makes them marketable when shopping for a job, unlike pilots whose skills are nearly universal. Now I will agree that CEO leadership in many cases leaves much to be desired. An issue of ATW in 2002 had an article about "Airline Management a dying breed", the article basically said no one wants to do it. The good track record CEO’s are going to other industries. With tremendous, payrolls, overhead burdens, and extremely low margins, there is no tried and true path to success. Most have tried to increase market share, but this has lead to low price and ridiculous breakeven load factors in 95% range. The consumer with internet ticket price access seeking the lowest fare, drives management to always seek lower costs to stay competitive. What is management supposed to do? Eliminating management will bring the end quicker for the airplane industry, and their salaries are insignificant to the airlines operating costs. Without management you could not operate the airline, The FAA would shut it down without approved Part 119 key management. Would the pilots step up and become management for free in their spare time? Why is every time, pilot salaries come up, they are immediately compared to top management. 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 management 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.

 

[slaquer5]

The problem is that does a person ALWAYS commute from the same place - in a different town to see a girlfriend or family member? If there is a seat available in the back, does the agent ALWAYS run a CASS check? Does a person always fly to commute, or could they be driving 4 hours before a report? Could a pilot be giving crashpad address to the company as his "official" place of residence? You cannot track or regulate every aspect of a pilots life.

True except that at least at SWA , the commuters are protected under a commuter policy and if there home is now at base they do not get that. Also at least at SWA ,we have gate agents that call and squeal on F/As and pilots that where trying to get on the jumpseat and did not get on ( knowing they might call in sick) JMO

 

[sinkrate]

Do you guys think that with these new changes, we might end up with less days off a month, or simply inefficient schedules ? That might make it worse for commuters.
Don't get me wrong I am still for safety first. Just looking at the side effects on our lives.

For a regional and short haul domestic fleets, standups, reduced rest and long duty days are tools used that increase days off and pay. They also result in a wide variety of schedules to bid. Under current rules at many carriers you can block 90 hours in twelve days, or do stand ups and be home every day, or do reduced rest, two day trips and be home everyday, etc.

Under the proposed rule all this will go away for short haul domestic fleets. Most multi day trips trips will become a long multi day trip with not a lot of flying and a lot of dead time in hotels. Many pilots will lose both a significant number of days off and pay.

At the same time the crew and hotel costs for domestic narrowbody fleets will increase significantly. This will no doubt result in a further reduction in schedules than we have already seen. In order to manage costs marketing departments will be forced to change the general schedule - significantly. You can expect to see a lot of the late night and early morning departures go away and a few more AC terminating in the hubs, rather than at RON stations. You will also see a limited return of outstation basing where AC do RON.

Many carriers have already used their computer pairing generators to produce test runs with the new rules. Ask your managment what the results were at your carrier.

My guess is the ATA is planning to lobby and fight this hard once the rule is published and the Public Comment period opens. Thye will scream to the public 'look at the reduction in service you will see'.

 

[NuGuy]

Heyas,

Actually, what this will do is level the playing field somewhat. SOME legacy carriers, LCCs and the more mature regionals have more restrictive rest/duty time limitations than what is already required. Some places don't MAKE you fly 90-100 hours a month. They will be less impacted by a change.

It's the bottom feeders that will be forced up from the bottom. For those places where you need to fly 90-100 hours (hard time) to make the rent, this will be a motivation to push for better rates next time at the table.

For some places, who absolutely survive on squeezing FAR limits out of their pilots, reduced rest, CDOs and other tricks of the trade will have a hard time surviving. The endless money well at the majors is long since gone. For those carriers already looking to reduce RJ lift, this will provide the perfect excuse.

This WILL drive hiring at some places if they want to fly the same block hours. The interesting dynamic will be at the regionals. That pipline was already dry in 07...

Interesting thing about SWA...they have one of the highest pilot costs in the country. They tried to raise fares, but when YOU have competition that won't go along, then your fare increase doesn't work. Must be new to them to be on that side of the equation. Some places will HAVE to increase fares, or go into the red.

There are some places that will see increased costs with this, no doubt. But it will affect some more than others.

