The IPA (UPS pilots) is suing the FAA over the cargo cutout.
Cut and paste from our union message board:
1. IPA Lawsuit Against FAA Gains National Attention
From the Wall Street Journal to the Boston Herald, the IPA is making headlines and gaining support after filing suit against the FAA over its exclusion of cargo operators from the final Flight/Duty Time Rule. The IPA filed a lawsuit against the FAA on Dec. 22 in federal appeals court in Washington, D.C.; one day after the FAA issued its Final Rule.
The IPA's action is part of intensive planning that began weeks ago after the Association learned, from senior White House sources, that a "cargo carve-out" was likely. In a message to the Membership last week, IPA President Bob Travis stressed that this lawsuit "represents only one piece of an overall, detailed IPA plan to push back against what we know to be wrong."
The IPA's action has gained the support of the Boston Herald. A recent editorial praised the IPA's lawsuit and expressed disappointment that the FAA didn't cover pilots of all-cargo airlines. The following is the complete text from the Boston Herald editorial:
The Federal Aviation Administration's new rules tightening the requirements on rest periods for pilots of passenger airliners are the first based on research into sleep and fatigue. While not perfect (nothing is) they should be a substantial improvement.
It's disappointing but understandable that the agency ignored issues arising from the fact that some pilots live far from their bases and make long flights simply to commute to work. The copilot's sleep in a pilot's lounge armchair before the flight was believed to have contributed to the crash of a Colgan Air plane near Buffalo in 2009 that killed 50 people, one on the ground. A report from the National Research Council concluded that action would be premature because commuting issues are not well understood.
It's also disappointing that the agency didn't cover pilots of all-cargo airlines because "compliance costs significantly exceed the quantified safety benefits."
We respect cost-benefit analysis; we realize some benefits and costs can't be quantified. The FAA said identifiable costs to avoid an estimated 72 fatalities over 10 years on commuter-sized aircraft (far more likely to crash than other airliners) slightly outweighed the quantified benefits, but unquantifiable benefits to the health of pilots would more than close the gap. Fair enough.
Most benefits arose from avoided passenger deaths. There was no attempt to assess deaths on the ground - very rare, but they do happen, as shown by the Buffalo crash and four deaths in a Paris hotel from the crash of a SST in 2000.
Cargo planes, which carry no passengers, are one-sixth of the airliner fleet. It seems only fair that their pilots live by the same rules as those in other planes flying over people's houses, and Thursday the Independent Pilots Association filed a lawsuit on behalf of pilots for United Parcel Service to be included in the new rules.
Well, if that's what it takes, then so be it. And good luck to them.
The WALL STREET JOURNAL'S Andy Pasztor also took note of the IPA's lawsuit in the following article.
Unions are challenging recently issued Federal Aviation Administration rules designed to reduce pilot fatigue, arguing in court and in Congress that the rules should cover cargo carriers as well as passenger airlines.
The union representing the 2,700 pilots at delivery giant United Parcel Service Inc. filed a petition Thursday asking the federal appeals court in Washington to review the rules.
The Independent Pilots Association said the FAA's scientific analyses and risk assessments don't support excluding cargo carriers from the new requirements. The agency's decision to do so was based on input from parties "with a vested interest" in the matter and was made without adequate public scrutiny, the IPA alleged in material supporting its challenge. The union's lawsuit alleges that the FAA changed an early draft of its rules that included cargo pilots due to lobbying by the air-cargo industry.
An FAA spokeswoman declined to comment.
The lawsuit is the first legal challenge to a 300-page overhaul of FAA safety rules on pilot fatigue that was issued last week. The FAA wants passenger and charter carriers to guarantee their pilots at least 10 hours between shifts, up from the current eight hours, with a minimum opportunity of eight hours of undisturbed sleep. The new rules also set more-stringent workday limits for certain pilots, such as those working for commuter airlines, who perform multiple takeoffs and landings during late-night or early morning shifts.
Before the rules were finalized, cargo airlines argued they would be too costly and difficult to implement because their pilots frequently flew overnight to a shifting range of destinations. Exempting cargo operators reduced projected compliance costs by more than $200 million over 10 years, according to the FAA's calculations.
Acting FAA chief Michael Huerta told reporters last week that the estimated costs didn't justify the projected benefits of including the cargo carriers.
Officials of various pilot unions have laid the groundwork for a push to get Congress to block the FAA from excluding cargo carriers, according to people familiar with the details.
The Air Line Pilots Association, which has already lobbied lawmakers to enlist support, last week criticized the exclusion of those cargo carriers but called the regulations a historic safety improvement. ALPA President Lee Moak praised the FAA for applying the latest scientific principles to establish more-stringent limits on how long pilots can sit behind the controls.
Since then, officials at ALPA, the largest North American pilot union, have ratcheted up complaints that cargo operations are being held to a lesser standard, and have pledged to fight the regulations
The FAA originally proposed to update decades-old cockpit fatigue regulations by imposing the same rules on passenger and cargo airlines. The agency later concluded that applying such rules across the board would result in potentially avoiding a single crash of a cargo airliner, but the projected costs would "significantly exceed" measurable "societal benefits," according to one section of the regulations.
Labor officials now are challenging the FAA's cost-benefit conclusion. William Trent, general counsel of the union representing UPS pilots, said in a statement after the rules came out that the FAA failed to "articulate how it arrived at either the projected costs or benefits" affecting cargo airlines. The union is slated to file additional court papers next month outlining its legal positions.
