Noworkallplay

According to our reps on the hub turn meeting almost all our international and most (more than 75%) of our domestic is already 117 compliant. We could, and most likely would, get an alternate means of compliance AMOC for the more than 3 consecutive night duties that makes up a large portion of our non compliant domestic trips. They could make very minor tweaks on departure and arrival times to come into compliance on max sit times regulated by 117 in night operations. The biggest safety risk 117 resolves is our companies ability to use operational limits the second you check in. 16 hour duty periods multiple nights in a row. 9 hour overnights which equate to 5 hours of sleep.

Our biggest problem at FedEx isn't our scheduling rules in our contract (In most places more restrictive than 117) its our operational rules. Its the same problem we have with guys not calling in fatigue when they cant keep their eyes open for more than 30 minutes at 3 am. Sometimes it takes an external person to tell you that you have a problem since we are the worst evaluators of ourselves.

You cant ask to be apart of some rules and carved out of others. Your either in on safety or not. This is what constantly leads to cargo getting carved out of every major legislative bill that moves the industry forward. Your not super human and you are not any more fatigue prone than your passenger counterparts.

I hope you see that the gains in 117 far outweigh any small production hit you may take. Believe me your 70 year old self will appreciate 117 since you will still be alive and able to enjoy that pension you worked so hard for.

Noworkallplay

Contract is already more restrictive on RFO requirements. I love when guys forget we have a CBA. When 117 was implemented at all the passenger airlines 4 years ago did the contracts disappear? Did the contract language that was more restrictive disappear?

HIFLYR

[QUOTE
Our biggest problem at FedEx isn't our scheduling rules in our contract (In most places more restrictive than 117) its our operational rules. [/QUOTE]

Exactly this is one of the reasons I voted no on the last contract. We really don’t have scheduling limits, we have paring build limits. I.E. the company can simply declare a ops emergency and bingo your good to FAR limits. In the old days before the little prince the company would ask you to go to FAR limits and in my experience would work with you. He determined the contract actually let the company go straight to your going to FAR limits, so that is what happens now!

HappyTrails

Exactly this is one of the reasons I voted no on the last contract. We really don’t have scheduling limits, we have paring build limits. I.E. the company can simply declare a ops emergency and bingo your good to FAR limits. In the old days before the little prince the company would ask you to go to FAR limits and in my experience would work with you. He determined the contract actually let the company go straight to your going to FAR limits, so that is what happens now![/QUOTE]

Your last sentence, are you stating it is happening more frequently? Is Fedex abusing contract language more often? Please say NOT, Fedex is the torch bearer for schedule flexibility/QOL. I see Fedex as the golden standard, please don’t pop my balloon 😳

Noworkallplay

Your last sentence, are you stating it is happening more frequently? Is Fedex abusing contract language more often? Please say NOT, Fedex is the torch bearer for schedule flexibility/QOL. I see Fedex as the golden standard, please don’t pop my balloon 😳[/QUOTE]

No one ever said FedEx had a problem with schedule flexibility. As someone who came from another major the flexibility at FedEx is most definitely at the top part of the industry.

The conversation was in regards to our build parameters (which are good) and our operational parameters (not good bc of 121)

Yes, FedEx management plays the grey areas of the contract from time to time like every management group. Thats the job of our pilot group and union to hold them responsible.

I know your a brown guy and our flexibility burns your button.

Lets get back on track.

FXLAX

You said that we were embracing a regulation designed for passenger airlines. I’m just saying that is false. It was designed for ALL airlines, including cargo and specifically FedEx (there was a FedEx pilot on the ARC).

And what I said is that management lobbied to get the OMB to change its mind and carve us out, NOT for our benefit. Meaning that it would’ve helped us precisely because it would cost them more money, just as it cost all passenger airlines more money to provide their pilots more rest.

Also, I wasn’t here during the last negotiation. But that doesn’t mean I haven’t been part of other pilot groups going through negotiations. Both of those points are actually an advantage. I’m not jaded, or prejudiced, or carry any baggage, or have preconceived ideas, or think that just because something happened a certain way last time, it will happen every single other time in perpetuity anytime there are negotiations. This mindset I read incessantly needs to stop. NOTHING needs to be given up, NOTHING! Guess what? If management doesn’t like how 117 changes their way of doing things, NOTHING has to be changed. Because they can’t force us to do anything. We don’t need to agree to anything that we don’t want to agree to. I get that we have already used negotiating capital for safety items (just a personal pet peeve of mine) but my point is that THIS is one area where we wouldn’t beucase it would be a regulation (assuming of course if it would ever be implemented).