Nu

 

[CapnVegetto]

Ah! FI, where if you don't like a response, you resort to name calling. Such a wonderful tradition. With Internet, if you are $26 RT over a competitor, your competitor gets the fare. And there is always a marginal flyer who will elect not to fly for a $26 raise. BTW I got $500 bonus once in a record year about 9 years ago. With the bonus I made less than most of Captains with my seniority. BTW This is repeat but if fits here. This is a pilot board so saying anything in defense of management is like peeing into the wind, that is, it is going to come back to you. CEO's are not intentionally running airlines into the ground. They would very much like to succeed. For lack of other reason it would make their resume look great, they would be doing something no other CEO had ever done. Top management includes many besides the CEO, the CEO sets direction as requested by the board. The CEO has little control over the airline, the airline is run by regulation and union contracts. They are at the mercy of the purchasing public, who with Internet access has made the airline ticket a perfectly elastic commodity. There is little they can do inside their structure. Other high paid top management personnel, in Operations, Maintenance. Marketing, Legal, Finance, etc. have unique skills in dealing with large organizations. This makes them marketable when shopping for a job, unlike pilots whose skills are nearly universal. Now I will agree that CEO leadership in many cases leaves much to be desired. An issue of ATW in 2002 had an article about "Airline Management a dying breed", the article basically said no one wants to do it. The good track record CEO’s are going to other industries. With tremendous, payrolls, overhead burdens, and extremely low margins, there is no tried and true path to success. Most have tried to increase market share, but this has lead to low price and ridiculous breakeven load factors in 95% range. The consumer with internet ticket price access seeking the lowest fare, drives management to always seek lower costs to stay competitive. What is management supposed to do? Eliminating management will bring the end quicker for the airplane industry, and their salaries are insignificant to the airlines operating costs. Without management you could not operate the airline, The FAA would shut it down without approved Part 119 key management. Would the pilots step up and become management for free in their spare time? Why is every time, pilot salaries come up, they are immediately compared to top management. 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 management 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.

Perhaps I should have been clearer, but that post was not directed straight at you. After rereading it I realized that it came off that way, and that's not what I meant. However, back to what's at hand. Let's go down your post.....

Eliminating management will bring the end quicker for the airplane industry, and their salaries are insignificant to the airlines operating costs. Without management you could not operate the airline, The FAA would shut it down without approved Part 119 key management."

Um.....this is crap. Do you mean to tell me that part 119 of the FAR's REQUIRES that much management? I don't think so. Tons of middle little crap positions could be eliminated that upper management created for their buddies.

Why is every time, pilot salaries come up, they are immediately compared to top management. 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 management 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)"

This is the biggest pile of bull$hit I've ever seen. Whenever management spews crap like this it makes me want to puke. This is true of the BASE SALARY ONLY. What about bonuses? Stock Options? Perks? Benefits? Retirement? Golden Parachute? Please stop with this stupid pathetic attempt at disinformation. We are not idiots. We can read. Larry Kellner at CAL made over $20 million bucks last year in salary and BONUSES, and we're not even getting into the perks and the insane amount of money that the company is required to contribute to his retirement. Glenn Tilton at UAL made even more, and he is widely regarded as the biggest idiot in airline managment today. What about company cars? Insurance? Paid airport parking? Travel allowance? There's more money that's not even included in the reported compensation AFTER BONUSES. What about all these perks that the middle managers get? How much is paid out in bonuses to all management at large companies? Don't compare a crummy little freight operation in Detroit to a billion dollar legacy carrier. I'm happy you got a $500 bonus. But stop comparing apples to oranges and expecting me to care.

