hockeypilot44

This kind of reminds me of the first round of pay cuts before the bankruptcies. ALPA preached to the pilot groups that they needed to take pay cuts to save their pensions. The pensions at most airlines were all terminated anyway. The pilots' voluntary pay cuts that ALPA scared pilots into voting for ended up being free money to the companies out of our pockets. My card is in. I know virtually nothing about DPA, but I know plenty about ALPA. I'll research DPA further if it ever gets to an actual vote.

acl65pilot

Hockey, what is the requirement now?

Superpilot92

there wouldnt be a shortage of pilots if mgmt hadnt stripped and dumbed down our profession. Raise the pay and the pilots will come. What there is a shortage of is a shortage of people willing to work for the current pay and working environment. The "reward" is no longer worth the "risk".

DAWGS

ALPA language:

"The proposal does not assess the effects of increasing the amount of block time in a duty period up to 10 hours." IOW, door is open and we already offered up 9, so we really don't have a leg to stand on in holding the line on 8.

Compare that to CAPA language:

"CAPA supports a “hard” limit of 8 hours of block time for a non-augmented crew." IOW they go the other way and actually strengthen what is already there by making it 8 hours hard. ie. no more legal to start, legal to finish. At 8 hours of flight time, the merry-go round stops.

http://www.capapilots.org/Websites/c...ts_Oct2010.pdf

Now of those two responses, which one actually supports the intent of the new rules. They are being changed to REDUCE fatigue. Offering up 9 hours doesn't reduce fatigue. Whamby bamby language also leaves the door wide open. But you ALPA supporters keep crowing the "I told you so attitude" and "see ALPA really does support us" because we all can go to the source as well and read. ALPA doesn't represent me, plain and simple.

freightguy

Word. ALPA has been fear mongering the membership for a while now. Time for that to end. I for one don't even believe in all the crap ALPA is spouting about MPL, foreign pilots, cabotage etc as an excuse to lowring the 1500hr requirement. Till last week they were telling us that we gonna have to reduce 1500hrs to 500hrs to keep Emirates away! That made no sense...so they just came up with a better story this week.

I am copying and pasting what ACL65PILOT had to say defending ALPA on the 1500 hr issue on 10/19/2010:

"What is a bigger threat to our careers is Emirates trying to levy the UAE's allowance of military base locations for more landing rights for their carrier in this country. Europe and Canada shot back and lost basing rights there. If we have to settle for something less than 1500 hrs to get the government to back fighting the UAE on this, I understand it. It is all about politics and the maneuvering that always goes on. Changing unions will not all of a sudden allow every issue to be dealt with separately."

ACL, I know you're a smart guy. I really do believe you have the best interests of the pilots in yourheart. If you run for ALPA (or DPA) office, I will even vote for you...may be you can fix them once you see what really goes on. But sometimes I wonder: are you drinking a little too much ALPA coolaid? Maybe you know something I don't.

I think the real issue is keeping the regional industry happy as they are a big part of the ALPA membership today. I'm sorry...but I am going to have to post that letter again here as proof:

"The FAA's aviation safety bill passed earlier this year, but a new report suggests the included prerequisite 1,500 hours flight experience for commercial airline copilots may not be necessary. An FAA advisory committee led by a regional airline official has proposed that 500 actual flight hours may be enough. Language in the safety legislation says that the FAA Administrator "may allow specific academic training courses ... to be credited toward the total flight hours required." The committee suggests that through an elaborate structure of training courses, up to two-thirds of the safety law's required 1,500 flight hours could be satisfied with other credited training. The proposal is merely a recommendation and it is not clear that there is any wiggle room in other language that specifically imposes the flight hours requirement. Meanwhile, the proposal has reignited the total hours versus quality-of-training argument. And pilot groups, industry voices and safety advocates are weighing in.


Legislators who fought for the safety bill's language say the law explicitly requires 1,500 flight hours, and any modifications must be justified by a resultant increase in safety. The president of the Regional Airline Association, Roger Cohen, has a different opinion. Cohen said academic work is "far more useful in training pilots for modern airline operations" than hours spent "towing banners above the beach." As for the FAA, Administrator Randy Babbitt supports improved training over a general requirement for more flight hours. Babbitt has previously commented on the subject, saying "experience is not measured by flight time alone." The Regional Airline Association holds the view that a "proper mix of the experience and academic/training approaches" would best ensure safety. And two pilot groups represented on the committee have split on the issue. The Air Line Pilots Association backed the committee's recommendations, while the Coalition of Air Line Pilot Associations supported experience over even enhanced training."

