Delta Pilots Association
10-30-2010, 07:02 AM
#1901
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
Yes, lets. At the conclusion of YOUR review, you posted this:
Please put down the weed, so you can follow along. Here's the actual wording.
To which I replied:
And FlyingViking felt compelled to jump in:
What I actually said was:
So where are we?
tsquare states its UNSAFE, and Flying says that must be true because COMMON SENSE says so.
I say there's no SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that its unsafe, but do freely admit its more FATIGUING. But is it TOO fatiguing?
Do you see the difference, Carl? Of course 9 hrs is more fatiguing than 8. But then again, 8 hours is more fatiguing than 7, and I'm pretty sure 7 is more fatiguing than 6, etc. etc. etc. But making the leap from fatiguing to unsafe has no scientific basis.
And if we go by FlyingViking's standard of "common sense", I'm pretty sure the ATA's "common sense" expert will testify that 10 hrs is perfectly safe.
ALPA is relying on science, and has crafted a comprehensive package that, in total, reduces fatigue significantly; not in EVERY situation, but in most. And in those situations where it increases fatigue, it is still within scientifically verified "safe" regimes.
The ATA would like nothing more than to rely on "common sense" and accept status quo. Of course, all of us would prefer much tighter standards everywhere, but we don't have veto authority, and its better to get 90% of what you want than 0%. APA has finally figured that out, CAPA will too.... maybe.
Please put down the weed, so you can follow along. Here's the actual wording.
To which I replied:
And FlyingViking felt compelled to jump in:
What I actually said was:
So where are we?
tsquare states its UNSAFE, and Flying says that must be true because COMMON SENSE says so.
I say there's no SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that its unsafe, but do freely admit its more FATIGUING. But is it TOO fatiguing?
Do you see the difference, Carl? Of course 9 hrs is more fatiguing than 8. But then again, 8 hours is more fatiguing than 7, and I'm pretty sure 7 is more fatiguing than 6, etc. etc. etc. But making the leap from fatiguing to unsafe has no scientific basis.
And if we go by FlyingViking's standard of "common sense", I'm pretty sure the ATA's "common sense" expert will testify that 10 hrs is perfectly safe.
ALPA is relying on science, and has crafted a comprehensive package that, in total, reduces fatigue significantly; not in EVERY situation, but in most. And in those situations where it increases fatigue, it is still within scientifically verified "safe" regimes.
The ATA would like nothing more than to rely on "common sense" and accept status quo. Of course, all of us would prefer much tighter standards everywhere, but we don't have veto authority, and its better to get 90% of what you want than 0%. APA has finally figured that out, CAPA will too.... maybe.
And the highlighted part of your statement is the reason that it is unsat. Safety first my a$$.
10-30-2010, 07:12 AM
#1903
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,462
1) Do nothing - ATA loves this option
2) Compromise and achieve 90% of what we want - the apparent ALPA approach
3) Go for a homerun, but risk a strike out - the apparent CAPA approach
4) Wish upon a star - the typical forum approach
I'll take option 2 every time.
10-30-2010, 07:16 AM
#1904
The Brown Dot +1
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: 777B
Posts: 7,775
No Slow, and you know what T is saying.
ALPA is (saying) that they are using "science" to make an indisputable (word choice may not be the best) case to enable airlines to man the trips with smaller seniority lists. (This is like the same science that says coffee is bad for you. No, coffee is good for you. Or, if you got your gall bladder removed 10 years ago, saturated fat was bad. Now it is not.
This is not the same as the GIB stuff. Although I see where you could twist it to sound that way. Camel's head under the tent and ALPA sides with the companies, not the pilots.
ALPA is (saying) that they are using "science" to make an indisputable (word choice may not be the best) case to enable airlines to man the trips with smaller seniority lists. (This is like the same science that says coffee is bad for you. No, coffee is good for you. Or, if you got your gall bladder removed 10 years ago, saturated fat was bad. Now it is not.
This is not the same as the GIB stuff. Although I see where you could twist it to sound that way. Camel's head under the tent and ALPA sides with the companies, not the pilots.
10-30-2010, 07:29 AM
#1905
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,539
Everything that I've read (and I'm not the expert but have talked to a couple of them) says that staffing will be neutrally to positively affected by the NPRM depending on the type of flying an air carrier does.