What I meant by level playing field is this. Let’s assume that UPS or Atlas doesn’t have as good of scheduling rules that we do. Anytime we try to negotiate an improvement here or there in a certain scheduling clause, the push back will always be that others don’t have that provision. If 117 was implemented, it would bring up the UPS, Atals, ATIs, of the cargo industry and therefore wouldn’t be as hard to negotiate improvements. I’m actually surprised this isn’t a common sense way of seeing 117 in the cargo industry for us folks here that are arguably in the lead as far as scheduling rules. The better we can make it for the other cargo pilots, the easier it is for us as well.

As for the RFO issue, maybe I misunderstood. I’m not familiar with long haul international ops. But as it is right now, the RFO rule is already more restrictive than 121. That wouldn’t change with 117 and it wouldn’t need to change if we don’t want it to change. We can simply sit on our hands and do nothing if management didn’t like it.

As for consecutive night hub turns, even if management wouldn’t adjust departure times to come into compliance, this doesn’t automatically mean that there would be more commutes. This is just an assumption on your part. Like I said, on the one hand you want more information on how it would affect us, but on the other hand you automatically know it would add commutes? Pick one.

Also, 121 has rest rules in it that are flawed and should cause any pilot to call in fatigue if they fall within some of those legal parameters. That’s what I meant by flawed. I didn’t meant that you will never have to or shouldn’t call in fatigue under 117. But the changes one will have to under 117 will be less than those under 121. I’ve worked under three different rest rules and by far, 117 has less situations where you could be operationally legal and fatigued. 117 is not perfect, but it’s less fatiguing than 121 when each is taken to the FAR limit.

Finally, no regulation covers everything. 117 is maturing and there are already DOZENS of legal FAA interpretations covering actual real life scenarios. And unique flight schedules are covered through 117’s mandated FRMP for unforeseen type situations that are resolved on a case by case basis at each airline.

I’m patient. Not only can I be patient on waiting for the catalyst that causes 117 to finally come to cargo, but I’m also patient on not getting a new contract if it means saying no to management on any erosion in QOL items. I wish more of us were more patient and not had the attitude that something will have to be given up. It’s defeatist and doesn’t need to be so.

coryk

Another point that I don't believe has been brought up in regards to 117 and reserve pilots. Before beginning any reserve period, the pilot needs to show at 10 hour rest opportunity. So I don't know how FDX will make this work with our current system of starting RA day 1, and being phone contactable at midnight. The 117 airlines I worked for previously, you were off duty right up until you weren't, so they technically couldn't prove the rest opportunity was had. Therefore essentially making your first day of reserve starting at 10am. It would basically kill our first day of RA. Unless they call on our last day off and "make contact" which therefore notifies us our our 0130 start time for day one of RA.

Also, as far as 117 goes... I am for it for the simple reason of removing the company's ability to declare an "operational emergency" whenever they want to, essentially extending us to FAR limits. 16 hours with a good portion of that during the middle of the night is awful. 117 would essentially limit that to around 10-12 hours if I remember correctly. In certain circumstances the company can request* the pilots extend an additional two-hours. That being said, all the places I worked for previously, before it was even asked, it was an automatic NO.

sweetholyjesus

This is all incorrect. All they have to show is that they had no duty on your schedule in the previous 10 hours, which would be the case when starting reserve after a day off.

The limit depends on the type of operation (line, reserve, split duty), when the duty period starts, and how many legs you are flying. Look up the 117 duty limits (Table A and B). For example: a hub turn for a line holder with a 2200L report to fly two legs is limited to 11 hours of flight duty, extendable to 13 hours with pilot's consent.
Table B

coryk

I may have gotten mixed up. If they called me at 12:01am day 1 of RSV the earliest I could report was 10:01 because they needed to show a 10 hour rest period prior to coming on duty, unless I was notified of a trip or other assignment (airport reserve, short call) prior to RSV day starting and I answered and acknowledged the call. Again, this was 3 years ago.

In regards to the flight duty limits, you basically reiterated my point. 10-12 hours essentially... if you look at your chart.

sweetholyjesus

I think you are mixing up short call reserve with long call reserve. With long call reserve you are contactable continuously (24 hours/day), so when they contact you they must then give you 10 hours rest before reporting for duty.

Also I provided the Table B example for others who may have never used 117, not to disagree with what you said. Anyone coming from the military may have never seen this table.