Airlines fight FAA crew rest requirements

mpenguin1

mpenguin1

Well-Known Member
CHICAGO, Jan 5 (Reuters) - Seven U.S. airlines have sued the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration, claiming the agency broke its own rules and may have compromised flight safety when it set new standards for pilot rest times last year without input from the carriers.

The airlines, including AMR Corp's (AMR.N) American Airlines (AMR.N), Continental Airlines (CAL.N) and UAL Corp's (UAUA.O) United Airlines, filed the lawsuit on Dec. 24 in the the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Delta Air Lines (DAL.N), which recently merged with Northwest Airlines, was not a party to the lawsuit. Both Delta and Northwest have negotiated separate rules with the FAA governing crew rest requirements on long-haul flights.

The FAA did not comment on the lawsuit on Monday.

The government rules require additional rest time and longer layovers for pilots on nonstop flights that last more than 16 hours. To comply, airlines would have to put more pilots on those flights and provide more in-flight rest facilities for them.

http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idINN0537510320090105?rpc=44
 
The airlines can cry about it for all I care. The rest rules that the FAA has on the books still aren't good enough.
 
Crew Complement issue of the 21st century.

Better rest rules (as analyzed by pilots and our lobbying groups) mean more legacy pilot jobs, means more hiring, increased safety, etc. You get the idea.
 
Doug Taylor said:
Anyone seen any specifics?
Click to expand...

here is the draft opspec A332 - http://www.alpa.org/DesktopModules/...iew.aspx?itemid=16862&ModuleId=2044&Tabid=256

it has some good stuff in there. it looks like if the actual block time between a city pair goes over 16hrs, in either direction more than 10% of the time, they have to use these new rest rules for all flights between the city pairs regardless of scheduled block.

basically if they flight routinely goes to 16:01, then cant just block it at 15:59 to avoid these duty/rest requirements.
 
Crew rest requirments need to be completely re-written in the FAR's...with specific language requiring "time behind the door at a hotel" or the airlines will continue to interpret the definition of "crew rest" to their benefit - and run the risk of an accident/incident.

All airlines tout the "safety first" mantra, but in the end, it's all about "on-time" performance and making the customer happy because happy customers pay the bills. Tired/fatigued crews do not.
 
Better rest rules does not necessarily translate to more pilot jobs. Several years ago, when UAL was operating DC10's on the ORD-HNL route, their was some disagreement between the pilots and the company about DC10 crewing and duty periods on this city pair. If I remember correctly, the pilots were pushing for a relief pilot to be assigned to this route because although it was blocked for less than 8 hours, it ended up being more than 8 more often than not. The pilots "won" in the sense that the FAA sided with them, but UAL simply stopped flying the route. I think they even retired some aircraft because of it (not sure about that).

That said, I agree the duty/rest/flight time rules need revising.
 
skydog said:
Better rest rules does not necessarily translate to more pilot jobs. Several years ago, when UAL was operating DC10's on the ORD-HNL route, their was some disagreement between the pilots and the company about DC10 crewing and duty periods on this city pair. If I remember correctly, the pilots were pushing for a relief pilot to be assigned to this route because although it was blocked for less than 8 hours, it ended up being more than 8 more often than not. The pilots "won" in the sense that the FAA sided with them, but UAL simply stopped flying the route. I think they even retired some aircraft because of it (not sure about that).
Click to expand...

They would have been able to do a 12 hour block flight with the DC-10; three pilots gives them that option.

NWA flew MSP-HNL with it for years -- flying time in the winter could be 8+ and that's without taxi time added in.
 
ready2fly said:
Crew rest requirments need to be completely re-written in the FAR's...with specific language requiring "time behind the door at a hotel" or the airlines will continue to interpret the definition of "crew rest" to their benefit - and run the risk of an accident/incident.

All airlines tout the "safety first" mantra, but in the end, it's all about "on-time" performance and making the customer happy because happy customers pay the bills. Tired/fatigued crews do not.
Click to expand...

That is a damn fine assessment of the situation! Lip service regarding 'safety'....little more, unfortunately. :rolleyes:
 
skydog said:
Better rest rules does not necessarily translate to more pilot jobs. Several years ago, when UAL was operating DC10's on the ORD-HNL route, their was some disagreement between the pilots and the company about DC10 crewing and duty periods on this city pair. If I remember correctly, the pilots were pushing for a relief pilot to be assigned to this route because although it was blocked for less than 8 hours, it ended up being more than 8 more often than not. The pilots "won" in the sense that the FAA sided with them, but UAL simply stopped flying the route. I think they even retired some aircraft because of it (not sure about that).

