History, Facts, Arguments and Commentary
History
We all know that when 14 CFR Part 117 became law a few years back, our industry was excluded. In July of 2019, ALPA President Joe DePete asked the FedEx MEC, representing the largest cargo pilot group, to pass a resolution asking Congress to end the "cargo cutout." At the meeting, DePete and the Teamsters and IPA presidents urged our MEC to pass this resolution. There was no special announcement to the membership that this particular topic was up for discussion and that our MEC was considering passing such a resolution. The resolution asked ALPA National to bring all resources available to seek our inclusion. HERE'S A COPY OF THE RESOLUTION.
According to one MEC member, "Our SIG Chairman gave a detailed brief on how our system would potentially change in 117. We also were briefed by our Safety and Fatigue Chairmen." When I asked for copies or notes about those briefings, I was told that the MEC had voted to have those briefings given in a closed-door executive session and neither notes nor materials from those briefings would be shared with pilots outside of the MEC. The MEC member stated, "When I say the briefings were executive session, it means they were confidential. Notes aren’t allowed to be taken." The contents of those briefings have not been shared with the other 5,000 dues-paying members of our group. Not only were we not allowed the same information our representatives saw when asking for what is sure to be a major restructuring of our schedules , we were not asked about where WE as a group stood on the issue. [It is worth noting that lobbyists at ALPA National have distributed documents that falsely state a vote of pilots at FedEx WAS conducted—see here] Instead, the urging of ALPA National and other pilot group presidents prevailed and only 2 or 3 of the MEC members voted against the resolution to "fundamentally transform" many of our schedules.
According to one MEC member, "Our SIG Chairman gave a detailed brief on how our system would potentially change in 117. We also were briefed by our Safety and Fatigue Chairmen." When I asked for copies or notes about those briefings, I was told that the MEC had voted to have those briefings given in a closed-door executive session and neither notes nor materials from those briefings would be shared with pilots outside of the MEC. The MEC member stated, "When I say the briefings were executive session, it means they were confidential. Notes aren’t allowed to be taken." The contents of those briefings have not been shared with the other 5,000 dues-paying members of our group. Not only were we not allowed the same information our representatives saw when asking for what is sure to be a major restructuring of our schedules , we were not asked about where WE as a group stood on the issue. [It is worth noting that lobbyists at ALPA National have distributed documents that falsely state a vote of pilots at FedEx WAS conducted—see here] Instead, the urging of ALPA National and other pilot group presidents prevailed and only 2 or 3 of the MEC members voted against the resolution to "fundamentally transform" many of our schedules.
Facts, Arguments and Lines of Discussion (Read new #8 posted March 2nd)
1) It is not clear that either the Union or the Company have attempted to build lines that would fully comply with Part 117. If they have, nobody has shared them with the pilot group. To state that our schedules and lifestyle and fatigue levels that are built around current rules wouldn't change significantly is nothing short of ignorant and shows that nobody has even looked at our CURRENT bidpack to see what immediately is affected (see POTENTIAL IMPACTS). It's tantamount to what a famous politician once said about a major piece of legislation: "you've got to pass the bill to see what's in the bill."
One MEC member stated the following in justifying their support for our inclusion in Part 117: "Duty limits, FAR limit extensions, revisions, number of reserve/standby pilots, number of departures on lines (commutes), etc.... These are all things that we are discussing and evaluating. Our goals are to be as informed as possible."
Yet the decision was seemingly made without evaluating any hard facts on how these schedules would actually be made. Nor was there any outreach to the pilot group about whether to go down this path again. That is NOT being informed. If I'm wrong and there are indeed hard facts and I missed the surveying and results thereof, please email me, and I'll present them.
In a recent MEC "Fast Read" about Part 117, the MEC freely admits they're taking the "pass the bill to see what's in the bill" approach. The update literally states they have no idea what will happen to our schedules or the frequency of circadian rhythm swaps, but for duty period limitations alone, they're willing to risk your schedules or fatigue levels and then just see what happens. The update from the MEC states, "Since we cannot know which AMOCs (alternate means of compliance) will be sought or accepted, absolute forecasting of the effects of 117 are impossible. Nonetheless, the MEC is convinced that limitations on duty periods and having all industry under Part 117 is a safety issue worthy of pursuit."
Wow.
2) Nothing requires the company to negotiate with us on how they'd apply the new rules. Several MEC members have touted the contract language regarding changes in the law--that the company would have to negotiate with us on how they'd change parameters made null and void because of Part 117. A simple reading of the contract language in Section 26.C of the CBA tells a different story:
"If any provision of this Agreement is determined to be invalid or contrary to law, the parties shall consult concerning the effect of that law on this Agreement."
"Consulting" with the Union is not equivalent to negotiating. Some might even equate "notification" with "consultation" under this provision.
