Being well-rested is too costly.

surreal1221 said:
The market place has demaned the pricing structures currently being used.

The market place can not support an increase in ticket prices.

The market place, due to their actions, does not want safety. They want cheap.

The End.

Thank You,

Capitalism.
Click to expand...

Its not that...its the notion that once you get a low fare or low price in ANY market now in the United States, you are not going to buy it unless it is that price. I heard it from a local store manager today and they teach this concept in marketing...that there is only really two types of pricing, Everyday Low Prices or Low Price Sales, and the ones that really make a profit over time are the ones with low prices that can sustain your operations, and you see it in the airlines today. How can one continue to play a game with losses in the hundreds of millions and not make any changes?

"There is a difference between being brave and stupid and you keep choosing stupid."
 
cohenp.jpg

"Lets get the record straight on this one. The average duty time for a crewmember is 12 hours a day. The average rest period is about 14 to 16 hours a days"


This is what guys like the one above would say to the public. They would also claimed to have "Studied" the fatigue issue with the FAA NASA etc etc.
 
Dynasty22 said:
Its not that...its the notion that once you get a low fare or low price in ANY market now in the United States, you are not going to buy it unless it is that price. I heard it from a local store manager today and they teach this concept in marketing...that there is only really two types of pricing, Everyday Low Prices or Low Price Sales, and the ones that really make a profit over time are the ones with low prices that can sustain your operations, and you see it in the airlines today. How can one continue to play a game with losses in the hundreds of millions and not make any changes?

"There is a difference between being brave and stupid and you keep choosing stupid."
Click to expand...

Okay.

That post was a bit of satire, but alrighty. Thanks.

It is the market place.
 
surreal1221 said:
Touch a mikecweb nerve. . .or lordy!

Laughing.

Victory to Mike.

More importantly,

Why is the consumer not willing to pay more for safety? Much less the time saved premium that the airline yield and marketing departments have failed to build value in.

Why is it labors' role to foot the economic bill for improved safety?
Click to expand...
Didn't really understand the first half of your post so sure....

Labor should consider contributing to fixing the problem because they are the ones so concerned about it. If the flying public was so scared to fly because of fatigued pilots they would push to pay more to the airlines to pay for more pilots.
They obviously don't care that much.


I hope you all know I'm on the same side as you guys. I'd love to see work regulations that prevented long duty days. I'm just asking questions and point out flaws in the arguments to prevent the one line emotional appeals that profits>safety. It's not that simple.
 
Sky Rascal said:
It always has been. The airlines will always put safety first as long as it doesn´t cost them anything.
Click to expand...
Well, yeah. Nobody starts a company to "be safe". They start a company to make money. They'll only ever be just safe enough to a) avoid scaring off business and b) avoid getting busted by the feds.
 
mikecweb said:
I asked Charlie this and he dodged it either on purpose or for whatever reason.
I ask everyone:
Would you be willing to take a pay cut for safety?
Yes i know we all don't make enough and wages have been cut down over the years but would you?
You can't sing the emotional appeals that safety is being trumped for money unless you would take a cut. If not you just expect everyone else to take a cut for safety. Doesn't that make you just as bad? The airlines can't make any less money than they do, so they'll pass it on to the passengers. The passengers aren't going to want to pay anymore for their tickets so they'll fly less.
Click to expand...

Yeah I don't mind taking a cut on pay for safety. As far as I see it, when these new regs come out we will take a cut on pay for safety (and QOL). So yes I'm ready for it and I'm willing.

Supposedly we are a flexible workforce and we are being led by, supposedly, smart people. They will find a way to maximize the workforce and it may mean slimmer margins. Who knows, maybe ticket prices will go up and pilots will demand more money. Maybe it'll all fold up and people will drive. Can't say I care much either way right now.

I don't know what th next safety battle will be, and I don't know if I'll be onboard, but I've been convinced about this current push and I am ready to put my money where my mouth is.
 
CrippleHawk said:
"Lets get the record straight on this one. The average duty time for a crewmember is 12 hours a day. The average rest period is about 14 to 16 hours a days"
Click to expand...

Not to be an ass....but if thats the average than I don't see what the big fuss is over. I do 13 hours a day 5 days a week and am nowhere near fatigued. You adjust....no biggie. The public is gonna look at this as whining,IMHO.

I think people should really look at how they're bidding, don't bid for the money if you don't want to do the work.Besides I don't think people are going to like their checks if HOS rules get any tighter, the more companies have to hire, the less pieces of the pie for everybody else.
 
surreal1221 said:
Okay.

That post was a bit of satire, but alrighty. Thanks.

It is the market place.
Click to expand...

Satire or not, one can't broadbrush this all on Capitalism. That's disingenuous. Nothing's free, even safety. The cash has to come from somewhere. And right now, neither the airlines, nor the FAA, nor the public (since there's no outcry) feel unsafe enough to want to front the cash needed to do this. Until such time that that occurs, then nothing is going to happen. Sucks, but true.
 