That said, I agree the duty/rest/flight time rules need revising.
Click to expand...

You're pretty gullible if you actually believe that an airline would cancel an entire route just because a spare crewmember was required for it. If the route was canceled, it certainly wasn't for this reason.
 
Just telling you what I heard. I wish I could remember what the source was. As I said, I'm not 100% sure of the whole story. But what I do recall was the company's position was that a crew rest facility in the airplane, plus the cost of the extra crew members, made the ORD-HNL not worthwhile. And they did cancel the route, althought I think they later reinstated it with a 777. Perhaps there is a United employee here who could clarify.
 
mpenguin1 said:
CHICAGO, Jan 5 (Reuters) - Seven U.S. airlines have sued the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration, claiming the agency broke its own rules and may have compromised flight safety when it set new standards for pilot rest times last year without input from the carriers.

The airlines, including AMR Corp's (AMR.N) American Airlines (AMR.N), Continental Airlines (CAL.N) and UAL Corp's (UAUA.O) United Airlines, filed the lawsuit on Dec. 24 in the the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Delta Air Lines (DAL.N), which recently merged with Northwest Airlines, was not a party to the lawsuit. Both Delta and Northwest have negotiated separate rules with the FAA governing crew rest requirements on long-haul flights.

The FAA did not comment on the lawsuit on Monday.

The government rules require additional rest time and longer layovers for pilots on nonstop flights that last more than 16 hours. To comply, airlines would have to put more pilots on those flights and provide more in-flight rest facilities for them.

http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idINN0537510320090105?rpc=44
Click to expand...


What a flippin crock!!
 
ready2fly said:
Crew rest requirments need to be completely re-written in the FAR's...with specific language requiring "time behind the door at a hotel" or the airlines will continue to interpret the definition of "crew rest" to their benefit - and run the risk of an accident/incident.

All airlines tout the "safety first" mantra, but in the end, it's all about "on-time" performance and making the customer happy because happy customers pay the bills. Tired/fatigued crews do not.
Click to expand...

I think this is a great idea! Working a 16 hour day then taking a 20 minute van ride (at best) to end the day, then another 20 minute to start the day. all cut into your 8 hours of rest, thats not a full 8 hours of rest.

Oh, maybe someone else saw a study talking about people working longer than 10 hours and that person is equal to blowing a .05 (on decision making)???
 
ready2fly said:
All airlines tout the "safety first" mantra, but in the end, it's all about "on-time" performance and making the customer happy because happy customers pay the bills. Tired/fatigued crews do not.
Click to expand...

So true. The airlines are corporations, and like any corporation, their primary purpose is to make as much money as possible. Safety is secondary.

It's sad, but it's how it is.
 
kazoopilot said:
So true. The airlines are corporations, and like any corporation, their primary purpose is to make as much money as possible. Safety is secondary.

It's sad, but it's how it is.
Click to expand...

And that's pretty much why pilots need representation in DC. A smoking hole shouldn't be an acceptable statistical anomaly for some recent B school grad.
 
mpenguin1 said:
CHICAGO, Jan 5 (Reuters) - Seven U.S. airlines have sued the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration, claiming the agency broke its own rules and may have compromised flight safety when it set new standards for pilot rest times last year without input from the carriers.

The airlines, including AMR Corp's (AMR.N) American Airlines (AMR.N), Continental Airlines (CAL.N) and UAL Corp's (UAUA.O) United Airlines, filed the lawsuit on Dec. 24 in the the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Delta Air Lines (DAL.N), which recently merged with Northwest Airlines, was not a party to the lawsuit. Both Delta and Northwest have negotiated separate rules with the FAA governing crew rest requirements on long-haul flights.

The FAA did not comment on the lawsuit on Monday.

The government rules require additional rest time and longer layovers for pilots on nonstop flights that last more than 16 hours. To comply, airlines would have to put more pilots on those flights and provide more in-flight rest facilities for them.

http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idINN0537510320090105?rpc=44
Click to expand...

Ok, so I am not very familiar to 121 ops, so how in the world does an airline "negotiate" seperate rules? I would think that ALL 121 operators would opertate under, oh what is it called?!? Part 121?

I would agree that the rules need to be amended. The AF rules are pretty good...except when they are waived! :mad:
 
PCL_128 said:
Part 121 carriers frequently have exemptions from normal FARs. Exemption 3585 is the most common (lower weather minimums for dispatch).
Click to expand...

How about that...learn something new everyday. So is Delta/NWA crew rest requirements LESS than the FARs?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top