Whitlow application to 121.467

[FlyingDawg]

My wife works for a major airline and they recently went to a new bidding system and senior FA'a are getting what amounts to reserve several days a month.

Being a pilot, I am fully aware of the Whitlow application concerning the "pilot" FAR's. Does this apply to the "flight attendant" FAR's as well, specifically 121.467?

Does the FAR allow for 24 hour reserve as this airline is doing?

Who should one contact to correct this situation since the FA's are non-union? POI? FSDO?

I'm a union pilot so I would normally just call the Feds since I have union protection. I find comfort in knowing I got just a little revenge after all the times they have tried to screw me. My wife doesn't feel that comfortable going out on such a limb.

What would be the best course of action here? Do I a non-employee have any ability to make such a report to the FAA or other such agency?

 

[avbug]

I may be incorrect, but in my opinion the legal battle that followed the "Whitlow Letter" revolved strictly around it's interpretation regarding pilot duty times. Certainly some applicability might be applied to other crew duty times, including flight attendants. However, the legal quagmire that surrounded the fallout from that letter didn't go there, and I don't believe it's an issue that's yet been tested or tried.

A good treatment of the issue, appeal, and decisions regarding the Whitlow letter may be found at http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200205/01-1027a.txt where one must also consider the added commentary in decision by the court. This text does not touch on the issue of flight attendants.

I don't think it's a far cry at all to make that application, however, almost certainly a new letter would need to be issued specifically addressing flight attendants before it might be said to have any teeth.

After the Whitlow letter was issued, the matter was appealed and re-appealed in court. Even with the legal determinations that took place, practical application was yet to be established. In 2002, a Pan Am pilot was ordered reinstated after being dismissed for refusing the fly the fourth leg of a trip that would have caused him to exceed his duty hours. Pan Am discharged the pilot for insubordination, and the courts saw fit to require Pan Am to reinstate the pilot. Pan Am appealed and lost.

The issue had some complication and some reaching implications, but most importantly, it demonstrated that while the matter had been settled in principle by the courts, practical application was altogether different. I believe that in response to your question, while one could certainly make the arguement that the Whitlow letter is applicable as some basis for protection, definitely the matter would be open to test in the courts. Your wife might win, but might face some definite roadblocks by legal action in the meanwhile. The issue may well come down to how much money you have to back the pursuit of a resoloution, and how badly your wife wants to be a crusader.

Very few legal interpretations over the past twenty years or so have been issued regarding flight attendants, and these primarily cover the requirement for the flight attendant. Some may exist regarding duty and rest for a flight attendant, but I'm not aware of such and can't help you there.

Absent any legal decisions on the matter, I'm afraid that what you'll run up against is the industry standard. The FAA is not taking any exception to the methodology used to schedule the flight attendants, deferring to the carriers without exception. This being the case, presently you might face a very large uphill battle seeking change, unless you can front it through a union or organization representing the FA's. ALPA might consider taking it on, but I doubt it.

Remember that the above statements are my opinion only; I'm sorry it's not entirely what you're hoping to hear.

 

[slowto250]

Not sure what you mean by 24 hour reserve. If you mean her bid line contains some reserve days, then yes, the carrier can require her to be available on said days. As a new hire at a major carrier, I was on reserve for 2 1/2 years. This required me to be available 20 or 21 days per month (pretty standard stuff).

If however you mean "ready reserve" or "standby", then the answer is no, the carrier cannot require the employee to be on duty for that entire period without a duty break.

Hope I have not insulted your intelligence. I imagine you sitting there saying to yourself, "well, duh, I KNOW that much." However, your question seemed rather general in nature, and I have answered it as such. If you want more specific info., be a little more specific, and I will be glad to give my interpretation. Remember though, that my license says "issued by the FAA", not "employed by" ; )

P.S. Nothing preventing you from calling the local FSDO for their interpretation, even though it does not pertain to you personally. In my limited experience, I HAVE found that each FSDO is almost autonomous, though.

 

[Wasted]

24 hour reserve means being phone available 24 hours of the day during the days you are on reserve.

 

[Weasil]

Is your wife at SONG? The way I understand it the Whitlow Interpretation has no effect on Flight Attendant Duty. Perhaps you could give us more details.

 

[Cosmo1999]

If she is scheduled for reserve it should have a timeframe such as 5am-5pm or something like that. Reserve is considered duty time and you have to have the required lookback rest before starting a trip just as if you were a lineholder. I believe rules are the same for FA and Pilot. You are considered on duty when reserve starts. If you are called for a trip you must have the required 9 or 8 hours of lookback rest. If it was legal to have FAs on 24hr/day reserve they would all do it in a heartbeat. Now if she has a 24 hour callout thats a whole different thing.

My wife works for a major airline and they recently went to a new bidding system and senior FA'a are getting what amounts to reserve several days a month.

Being a pilot, I am fully aware of the Whitlow application concerning the "pilot" FAR's. Does this apply to the "flight attendant" FAR's as well, specifically 121.467?

Does the FAR allow for 24 hour reserve as this airline is doing?

Who should one contact to correct this situation since the FA's are non-union? POI? FSDO?

I'm a union pilot so I would normally just call the Feds since I have union protection. I find comfort in knowing I got just a little revenge after all the times they have tried to screw me. My wife doesn't feel that comfortable going out on such a limb.

What would be the best course of action here? Do I a non-employee have any ability to make such a report to the FAA or other such agency?

 

[Wasted]

Disregard.

 

[Big Beer Belly]

Reserve is considered duty time and you have to have the required lookback rest before starting a trip just as if you were a lineholder. I believe rules are the same for FA and Pilot. You are considered on duty when reserve starts.