The CEO has little control over the airline, the airline is run by regulation and union contracts. They are at the mercy of the purchasing public, who with Internet access has made the airline ticket a perfectly elastic commodity. There is little they can do inside their structure. Other high paid top management personnel, in Operations, Maintenance. Marketing, Legal, Finance, etc. have unique skills in dealing with large organizations. This makes them marketable when shopping for a job, unlike pilots whose skills are nearly universal. Now I will agree that CEO leadership in many cases leaves much to be desired. An issue of ATW in 2002 had an article about "Airline Management a dying breed", the article basically said no one wants to do it. The good track record CEO’s are going to other industries. With tremendous, payrolls, overhead burdens, and extremely low margins, there is no tried and true path to success. Most have tried to increase market share, but this has lead to low price and ridiculous breakeven load factors in 95% range. The consumer with internet ticket price access seeking the lowest fare, drives management to always seek lower costs to stay competitive. What is management supposed to do?

So basically what you're telling me is that multiple CEO's of multiple airlines have been trying to do the SAME FCKING THING for a large number of years and IT IS STILL NOT WORKING. Has anyone TRIED raising fares a small amount to offset increased costs? Is there documented proof of this? Nope. Every manager has done the same thing over and over and over and over. Piss all over the labor, squeeze them till they break, and keep the breakeven load factor at 95%. Don't bother trying to offset costs with surcharges, fees, increased fares. The example you gave earlier from SWA was stupid. It's stupid to more than double a fare, but it's not stupid to raise it a small amount at a time. It's not stupid to tack on a small surcharge. You say it won't work? It'll drive customers away? Who gives a $HIT??? Nobody knows!!! There is NOTHING to substantiate this other than some overpaid statistician consultant that is trying to ACT like he knows. There is NO REAL WORLD DATA. Nobody has the balls to try it. What the hell do they have to lose? They are losing BILLIONS, on the verge of bankruptcy. For the love of God, it's time to try something new. The same old crap that you just spewed out isn't working, hasn't been working, and will continue to not work, and everybody knows it. You say people automatically click on the lowest fare on the internet, I say they don't. Fact is neither one of us knows the truth, we just know what WE'D do. There's only one way to find out. You can't prove that I'm wrong. Nobody can. But I can damn sure prove that YOUR management technique sucks. Look at the balance sheet of every legacy airline. There's my proof.

 

[BushwickBill]

question......is this going to affect 135 in any way shape or form?

Hopefully the 20+ out of work airline pilots will quit stopping by the director of operations office to ask for my job.

Good luck fellas. Hope it works out for you.

 

[JoeMerchant]

Do you guys think that with these new changes, we might end up with less days off a month, or simply inefficient schedules ? That might make it worse for commuters.
Don't get me wrong I am still for safety first. Just looking at the side effects on our lives.

Schedules we be less efficient and we will spend more time away from home....and then b!tch about how much time we have to spend away from home....

 

[Lear70]

Yeah, just wait until the sick calls start multiplying exponentially because your days off were cut by 25-30%. We've seen it before, even at the regionals. We were hired under work conditions that give us approximately half the month off at most seniority levels at most companies. You can't have a life being home only 10-12 days a month.

Mental preparedness to do the job is an FAA requirement. If you are stressed about your marriage because you're only home 10-12 days a month instead of 15-17, or getting to see your kids dramatically less-often, then you may not be fit for duty.

They will try their best to minimize the impact of any changes in regs but, in the end, it will be up to us, as pilots, if they start squeezing OUR quality of life to fix THEIR staffing problem, to negotiate trip and duty rigs, including monthly min-days-off, that will protect our QOL.

 

[JoeMerchant]

Yeah, just wait until the sick calls start multiplying exponentially because your days off were cut by 25-30%. We've seen it before, even at the regionals. We were hired under work conditions that give us approximately half the month off at most seniority levels at most companies. You can't have a life being home only 10-12 days a month.

Mental preparedness to do the job is an FAA requirement. If you are stressed about your marriage because you're only home 10-12 days a month instead of 15-17, or getting to see your kids dramatically less-often, then you may not be fit for duty.

They will try their best to minimize the impact of any changes in regs but, in the end, it will be up to us, as pilots, if they start squeezing OUR quality of life to fix THEIR staffing problem, to negotiate trip and duty rigs, including monthly min-days-off, that will protect our QOL.

The bottom schedules at the regionals are already 12 days off....they won't change....It will be the 18 day off schedules at the top that will be killed off by these changes....The 3 day trips will be replaced with 4 day trips....