New Rest Rules tomorrow, 12/21/11

[ackattacker]

I don't think it's a coincidence that these rest rules come out just before guys start hitting the age 65 limit. All these rules do is allow the passenger airlines to do more with less. :angryfire

I really don't think so. It does allow for some things they couldn't do before (transcon turns) but in the end I imagine the rules will probably require slightly more staffing not less. Especially at the regionals because when you are doing 5 leg days the new duty time restrictions become very prohibitive. For the most part the rules are mostly sensible IMHO although there's a few things in there that raise eyebrows such as the definition of "suitable rest facility" and the alternative fatigue management program. Also signing that you are fit for duty is just another bit of do-nothing bureaucratic nonsense.

 

[HA25]

I really don't think so. It does allow for some things they couldn't do before (transcon turns) but in the end I imagine the rules will probably require slightly more staffing not less. Especially at the regionals because when you are doing 5 leg days the new duty time restrictions become very prohibitive.

Awesome! the new reg will create more RJ jobs and no new Fedex/UPS jobs.... PERFECT! Yes! There is a God!

 

[Tweaker]

I am loving the 8 hours of time in the hotel room. It takes me a while to unwind and get to sleep. I frequently got 4-5 hours best case scenario. I don't know how these old guys did it for so many years. Coffee and cigarettes I suppose.

At my airline they (the station managers) are continually pushing up the van departure times to ridiculously early times. Between that and the van that frequently shows up 45 minutes late or a long ass ride to the hotel in rush hour traffic in one of the cosmopolitan liberal utopian cities and there ain't much opportunity for sleep.

 

[ackattacker]

Awesome! the new reg will create more RJ jobs and no new Fedex/UPS jobs.... PERFECT! Yes! There is a God!

I hear you loud and clear, but more pilot jobs overall is always a plus for the profession in a variety of ways, fundamentally boiling down to supply vs. demand.

 

[Guppiedriver]

Er well I guess you've never worked part 135?

I've got a certificate you can yank.

Try waiting on a rescue flight or working a heavy crew charter. Or starting reserve and getting a call later in the day. While I'm not one to cry fatigue for nothing, I have and will do it when it gets unsafe. 16 hours isn't always the edge of the envelope on safety, but it can get close enough for comfort.

Or a regional

I flew part 135 which included late night organ transplant/donor flights. I thought I was being the go-to-guy, accepting flights after being on call all day long and then flying into the early morning hours. One particular flight made me realize how potentially unsafe it can be to fly fatigued. I will never exceed my own personal limitations ever again.

You guys act like it's some kind of badge of honor to fly a 16 hour day. Everyone is different, but to say that your are safe at the tail end of 16 hours is bullsh!t.

that's a short day at all the bottom feeder's like Kalitta, Atlas, and Evergreen...

However, apparently their pilots are immune to fatigue.

Exactly! No job is worth getting dead over.

 

[waveflyer]

Weekly limits? How are you guys reading this? 30-7 screws my schedule all the time and keeps from getting a lot more of that cumulative rest-

I'm still soaking it in- but I don't understand how any of you are standing up for the old regs- throughout the regs, they were archaic at best- asinine and dangerous at worst- esp at the regionals/135- something needed to be done-
And the logic- block flying has literally nothing to do with my fatigue level, and I'm often working harder when on the ground-

Cargo shouldn't be ignored- that's bs

 

[Lear70]

Lear, not to worry, our contract limits us to 8 hours, and now the feds require 10 hours off, so we now have th best of both sides and wwe are not going to let them push us to 9 hours.

The new rules can't require us to fly to 9, but they can require the company to schedule us for 10 off.

That's good to hear. Admittedly, I don't know the SWA contract very well in the daily scheduling rules.

Hopefully you guys will hold that 8 hour max line in upcoming negotiations. I'd still like a few of my long international and west-coast layovers, even if it means a couple days less a month at home. Relaxing trips = well-rested when I get home.

 

[waveflyer]

I'm pretty sure getting your long layovers isn't the primary agenda Lear-
That said- I'm almost always more rested when I get home

 

[Lear70]

I'm pretty sure getting your long layovers isn't the primary agenda Lear-

That said- I'm almost always more rested when I get home

I'm assuming you mean it isn't the primary agenda for SWAPA... didn't say it was, but I'm concerned that it will be one of the "increased productivity" give-ups that GK wants.

 

[PCL_128]

I don't really understand this desire for long layovers. If I want to spend 24 hours in Cancun, I'll take a vacation on my days off and spend the time there with friends or family. When I'm at work, give me a long enough layover for a good night's rest, and then back to flying so I can get home as soon as possible and spend my time the way that I want to instead of spending it where the company sticks me.

 

[Lear70]

I don't really understand this desire for long layovers. If I want to spend 24 hours in Cancun, I'll take a vacation on my days off and spend the time there with friends or family. When I'm at work, give me a long enough layover for a good night's rest, and then back to flying so I can get home as soon as possible and spend my time the way that I want to instead of spending it where the company sticks me.

That's because you don't have a wife and/or kids to get back to when you're home and have the ability to just jet off for fun and giggles.

