FAA Chief to Draft Tougher Rules to Alleviate
06-15-2009, 10:24 PM
#21
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 40,107
It will be hard to know for sure, but I think so.
I have done transcon redeye commutes, but I arrived 12 hours prior to show so I could sleep. I would not have cared to go directly to work after such a commute, and I have years of experience with military sleep deprivation. I can stay awake for days if needed, but I cannot make myself function particularly well after missing the first night's rest.
The CA was sleeping in the crew room during the day. I've done that too...after work while waiting on my ride home. No fun there either, unless colgan had some really great rest facilities.
I have done transcon redeye commutes, but I arrived 12 hours prior to show so I could sleep. I would not have cared to go directly to work after such a commute, and I have years of experience with military sleep deprivation. I can stay awake for days if needed, but I cannot make myself function particularly well after missing the first night's rest.
The CA was sleeping in the crew room during the day. I've done that too...after work while waiting on my ride home. No fun there either, unless colgan had some really great rest facilities.
06-15-2009, 11:14 PM
#22
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: DD->DH->RU/XE soon to be EV
Posts: 3,732
Ok, assuming that did become the reg. Commuting in, arriving at domicle EXACTLY 8 hours prior to show. THEN going to a hotel or crashpad is so much better than an RR overnight following a 16 hour day, to be followed by ANOTHER looooooong duty day.
06-15-2009, 11:21 PM
#23
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Legacy FO
Posts: 4,105
This could be good for us in more than one way.
1. We actually get reasonable rest requirements.
2. Better rest requirements, and shorter duty days = more pilots, same amount of flying. This may lead to some recalls at the regional level, to cover the flying that would not be covered due to increased rest.
A way I could see it going bad, and how airline will argue against it:
If regionals have to increase staffing levels to comply with increased rest requirements that naturally means that costs go up. If costs go up Mainline will be looking to cut it somewhere... where is the question that scares me.
1. We actually get reasonable rest requirements.
2. Better rest requirements, and shorter duty days = more pilots, same amount of flying. This may lead to some recalls at the regional level, to cover the flying that would not be covered due to increased rest.
A way I could see it going bad, and how airline will argue against it:
If regionals have to increase staffing levels to comply with increased rest requirements that naturally means that costs go up. If costs go up Mainline will be looking to cut it somewhere... where is the question that scares me.
The second part of that scenario is ... costs go up, so the tickets go up, so less people can afford to fly, demand further drops, and parent company then needs less pilots ... mainline and regional.
No matter what happens, this is going to cost the company. And that will mean jobs lost.
Last edited by KC10 FATboy; 06-16-2009 at 02:07 AM.
06-16-2009, 12:28 AM
#24
Day puke
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: Out.
Posts: 3,865
06-16-2009, 12:36 AM
#25
Day puke
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: Out.
Posts: 3,865
Bingo. You guys are getting what you wanted ... we many of us warned you all to be careful what you asked for.
The second part of that scenario is ... costs go up, so the tickets go up, so less people can afford to fly, demand further drops, and parent company then needs less pilots ... mainline and regional.
No matter what happens, this is going to cost the company. And that will mean jobs lost.
The second part of that scenario is ... costs go up, so the tickets go up, so less people can afford to fly, demand further drops, and parent company then needs less pilots ... mainline and regional.
No matter what happens, this is going to cost the company. And that will mean jobs lost.
06-16-2009, 04:53 AM
#26
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: In the doghouse
Posts: 136
All in all, I'm a little excited to see what will happen. Next up, the senate hearing!
06-16-2009, 04:55 AM
#27
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2005
Position: ERJ CAPT
Posts: 227
Bingo. You guys are getting what you wanted ... many of us warned you all to be careful what you asked for.
The second part of that scenario is ... costs go up, so the tickets go up, so less people can afford to fly, demand further drops, and parent company then needs less pilots ... mainline and regional.
No matter what happens, this is going to cost the company. And that will mean jobs lost.
The second part of that scenario is ... costs go up, so the tickets go up, so less people can afford to fly, demand further drops, and parent company then needs less pilots ... mainline and regional.
No matter what happens, this is going to cost the company. And that will mean jobs lost.
In motto of one of our great states..."Live Free or Die" there are fates worst than death! If someone chooses to be a slave the rest of their life, so be it. I don't have to choose the same fate.
I'd rather go on the dreaded unemployment line than to cower and see this BS continue to play out for a lifetime!
06-16-2009, 05:51 AM
#28
Banned
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: The Beginnings
Posts: 1,317
Unquestionably. I have sympathy for the FO's actions (commute with sleep planned in the crew room), less so for the CA (I understand he could afford but was too cheap to pay for a hotel --- we've all been there but that doesn't make it right.)
As for the likely FAA changes:
As for the likely FAA changes:
- Harder checkrides -- cost nothing (to the airlines, anyway).
- Make PRIA's cover every piece of paper generated on you, EVER, - Costs almost nothing. (except except now you discuss every comment ever written in every margin of every eval for every job interview for the rest of your career. Much more interesting than Sat/Unsat)
- Change rest requirements, max duty days/flying hours, and a rational, methodical scientific approach to circadian rhythms -- EXPENSIVE AND WILL NEVER HAPPEN.
Last edited by deltabound; 06-16-2009 at 06:03 AM.
06-16-2009, 06:12 AM
#29
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: EMB145
Posts: 772
Unquestionably. I have sympathy for the FO's actions (commute with sleep planned in the crew room), less so for the CA (I understand he could afford but was too cheap to pay for a hotel --- we've all been there but that doesn't make it right.)
As for the likely FAA changes:
As for the likely FAA changes:
- Harder checkrides -- cost nothing (to the airlines, anyway).
06-16-2009, 06:55 AM
#30
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: A320 FO
Posts: 1,454
I posted this on the Major thread I thought I should post it here too
What’s next?
Pilots have to live at base
Pilots must be forced to sleep for 8 hours prior to any flight
Pilots are not allowed any alcohol 24 hours prior to any flight
Pilots are not allowed any medication 24 hours prior to any flight
Pilots have to maintain a healthy low carb low fat diet
Pilots have to work out at least 5 days per week
Pilots have to be a certain height, weight, and race.
What’s next?
Pilots have to live at base
Pilots must be forced to sleep for 8 hours prior to any flight
Pilots are not allowed any alcohol 24 hours prior to any flight
Pilots are not allowed any medication 24 hours prior to any flight
Pilots have to maintain a healthy low carb low fat diet
Pilots have to work out at least 5 days per week
Pilots have to be a certain height, weight, and race.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
forgot to bid
Major
15
11-25-2008 09:21 PM