And I did recognize what T is saying. That's why it's just like the GIB.
10-30-2010, 07:46 AM
#1907
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2007
Posts: 593
ALPA is not trying to enable airlines to man trips with smaller seniority lists. ALPA's trying to address fatique issues. But even if you were to accept this latest NPRM as the final version, it is still a huge leap to conclude that these changes create the need for fewer pilots. There may be some routes in which is does, and many others in which it doesn't.
Regardless, this is about safety, you can't bring an argument to the table and have any credibility unless it has data to prove the safety aspects of the argument. It would be counter productive for ALPA to simply rely on arbitrary standards. It would make labor irrelvant to the process. ALPA is correct to rely on years of research when it makes its case.
10-30-2010, 08:08 AM
#1908
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,325
Still looking for Big Foot, maybe after a few more Pale Ales.
10-30-2010, 08:21 AM
#1909
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2009
Position: What day is it?
Posts: 963
WHAT ARE THE CHOICES T? I'll make it easy. There are 4 options:
1) Do nothing - ATA loves this option
2) Compromise and achieve 90% of what we want - the apparent ALPA approach
3) Go for a homerun, but risk a strike out - the apparent CAPA approach
4) Wish upon a star - the typical forum approach
I'll take option 2 every time.
1) Do nothing - ATA loves this option
2) Compromise and achieve 90% of what we want - the apparent ALPA approach
3) Go for a homerun, but risk a strike out - the apparent CAPA approach
4) Wish upon a star - the typical forum approach
I'll take option 2 every time.
To wit; when Elizabeth Dole suggested she intended to have us all aim for the little cup, Captain Duffy was offered an alternative. Have
the then 44,000 strong ALPA send tightly sealed fluid filled jars to the dear lady to express our displeasure. He was horrified and said we
needed to just "go along."
ALPA's continued unwillingness to stand up and demand more has continued. Our profession as a result has been denigrated by
management, abused by egotistical, headline grabbing politicians and made the butt of jokes by the travelling public.
Maybe ALPA needs to grow a set and stand up with everyone else for once...for the profession and the professionals. "Safety"
is what it's supposed to be about. Once you compromise, it's hard to get it back.
Congress will support you when they see you have the public behind you. The public will support you when you stand up and say
"we will not risk your lives over insufficient rest." And a few cancelled flights, with respectful PA's made to the passengers by the
fatigued crew will end up going viral on YouTube like the JFK landing...and the media will be on board.
Then..."Dear Leader" Babbitt...a former ALPA President...will understand that pilots CAN stand up and be a force that he must deal with.
That's why maybe ALPA should stand up with CAPA, IBT, APA, SWAPA, USAPA, IPA and others...for once.
Ya' think?
Last edited by ATCsaidDoWhat; 10-30-2010 at 08:31 AM.
10-30-2010, 08:25 AM
#1910
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,530
I believe some of the fractional operators have some potentially long, fatiguing duty days, however knowing that there are a myriad of factors which effect fatigue (age, sleep conditions, allergies, lack of adequate food, crossing of multiple time zones in consecutive days, heck even personal motivation) they have an iron-clad, no questions asked, no retribution style fatigue policy. Essentially a crew member can, for any reason, call fatigued. They are pay protected and more importantly, "fatigue protected."
As fatigue affect each person differently, a one size fits all policy, whether based on scientific data or not, will not completely eliminate it from the cockpit. If a policy doesn't completely eliminate or significantly reduce fatigue, how can it be acceptable for the passengers?
People like to argue that scope is the most important item in contract talks. Maybe, but imo, having an iron clad policy to eliminate fatigue and increase safety should be near the top of the list. It may not be sexy, but....
As fatigue affect each person differently, a one size fits all policy, whether based on scientific data or not, will not completely eliminate it from the cockpit. If a policy doesn't completely eliminate or significantly reduce fatigue, how can it be acceptable for the passengers?
People like to argue that scope is the most important item in contract talks. Maybe, but imo, having an iron clad policy to eliminate fatigue and increase safety should be near the top of the list. It may not be sexy, but....
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Lbell911
Regional
23
04-22-2012 11:33 AM