A320_DUDE said:
Not to be an ass....but if thats the average than I don't see what the big fuss is over. I do 13 hours a day 5 days a week and am nowhere near fatigued. You adjust....no biggie. The public is gonna look at this as whining,IMHO.

I think people should really look at how they're bidding, don't bid for the money if you don't want to do the work.Besides I don't think people are going to like their checks if HOS rules get any tighter, the more companies have to hire, the less pieces of the pie for everybody else.
Click to expand...

What company do you work for, if I may ask?

Granted some companies have better work rules than FAA Standards while others use FAA standards and go below that even (Illegally mind you its no big secret).


The problem is that as long as the FAA standards are inadequate bottom feeding carriers will use this standard.
 
CrippleHawk said:
What company do you work for, if I may ask?

Granted some companies have better work rules than FAA Standards while others use FAA standards and go below that even (Illegally mind you its no big secret).


The problem is that as long as the FAA standards are inadequate bottom feeding carriers will use this standard.
Click to expand...

He's a bus driver.
 
mikecweb said:
Didn't really understand the first half of your post so sure....

Labor should consider contributing to fixing the problem because they are the ones so concerned about it. If the flying public was so scared to fly because of fatigued pilots they would push to pay more to the airlines to pay for more pilots.
They obviously don't care that much.


I hope you all know I'm on the same side as you guys. I'd love to see work regulations that prevented long duty days. I'm just asking questions and point out flaws in the arguments to prevent the one line emotional appeals that profits>safety. It's not that simple.
Click to expand...


You are correct, sir. This is not a simple issue.

Let's examine this aspect: We all know via scientific study that at certain points of the day, a person has functional abilities in line with someone who has consumed too much alcohol to legally operate an aircraft.

Yet, we require pilots and other crewmembers to operates in this situation every day, AND we require them to self assess and make determination of their fitness to fly in a suitable state of awareness.

On top of this, because of the nature of compensation, work rules, corporate culture, etc, there may be additional factors that apply to the decision of the pilot on whether or not they're fit to continue.

We all recognize that aviation accidents are the result of a chain link of errors where if one of the errors were correct the accident would be prevented.

The safety protocol we use to ensure multi-layered protection applies to nearly all areas. Two sets of eyes. Redundant systems.

When it comes to self-assessment at a point where science has proven that judgment is impaired, why are we placing nearly exclusive oversight of the issue on the person with impaired judgment?

This seems contradictory. We seem to make the assumption that because most rise above the challenge (or at least haven't been forced to rely too heavily on their decision) that there is no problem. If we fail to account for the lowest common denominator in human factors just as we do in terms of aircraft design, maintenance, etc, are we not asking for someone to fail eventually?
 
A320_DUDE said:
Not to be an ass....but if thats the average than I don't see what the big fuss is over. I do 13 hours a day 5 days a week and am nowhere near fatigued. You adjust....no biggie. The public is gonna look at this as whining,IMHO.

I think people should really look at how they're bidding, don't bid for the money if you don't want to do the work.Besides I don't think people are going to like their checks if HOS rules get any tighter, the more companies have to hire, the less pieces of the pie for everybody else.
Click to expand...

Right, you work about the average ALL the time. Its not the averages that are the issue, its the extremes. Cohen spewes averages, because they don't seem to be so bad, just like you saw it. Thats exactly who he is trying to appeal to, the guy that is at work 12 hours a day. in such a large sample size like the airline industry that curve wont just be all the samples at 12 hours like you tried to assume with your schedule. You will have samples at 5 hours, 10 hours 12 hours and 16 hours etc. Its going to be a bell curve. Plus, your schedule probably covers the same 13 hours of the day every day, an airline schedule is not like that. You might start at 5 am the first day, be on duty for 12 hours until 5 pm, start the next day at 11am fly til 11pm for another 12 hours, get reduced rest, back at the airport at 8 am, one leg for 5 hours duty, get your 11 hours of compensory rest during the day time, then fly a 7 hour red eye back to your base. That trip has an average duty day of 'only' 9 hours, and a average rest period of 12 hours, yet will absolutely destroy you fatigue wise.

Sometimes Its not so much the short rest, and long days, but the circadian flops that happen ALL the time. Just ask any pilot that frequently does european 2-man flying (without a relief pilot), Average duty of only 9 hours, and 24 hour layovers. on the surface just looking at that, its a cake and gravy schedule, but its really not. 24 hour layovers are probably just as bad as 9 hour layovers insofar as human performance the next day.
 
Firebird2XC said:
Funny! So there are folks trying to put together a jigsaw puzzle, and some would find it entertaining to steal the pieces or knock over the table?

There's amusement to be had in the discomfort of others? How odd.
Click to expand...

I'm not here for Josh.
I'm here to learn and to help others.
Josh is here to make one liners and hold a union pitchfork.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top