Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Nice job AMR and CAL: FAA Drops New Rest Requirements ! :-(

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
When they say "it's not about the money".......


....it's about the money!
 
And as a result, there is a need for fewer pilots.
 
What are the pros and cons of the two formats....

Respectfully....



Hmmmmmmmm....I would assume that AMR would have to upgrade and hire (recall) more pilots to cover the 2 CA/ 2 FO staffing formula.

Surprised I had to explain that one.
 
Back when this proposed rule change first came out, I read a bunch of complaints against it from CAL and DAL pilots about how it would "hurt their schedules, they'd rather have an extra day off at home every month vs an extra 24 hour layover in Delhi, etc".

Sadly, it reminded of when I heard JetBlue pilots screaming about how much they wanted relief from the 8 hour rule so they could do transcon turns w/o a relief pilot.

Both made me a little bit sick.

did someone say JetBlue?

From Aviation Daily 2009 January
Seven U.S. carriers have launched a lawsuit against FAA in protest against new requirements for crew rest on ultra-long range (ULR) flights.
The carriers say FAA should have gone through a rulemaking process for the changes, allowing more industry input. Their complaint is not just procedural, however — the airlines claim the crew rest requirements place an unfair financial burden on them while safety benefits are unproven. Listed on the lawsuit are American, Continental, United, US Airways and JetBlue, as well as cargo carriers Evergreen and Atlas.
FAA wrote to both American and Continental in October telling them that their operational specifications would be amended to include the new ULR requirements. In American’s case, the agency said its flight between Chicago and Delhi would be affected by the changes. ULR flights are generally considered to be longer than 16 hours.
The agency would not comment on the lawsuit itself. FAA met with these carriers and other affected parties to discuss the ULR crew rest issue before the letters were sent. Delta had already negotiated changes in its rules to address ULR flights on a particular route, and these were approved by FAA in 2006.
In the October letters, FAA said it took into account the comments of the carriers before amending crew rest requirements. FAA said the revision “contains mitigations to address risks in ultra-long-range flight operations.”
The lawsuit was filed in the U.S.

Seven U.S. carriers have launched a lawsuit against FAA in protest against new requirements for crew rest on ultra-long range (ULR) flights.
The carriers say FAA should have gone through a rulemaking process for the changes, allowing more industry input. Their complaint is not just procedural, however — the airlines claim the crew rest requirements place an unfair financial burden on them while safety benefits are unproven. Listed on the lawsuit are American, Continental, United, US Airways and JetBlue, as well as cargo carriers Evergreen and Atlas.
FAA wrote to both American and Continental in October telling them that their operational specifications would be amended to include the new ULR requirements. In American’s case, the agency said its flight between Chicago and Delhi would be affected by the changes. ULR flights are generally considered to be longer than 16 hours.

They don't have a dog in the fight but they agree less rest is best.
 
What are the pros and cons of the two formats....

Respectfully....

Rez--I'll give you the AA side first, then, IMO, the industry side.

At AA, they've been heaping more and more responsibility on the CA's since 9/11. For example, MX doesn't do walkarounds anymore so the CA has to rely on the FO to find things. Yes, I'm trained to do walkarounds but I know I can't see the same stuff a mech will on a regular basis. It's a lot of little stuff that just adds up.

It appears that the company is putting increasing responsibility on the CA's and will be the first to throw them under the bus when something goes wrong.

The larger concern is if the CA is on rest break and they go off track, he gets violated even though he's in the back, asleep. In theory, since all FO's are typed, they are technically PIC while the CA is off the flight deck. But in reality, the CA (the company designated PIC) is going to get the brunt of the punishment.

NWA used the 2/2 set up I believe. One crew takes off and the other lands. At no time (other than bathroom breaks) is there not a CA who has been designated by the company as PIC on the flight deck.

We even had this issue at my corporate job. Our FAA guy said we had to make a notation on the flight plan when we switched off PIC's. Maybe this is possible in 121 (I'm sure it is in the 2/2 situation.) but with a 1/3 crewing, I don't see the company allowing it.

Hope that give some insight--extremely complex and the only impediment is that it costs more to do the 2/2 crewing.

TC
 
The problem with the attempted change was the complete circumvention of the normal process. If they had actually bothered to ask the PILOTS who fly these trips all the time, not a bunch of management fools who play pilot once every three months, what they think- they would have found the overwhelming response to be that this change does NOTHING to improve safety. In fact, it could be argued that it actually makes these trips more tiring by letting you START to adjust to local time, just in time to leave.

I have been doing the long-haul gig for fourteen years and am convinced the spotlight needs to start on the domestic rules with the next stop being the two-man international rules.

The fact that airline management was able to influence the process is disturbing because to them it is all about money, they couldn't give a rat's ass who is tired or not. It absolutely grates on me to actually be on the same side of an issue as them, although the motivation is different, but this whole issue needs to start domestically.
 
HorseShiit.

This is about money and if anyone tells you different, they are full of it.......if the pilots at these airlines would have been compensated in pay or days off, you would not have heard one peep out of them.

This could have been a stepping stone to a closer look at domestic rules...but those who opposed just screwed themselves.

Man we are really dumb sometimes....

The problem with the attempted change was the complete circumvention of the normal process. If they had actually bothered to ask the PILOTS who fly these trips all the time, not a bunch of management fools who play pilot once every three months, what they think- they would have found the overwhelming response to be that this change does NOTHING to improve safety. In fact, it could be argued that it actually makes these trips more tiring by letting you START to adjust to local time, just in time to leave.

I have been doing the long-haul gig for fourteen years and am convinced the spotlight needs to start on the domestic rules with the next stop being the two-man international rules.

The fact that airline management was able to influence the process is disturbing because to them it is all about money, they couldn't give a rat's ass who is tired or not. It absolutely grates on me to actually be on the same side of an issue as them, although the motivation is different, but this whole issue needs to start domestically.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top