Reroute

Mini-chronology: Regulatory History of Flight Limitation Rules
1931: Commerce Department sets monthly flight time limit of 110 hours. Operators want 140 hours/month, but ALPA’s founder and first president, Capt. Dave Behncke, campaigns for 85 hours/month.
1934: ALPA prevails—National Labor Board’s Decision 83 limits flight time to 85 hours per month.
1938: Substance of Decision 83 is incorporated into Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938. Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB, predecessor to FAA) issues domestic flight-time rules, limiting flight time to 8 hours in a 24-hour period.
1942: CAB amends rules to limit flight time to 30 hours/week.
1945–1947: CAB issues flag (international) and supplemental flight-time rules.
1953–1954: CAB amends supplemental and flag rules, saying deadheading is not rest.
1962: FAA issues moratorium on series of flight-time rules.
1976: ALPA sues FAA to remove moratorium.
1946–1982: CAB and FAA issue 30 proposals to amend flight-time limits.
1985: FAA revises domestic flight limit rules, establishing that rest is still required even after less than 8 hours of flight time, and includes a look-back provision.
1989: FAA limits two-pilot flight crews of aircraft in flag operations to 8 hours of flight time.
1985–1990: Air Transport Association (twice), Regional Airline Pilots Association, and ALPA file petitions for rulemaking.
1992: FAA issues bulletin to enforce interpretation of “reserve rest” rule, but in fact fails to enforce the rule.
1995: FAA issues NPRM 95-18 to revise all flight- and duty-time limits and rest requirements.
1999: After ALPA applies considerable public pressure, the FAA informs airlines that the agency will enforce the reserve rest rule, which requires airlines to give pilots on reserve duty at least 9 hours of rest before being put on reserve (“on call”) status.
2000–2008: No action by FAA. 2009: FAA Administrator J. Randolph Babbitt creates an Aviation Rulemaking Committee (in which ALPA is a full participant) to develop consensus-based recommendations leading to an NPRM by the end of 2009, with a final rule expected by the end of 2010.

Reroute

Despite huge advances in medical research and a much greater understanding of circadian rhythms and their relationship to human fatigue, flight- and duty-time regulations for professional airline pilots have not changed significantly since the end of World War II. Recognizing that advancements in fatigue standards have not kept pace with other improvements in airline safety, ALPA has worked for the past 25 years to modernize FTDT regulations at the U.S., Canada, and international levels. Its partners in the effort have included the International Federation of Air Line Pilots’ Associations, the International Civil Aviation Organization, the Federal Aviation Administration, and, more recently, the U.S. Congress.
ALPA’s campaign to base FTDT rules on scientific research took a leap forward this year when FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt appointed members of labor, industry, and government to the FAA Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) and directed the committee to comprehensively review current flight-time and duty-time regulations and recommend changes to reduce pilot fatigue and improve safety. Administrator Babbitt recognized ALPA’s expertise in fatigue and its important role as a key stakeholder in the aviation safety process by appointing seven ALPA pilots to the ARC, representing every constituency at the Association: regional, domestic, international, and cargo airlines.
The ARC completed its review and made its recommendations to the FAA privately on September 1. The FAA has begun reviewing the Aviation Rulemaking Committee’s report with an eye toward releasing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) by the end of the year.
The work of the ARC members is similar to that of NTSB accident boards: participants in the process are expected to keep the results and recommendations of the committee confidential until the FAA releases its fatigue rule NPRM. While ALPA honored the confidentiality rules, other parties in the ARC did not and leaked information to the news media, which led to stories prematurely revealing some of the committee’s recommendations.
After much deliberation, ALPA leaders decided its members deserved to be told what the Association’s position was on revising flight- and duty-time regulations, so ALPA distributed a communication on September 24 detailing the recommendations that its seven ARC representatives had given to the rulemaking committee.
The basis of ALPA’s recommendations on fatigue comes from the belief that the aviation industry needs a single, scientifically based rule for all types of flying. This was the first point in our six-point recommendation plan, which follows:

1. One rule for all airline pilots, not “carving out” the cargo and supplemental operators.
2. A minimum 10-hour rest period.
3. A reserve rest rule for all pilots.
4. Having multiple segments and circadian rhythm disruptions addressed.
5. Establishing limitations on duty periods, flight duty time, and block time based on the fact that excessive working hours affect flight safety.
6. Requiring the operator to prepare and publish reliable schedules.

Other concepts that ALPA addressed included a non-punitive provision for pilots to be removed from flight duties when they are fatigued, and a fatigue education program. ALPA’s recommendations are based on millions of hours of operational experience by our members, backed up with years of scientific study. They incorporate ICAO and IFALPA guidelines and represent a comprehensive framework, in concept and in detail, of a flight- and duty-time and rest requirement rule. The ALPA recommendations use proven research on human fatigue and sleep patterns to mitigate the dangers both short-term fatigue and cumulative (long-term) sleep deprivation can pose to safe operations.

DAWGS

Reroute,

Thanks for posting all the above. It makes my point. Nowhere does it say ALPA supports 8 hard hours of flying. ALPA has already supported increasing to 9 hours of flying. They often mention science but provide no specific study that supports raising flight hours that also results in less fatigue. It's common sense to the rest of us. CAPA supports 8 hard hours and states such in no uncertain terms. No matter how much you post, ALPA is simply on the wrong side of the argument......again.

capncrunch

The illusive pilot shortage....on par with Big Foot and Chupacabra. Mix that with a little "foreigners are going to take our jobs" and we have a nice scare tactic.

Pineapple Guy

Of course, no one will argue that 9 hrs is less fatiguing than 8. However, ALPA's proposal, taken as a whole, does much to reduce fatigue. I see CAPA taking the APA route -> grandstand, pound their chest, and then when none of their inputs are taken, cry.

ALPA, on the other hand, uses science to craft an overall proposal that, in total, reduces the fatigue significantly. They work quietly behind the scenes to actually have an impact on the final outcome. Pilots are awarded with a much improved, though not perfect, solution to the age old problem of fatigue.