afterburn81

And here is the problem with the world. "screw everyone else, it's all about me". I think they were making fun of guys like you on south park when Cartman walked around the whole show saying "I do what I want!!". Money is more important than safety to you. And I'm not taking a shot at you personally because I have no clue who you are. Unfortunately, waaaaaay too many people think like this. The point is, if you fly fatiqued because you NEED the money, someone's mother, dad, grandmother etc. is in the cabin that is slightly affected when you do something dumb and kill yourself.

saab2000

For me and acceptable compromise would be schedulable to 12 hours and extendable to, say, 14 hours maybe up to 6 times in a rotating 12 month period. That would be my compromise.

But the minimum rest needs to be 10 hours, not 8.

I am not one for draconian solutions, but the fact is that the industry has not been able to police itself on this stuff and the pendulum will swing the other way now.

They see the regs and contracts as targets, not limitations, and that has lead to abuses.

And I do believe schedules will get more efficient. There is no penalty now for a 4+ hour sit at an airport. But there will be in the future.

I think I'm like most pilots in that when I go to work, I want to work. I don't want to sit around. It really shouldn't take 14 hours to operate 6-8 hours of block. But that is how they are scheduled.

IIRC, when I worked in Europe the max was 13 hours and this was reduced by 30 minutes for every leg over 4. Something like that. Meaning max duty was 12:30 for 5 legs. 12:00 for 6 legs. Etc. I don't remember if this was absolute or scheduled.

It never, ever came in to play though as shifts were far better managed than they are in the US.

My acceptable solution would not be draconian in any case. But the 16 hours needs to go.

250 or point 65

OK, in my quote, replace "we" with "our". I didn't intend a 'screw everyone else' attitude, just that 10 days off a month for the rest of our lives is not worth being an airline pilot.

I also don't recall ever saying that money trumped safety, I just think that there's better ways to increase safety while minimizing the impact on QOL.

FWIW, I have never put myself in a position where I chose money over safety. I don't fly fatigued and would never choose to.

afterburn81

Just a thought on the whole thing. Everyone is worried about loosing money and QOL when/if this stuff ever becomes mandatory. Of course that's totally understandable but did you ever think it may be the icing on the cake to make becoming a professional pilot not worth becoming. Thus further starving the in-flow of new pilots creating a real demand. So if we can take the cut now, maybe down the road it will REALLY pay off. Just a thought.

250 or point 65

But its not just about pay. To me, no amount of money is worth 20 day/month away from home. My point was not that I'm money hungry, but that I need money to survive as a regional pilot. Its the lifestyle that I love about being a pilot. To me 15 days gone is completely worth 15 days off and home. I understand that we all have different priorities in terms of QOL, but money wont buy me away from my family.

mwa1

these new guidelines are being crafted by mainline pilots who would love to make regional flying NOT economically viable. Shorter legs have unique challenges. Don't fall for mainliners rallying for increased pay at the regionals w/o considering the agenda. They may come across as your friend but you will price yourself out of the market and the mainliners will not shed a tear.

FlyASA

As a regional pilot I think making regionals economically unviable is a great idea. I'd rather see the jobs at the majors growing and the jobs at the regionals shrinking. This will delay me getting to a major for a few years but I am completely ok with that. It is a 30-40 year career, I'd rather delay it a few years and have a great job at the majors than be a lifer at some crappy regional.

SabreDriver

I'll say it: Money always trumps safety in a "for profit" bid-ness, always. Everything is a compromise, everything contains an element of risk, and we are in a very risky bid-ness. When safety appears to take precidence, it is only because the "safety related" decision was made out of a fear of the cost of not doing/making it. It is usually the classic "how many people can we kill before we lose money/the contract/go out of business?"

For those making the new rules, "your" QOL has nothing to do with it, period. They don't care, if you don't like the changes, you will leave the industry and there will be a legion of people to take your place for less money, recent history is littered with examples of this.

SD

atpcliff

Hi!

People do NOT like change.

Much of the objections/nervousness about the upcoming Flight/Duty/Rest changes, is the same as the resistance towards changing the US Health Care system, of the idea that the world is a sphere, back when the common person thought it was flat.

Change is scary, and not easy for people to accept, even if it is change for the positive.

It IS ironic, that the Earth, and our Universe, was designed for CONSTANT change, and the more flexible we become with change, the less stressful our lives will be.

So, to abate your stress, expand your mind and think positively about the Flight/Duty/Rest changes that are coming. Visualize the changes being positive for you and your family.

cliff
NBO

mwa1

just trust them. Don't ask questions