PBSG

Wow duvie, I hit a nerve with you. So me thinking what's good for the entire pilot profession is socialism? That's pretty far reaching. Like I said in a previous post I want XJT reserve rules to be better. I'll never sit reserve here again (hopefully) but I want to leave it better for the pilots who will - just like the past XJT guys got rid of PFT. They didn't have to, but they knew it wasn't right. Why not sack up and do what's right? It may or may not affect you but in the end it makes the profession better!!!

duvie

PBSG,

Quoting your post was misleading on my part, my piece was not directly squarely at you, but rather anybody who cares to read it. I only meant to convey that asking for sacrifice from some for the betterment of others is a slippery slope. Sorry if I made you feel attacked

sinsilvia666

raa and ata are all worthless boners....simple

PBSG

No problem. I don't get easily offended. And by the way, that socialism scare tactic doesn't work on me. If wanting to improve everyone's QOL is socialism then so be it. Much like the scare of losing 27,000 jobs. It doesn't scare me.

gettinbumped

As Czech points out, most major airlines have contracts with rules that are more restrictive than the new rules, so the cost effects will not be terribly prohibitive. Of course, he then goes about trying to reverse that fact for his own selfish reasons. The real losers will be the regional airlines... and to that I say FINALLY. With an ever increasing percentage of passengers in the US being carried by small jets, it's imperative that the fatigue of those crews be fixed. If that makes the RJ's less attractive to their major sponsors, we all win.

duvie

If this was truly beneficial to "everyone" then it wouldn't be an issue. 10% would resist it just because it is change (that 10% were actually upset about getting Jeppesen airside at SkyWest), but it would be welcomed with open arms by the vast majority. Such is not the case here, so I think perhaps you should consider that what is beneficial to some might not be beneficial to others. The socialism comparison isn't a tactic, just stating a commonality in beliefs that seems to be overlooked. I personally don't really know if the new rules will negatively or positively affect me. Most of my trips are fairly reasonable, aside from the rare instance of showing at 5 am, two times to the east. Time will tell I guess

chazbird

The Reuters "story" and the near identical twin ATA press release points out, yet again (and again), serious flaws with the media in this country. I am not talking about when the media gets a aircraft or operational technicality wrong, but the basics of journalism.

It is one thing to take a press release as hard news. It is another thing altogether to just copy it. Yet more telling of Reuters failure and disservice is that: They didn't ask to speak and ask questions with a real person from the ATA. Even if the ATA declined an interview, Reuters reporting that could be illustrative. Reuters didn't bother to ask anyone else about this, the FAA, pilots, pilot unions, NASA - academia (the so called no basis in science quote). Nor did it appear they bothered to dig and find anything out about the consultancy analysis group the ATA hired and the numbers they came up with. It could be interesting to see what other projects and results that consultancy worked on.

Boomer

Didn't Reuters do a piece on the Eagle pilot who flew F-16s in the guard and firefight on the weekends?

poor pilot

Read between the lines they said they would cut 27,000 jobs but nowhere does it say "pilot Jobs". We can all find 27,000 people standing around doing nothing at the airport. They loose their job so the airlines can hire more pilots. I'm cool with that.