With long layovers you can get paid to take a little mini-break, explore a city, see if you'd like to vacation there longer, get ideas of what to do, or just relax and hang out.

Again, with our lines, the only difference is about 5 hours of credit, or around $500 at our longevity, on a line that pays more with none of the long layovers. That's $100 per trip to make it easy, one or two legs out to the West Coast or somewhere international, 24 hours or so to hang and relax, one or two legs back.

I'll take that trade-off all day long and twice on Tuesday.

Then when I get home, I can spend all my off-time with my son and not want to jet back off somewhere to go relax, that's for vacation 2-3 times a year.

Everyone likes different things. Some people are all about money and time off... some people are about enjoying our trips and having a good time while making the money and time off we need.

 

[slaquer5]

I don't really understand this desire for long layovers. If I want to spend 24 hours in Cancun, I'll take a vacation on my days off and spend the time there with friends or family. When I'm at work, give me a long enough layover for a good night's rest, and then back to flying so I can get home as soon as possible and spend my time the way that I want to instead of spending it where the company sticks me.

Lear I hate to say this but PLC is right . You are willing to give up 3000-4000 dollars a month (FO pay), for some longer layovers. No way my brother.

 

[PCL_128]

That's because you don't have a wife and/or kids to get back to when you're home and have the ability to just jet off for fun and giggles.

Still doesn't make any sense. Unless you hate your wife and kids and want to get away from them, then the best way to get the most time with them is to have reasonable layover times and right back to flying so you can get back to your family as soon as possible. Spending time at some outstation with a dude you just met the day before and some 3Gs instead of at home with family and friends? Like I said, I just don't get it.

With long layovers you can get paid to take a little mini-break

You don't get paid on a layover, you get paid for the flying before and after the layover (unless you're there for so long that the trip rig kicks in, and that would just suck). Time on a layover is just unpaid time away from home.

Everyone likes different things. Some people are all about money and time off... some people are about enjoying our trips and having a good time while making the money and time off we need.

Agreed. If it works for you, more power to you. Just don't try to engineer rest rules to force the rest of us into it when we'd rather be more efficient with our time.

 

[Lear70]

The trip rig always kicks in for the 3-days I fly.

And that goes both ways, my friend. Don't re-rig rest rules and hose me out of my long layovers.

p.s. Slaquer, I guess you're looking at the ability to fly another 22-25 TFP a month with the new rules, I was just applying it to what we do here. It'll only add another 5 or so hours of credit a month to my pay with no additional days off, I already average 18 off. Eh, who knows how this will affect us, I just know AirTran and their interest in squeezing every last bit of productivity out of us and increase our reserves from 30%-40% in the process. No, I'm not kidding, I'm pretty sure we're running close to 30% reserves.

 

[PCL_128]

The trip rig always kicks in for the 3-days I fly.

That's because the pairings on the 737 are absolutely horrible. Hopefully SWA will fix them and make them far more efficient.

And that goes both ways, my friend. Don't re-rig rest rules and hose me out of my long layovers.

The new rest/duty rules are based on science, not preferred layover considerations. As it should be.

 

[waveflyer]

Somewhat based on science-
The document continually uses "flight time" synonymously with "work". Flight time doesn't make me tired- duty time and time working does-
From what I've seen- this is much improved over the current scam rest rules.

Anyone applied the 65 in 168 to our schedules to see how it would affect them?

I personally hate 30/7- I'm always illegal by :20 for the trip that would make my life so much better- wonder why cartel's exist?
:-/

 

[Lear70]

That's because the pairings on the 737 are absolutely horrible. Hopefully SWA will fix them and make them far more efficient.

Speak for yourself. I like the MCO 737 pairings. 18 and 19 hour credit 3 days. 4 of those with 75 hrs block / 78 hrs credit and I'm done for the month.

The new rest/duty rules are based on science, not preferred layover considerations. As it should be.

Just saying there's always the law of unintended consequences. You pull from one reg and add to another and who knows what Crew Planning will do with it. Just hoping there will be enough variety for everyone and not create high value uncommutable day trips in a 60-70% commuter environment industry-wide or make high value workaholic trips and little else.

Time will tell. If it happens that way, at least I know the regional guys got thrown a bone...

 

[PCL_128]

wave, the focus of the new rules is the Flight Duty Period (FDP), not flight time. Flight time is taken into account somewhat, because the science indicates that it does matter to some limited degree, but duty time and number of segments (legs) is the focus, because that's what the science indicates is the biggest problem with fatigue.

 

[PCL_128]

Speak for yourself. I like the MCO 737 pairings.

I forgot that you're MCO based now. Yeah, those pairings are much better. The 737 guys in ATL get hosed, though. Horribly unproductive trips.

 

[waveflyer]

Ah Lear- the commuter lobby-

Well Im a local guy, who would like to be home every day possible and do nothing but turns- a dog will do that

It gets me that commuters lobby for 4 day trips-->then a disproportionate amount of 4 day trips end up in open time, which very few are legal for, which leads to more 4 day reserve blocks- then turns are bid for by commuters, just bc they're easier to get rid of and make your schedule more flexible.

I say if you lobby for 4 days- you should be the ********************ers who have to fly them
;-)
(but then again, I feel the same way about 3 days!. )