The above is NOT CORRECT. Being "on reserve" is NOT considered being "on duty", as far as the FAA is concerned (your carrier might be different). I have had many dealings with the "Whitlow Interpretation" since it came down. TECHNICALLY, the Whitlow Interpretation only narrowly applies to a pilot and then only applies to an operating seat. When you "look back" in a 24hr period, you must have an 8 hr period free from duty in order to pilot an aircraft (says nothing about company directed deadheading, for instance, in which you might be assigned to violate that window). It is legal (as far as the FAA is concerned) to be assigned "other duties" (desk work, company directed deadhead, etc...) that violate the 8hr free from duty window.

You have an excellent point that the Whitlow Interpretation should also be applicable to FA's. IMO, it SHOULD also encompass FA's as they are legally required by the FAA to be onboard and on duty in order to operate a passenger aircraft. They should be afforded the same reasonable protections since they are required crew members on a revenue flight. It is my understanding that Whitlow currently only applies to pilots operating an aircraft, however.

Good luck,

BBB

 

[Cosmo1999]

I could very well be wrong with my interpretation of the FARs. The way I see it a rest period for a crewmember is supposed to be a time where you are released from all your company duties/responsibilities. If your a required crewmember the rules stay the same. If you are required to answer the phone I believe it is considered duty time by the FAA. It sure is for pilots and I dont see how it couldnt be for FAs. The regulations for each basically read the same. If you are required to answer your phone that is not a rest period. The FAA has been quite clear on this matter. I just dont see how you can make up one set of rules for pilots and another set for FAs. In the end we are all required crewmembers. Sure I guess they could make you be on reserve 24hrs a day but if your flying a FAR 121 flight then you darn well better have the required 9hrs of rest or 8hrs of reduced rest before you report. All crewmembers must have the required lookback rest prior to starting a 121 flight. If its a repo flight or anything else not falling under part 121 then the rules dont apply. You cant just be expected to be on call 24hrs a day and have that count as rest. I found a website that makes this argument. http://home.comcast.net/~skydrifter/farest.htm I could very well be wrong on this. These rest rules are one big pain in the A$$. An overhaul is long overdue. Its really truly pathetic that companies can still get away with 16 hr duty days and on top of that make you do other duties beyond the 16 hr duty day. Truly unsafe is the word. Anyone who is forced to sit oncall 24hrs a day should report this to the FAA. They may not too much but its worth a shot.

The above is NOT CORRECT. Being "on reserve" is NOT considered being "on duty", as far as the FAA is concerned (your carrier might be different). I have had many dealings with the "Whitlow Interpretation" since it came down. TECHNICALLY, the Whitlow Interpretation only narrowly applies to a pilot and then only applies to an operating seat. When you "look back" in a 24hr period, you must have an 8 hr period free from duty in order to pilot an aircraft (says nothing about company directed deadheading, for instance, in which you might be assigned to violate that window). It is legal (as far as the FAA is concerned) to be assigned "other duties" (desk work, company directed deadhead, etc...) that violate the 8hr free from duty window.

You have an excellent point that the Whitlow Interpretation should also be applicable to FA's. IMO, it SHOULD also encompass FA's as they are legally required by the FAA to be onboard and on duty in order to operate a passenger aircraft. They should be afforded the same reasonable protections since they are required crew members on a revenue flight. It is my understanding that Whitlow currently only applies to pilots operating an aircraft, however.

Good luck,

BBB

 

[Big Beer Belly]

I could very well be wrong with my interpretation of the FARs. The way I see it a rest period for a crewmember is supposed to be a time where you are released from all your company duties/responsibilities. If your a required crewmember the rules stay the same. If you are required to answer the phone I believe it is considered duty time by the FAA. It sure is for pilots and I dont see how it couldnt be for FAs. The regulations for each basically read the same. If you are required to answer your phone that is not a rest period. The FAA has been quite clear on this matter.

I reread my previous post and in spite of my attempt at the time to be precise I see where I might have failed. The following explanation could be seen by some to be "splitting hairs" but actually it is VERY critical to the APPLICATION of Whitlow's Interpretation, particularly for reserves on their first day of an assignment at my company (UPS). Logic would dictate that a pilot is either RESTING or is ON DUTY (for any given day of work at least). Trust me I understand that logic and have argued it to no avail. The FAA did not go so far as to say that being on reserve (awaiting assignment) is "DUTY", but rather merely said it was "NOT RESTING". Right now you're saying to yourself ... "What?" ... what's the difference? In most circumstances and probably at most companies the difference would not become important so long as the pilot was afforded 8 hrs of rest in any 24 hr "look back" period.

The difference comes into play when your pilot labor agreement restricts your maximum duty day to something less than 16 hours (FAA max). At UPS our short reserve call-out periods are 13 hrs long. Our contract specifies either a 11+30 or 13+00 duty day depending upon the time of day you show for duty. (On its face you can see the 11+30 is already in conflict ... but wait, I'll explain). Let's say 10 hours into your call period you are given an assignment that will end in 5 hours (a 1+30 report time and a 3+30 assignment). Your day would be 15 hrs long from start of reserve till end of work and your contract limits you to 11+30 or 13+00. While being FAA legal, how is that in compliance with our labor agreement? WELL ... it is in compliance because you were NOT on duty the first 10 hours, merely "NOT RESTING". Do you see the microscopic nuance of the Whitlow Interpretation and how in this case UPS has been able to exploit it? The Whitlow Interpretation was meant to stop companies from having someone be on call say 12 hours and THEN receive a max duty day 16 hr assignment (effectively the pilot would be awake a minimum of 28 hrs! ... hardly SAFE)

With the Whitlow Interpretation, ALWAYS the bottom line is that a pilot must be afforded 8 hrs free from duty in any 24 hr period (via the "look back" provision). If everyone remembers this, that's 99% of the ball game, as they say.