New Rest Regs
08-09-2009, 06:39 AM
#31
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
Lag,
That sounds great if you fly to SAT the rest of your career. What happens if they discontinue the nonstop and fly SAT-IAH-DFW-MEM? Are you going to have rest to after being on that jumpseat? What about guys on the west coast? Anyway, it is hard to base the future on what we are doing now, especially at Fedex....
That sounds great if you fly to SAT the rest of your career. What happens if they discontinue the nonstop and fly SAT-IAH-DFW-MEM? Are you going to have rest to after being on that jumpseat? What about guys on the west coast? Anyway, it is hard to base the future on what we are doing now, especially at Fedex....
08-09-2009, 02:06 PM
#32
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 689
Door #3 is just being required to be in domicile 8-10 hours prior to show. Read- restricted from jumpseating or otherwise commuting. Not on the company's dime but on your own time. If you aren't leaving domicile, why would the company build in 10 hours before departure?
They don't have to make it illegal to live away from base to mandate the 10 hours of rest. Who is going to quit over having to move or spend 2-5 more days in domicile in this hiring environment?
How do airlines deal with the 24 hrs off before ultra long range ops right now?
They don't have to make it illegal to live away from base to mandate the 10 hours of rest. Who is going to quit over having to move or spend 2-5 more days in domicile in this hiring environment?
How do airlines deal with the 24 hrs off before ultra long range ops right now?
08-09-2009, 04:24 PM
#33
Line Holder
Joined APC: May 2009
Posts: 99
With all due respect guys, I'm tired of this "unspoken policy" b.s.!
We need to demand from our FDX MEC a concrete policy that's clear and simple enough for the entire pilot group. Clear enough that even the Airbus guys can understand.
Our disputed pairings enforcement is powerless (maybe due to threat of lawsuits?) with no ramifications to violators. Unless you consider a random email or phone call chastising them.
We need to demand from our FDX MEC a concrete policy that's clear and simple enough for the entire pilot group. Clear enough that even the Airbus guys can understand.
Our disputed pairings enforcement is powerless (maybe due to threat of lawsuits?) with no ramifications to violators. Unless you consider a random email or phone call chastising them.
Last edited by OffRoad5150; 08-09-2009 at 07:29 PM.
08-09-2009, 05:32 PM
#35
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Position: A300CAP
Posts: 479
With all due respect guys, I'm tired of this "unspoken policy" b.s.!
We need to demand from our FDX MEC a concrete policy that's clear and simple enough for the entire pilot group. Clear enough that even the Airbus guys to understand.
Our disputed pairings enforcement is powerless (maybe due to threat of lawsuits?) with no ramifications to violators. Unless you consider a random email or phone call chastising them.
We need to demand from our FDX MEC a concrete policy that's clear and simple enough for the entire pilot group. Clear enough that even the Airbus guys to understand.
Our disputed pairings enforcement is powerless (maybe due to threat of lawsuits?) with no ramifications to violators. Unless you consider a random email or phone call chastising them.
Uh, how did we go from discussing rest regs and jumpseating to disputed pairings and Airbus bashing? Did I miss the bus? If there's a connection here, I'd appreciate being enlightened...
08-09-2009, 06:39 PM
#36
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: B777 Captain
Posts: 566
Sorry, couldn't resist, carry on!
08-09-2009, 06:58 PM
#37
Line Holder
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Posts: 58
Unspoken policy is just that - unspoken, not even written.
If it's not in the CBA, especially during these days of mgmt's "creative" interpretations, I say ignore it. You wanna jump in from the west coast the night before to operate to CDG on the am outbound, do it! Where does it say we can't? In fact, CBA says j/s is specifically not considered FAA duty time.
If it's not in the CBA, especially during these days of mgmt's "creative" interpretations, I say ignore it. You wanna jump in from the west coast the night before to operate to CDG on the am outbound, do it! Where does it say we can't? In fact, CBA says j/s is specifically not considered FAA duty time.
08-09-2009, 07:32 PM
#38
Line Holder
Joined APC: May 2009
Posts: 99
Just poking fun at the Bus - I enjoyed my time in it, really I did!
08-09-2009, 08:00 PM
#39
Part Time Employee
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Dispersing Green House Gasses on a Global Basis
Posts: 1,918
Unspoken policy is just that - unspoken, not even written.
If it's not in the CBA, especially during these days of mgmt's "creative" interpretations, I say ignore it. You wanna jump in from the west coast the night before to operate to CDG on the am outbound, do it! Where does it say we can't? In fact, CBA says j/s is specifically not considered FAA duty time.
If it's not in the CBA, especially during these days of mgmt's "creative" interpretations, I say ignore it. You wanna jump in from the west coast the night before to operate to CDG on the am outbound, do it! Where does it say we can't? In fact, CBA says j/s is specifically not considered FAA duty time.
08-09-2009, 08:18 PM
#40
Line Holder
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Posts: 58
MAXKTS
No Harm No Foul (1330 hrs j/s to rest period) applies only to STAGERS - as quoted by SCP himself. Again, that's only "unspoken" interpretation, which is still b.s., but if you list as BUSINESS, that rule doesn't apply. I've been told that if you list business, you are not "protected" by No Harm No Foul, so then why would you be penalized by it? Double edged sword.
I'd be hard-pressed to believe mgmt could remove someone from a trip b/c of No Harm No foul. I'm pretty sure the CBA doesn't have any provision to remove a pilot from a trip for using a company jumpseat inbound. That's grounds for a grievance. CBA even goes so far as to state that if the FAA decides to crack down and start calling jumpseats duty-time then all bets are off...
No Harm No Foul (1330 hrs j/s to rest period) applies only to STAGERS - as quoted by SCP himself. Again, that's only "unspoken" interpretation, which is still b.s., but if you list as BUSINESS, that rule doesn't apply. I've been told that if you list business, you are not "protected" by No Harm No Foul, so then why would you be penalized by it? Double edged sword.
I'd be hard-pressed to believe mgmt could remove someone from a trip b/c of No Harm No foul. I'm pretty sure the CBA doesn't have any provision to remove a pilot from a trip for using a company jumpseat inbound. That's grounds for a grievance. CBA even goes so far as to state that if the FAA decides to crack down and start calling jumpseats duty-time then all bets are off...
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
MrBigAir
Aviation Law
21
11-06-2008 08:00 AM