3) There is NO guarantee that waivers would be granted for compliance with the new rules. If the “SAFE SKIES ACT” passes, Part 117 would be in full force unless and until any waivers or "alternate means of compliance" get approved. Many of the Part 117 proponents on the MEC dismiss questions about how lines would change because the FAA would allow for "alternate means of compliance" or AMOC--that the FAA would grant a blanket waiver to FedEx to keep on doing what we do. One MEC member stated the following regarding this issue:
"Yes, there will be issues with our system form especially concerning 3 consecutive WOCL (window of circadian low) infringements. However, there are AMOC opportunities (Alternate Means of Compliance). I would guess that the pilots would want this as well as the company. It would be a unified push to get this changed."
The 1/14/2020 Fastread strikes a similar bullet from the same sheet of talking points: "One hazard of supporting broad science-based flight time duty time regulations is the reality that those rules may not support behavior that you, the Company, and/or ALPA deem safe."
Translation: The MEC knows and you know week-on/week-off night hub turns are safer than doing a maximum of three hub turns (the limit in Part 117) and having more frequent circadian rhythm shifts. They also know that those week-on/week-off night hub turn lines won't be allowed under Part 117.
The update goes on: "Importantly, there is the possibility built into Part 117 that an Alternate Means of Compliance (AMOC) can be obtained to deviate from the rule. The AMOC allows data collection to prove that operating outside the limits of Part 117 are demonstrably as safe or safer within the context of an individual operation, thus nullifying the one size cannot fit all arguments."
Nope. The possibility of AMOC doesn't nullify those arguments one bit. Not unless you know going in what AMOC would be approved and how long such AMOC would take to get approved. Unbelievably, in the next sentence of their 117 update, the MEC admits they have no clue about AMOC going in: "Since we cannot know which AMOCs will be sought or accepted, absolute forecasting of the effects of 117 are impossible."
Again, this approach is a huge a gamble. AMOC's can take years to get approval and given the heightened scrutiny on the FAA after the 737 Super Max debacle, don't expect the FAA to be bending over backwards to grant waivers to the rules. Buying a "fixer upper" is not a good move if you don't know fixing up is even possible or how much it'll cost.
4) Section 2.53 and Section 12.A.3 of the FedEx/ALPA 2015 CBA (contract) define an operational emergency. That is where the FAR limit phrase is in our CBA. Here is a sentence from that section: "When an operational emergency is declared, all flight, duty time and rest limitations may be extended/reduced to FAR limits, except as provided in Section 12.D.9. An operational emergency may be declared for a specific sort facility, a region of the system, nationwide or worldwide."
Supporters of Part 117 frequently cite the ability of the company to extend us to FAR limits during operational emergencies as a justification for going to Congress to "strengthen the backstop" of those times when we're in an operational emergency. I’ve heard from at least 4 MEC members who voted on the Part 117 resolution that we need Part 117 for all those times we are in operational emergencies and get extended to 16 hours of duty. In fact, the MEC Secretary/Treasurer recently stated, in an email, regarding the issue:
“I am convinced the only real thing the company is afraid of losing is the ability to extend us to 16 hours of duty.”
The Sec/Treasurer may be right—the company may not be “worried” at all about our schedules going from week-on/week-off to something much less commutable or palatable or safe. They care about moving airplanes as cheaply and reliably as possible. But WE should be worried about the decimation of our week-on/week off bread and butter schedules we operate safely and so should the union that is supposed to be representing us. They should be worried enough to at least build a sample bidpack and see for themselves and share with the crew force to demonstrate meaningfully and concretely that this would be a “nothing burger” as they contend.
Furthermore:
New information at the pilot website indicates that in 2019, there were 4 operational emergencies. During two of these operational emergencies, there were duty period extensions. A total of 10 duty periods were extended as a result of "operational emergency" declarations. That's 10 duty periods out of 347,736 duty periods in the year. Public math says that's .003% of duty periods. It appears to be very unwise to throw 99.997% of our schedules out the window to preclude those 10 duty periods extensions. The January 14th, 2020 Chairman's message nonetheless seems to be onboard and happy with the trade-off: "Nonetheless, the MEC is convinced that limitations on duty periods and having all industry under Part 117 is a safety issue worthy of pursuit."
5) Night flying IS DIFFERENT from daytime flying. One MEC member (who is currently a daytime flying line holder) stated the following to me: "The biggest reason I see for inclusion is that we have always asked for “One Level of Safety.” How can we say that we want to be treated like all airlines for cockpit security (doors), ramp security, and aircraft technology yet say that we that sleep/rest differently and are physiologically different than other pilots?”
Quite frankly, if you're a daytime flyer, I agree. However, to pretend that flying nights is the same physiologically as flying days is ignorant. A one-size-fits-all approach doesn't work when applying it to flying nights pure and simple, because it doesn't account for the existence and frequency of circadian rhythm swaps. There are frequent references to the "science" behind Part 117. I don't deny that some studies were offered to justify the rules. However, I've never seen any part of that science that says swapping days to nights on a body clock more frequently is somehow safer because it gives you a day off in domicile (likely without pay) after completing your maximum of 3 night hub turns (normal limit in Part 117). If someone has that science, again, please email me and I'll post it. I know and many I have spoken to on the flight deck at 0430 can tell you what the science of our bodies tells us: every time you go home to the daytime world your family lives in, you swap back to days. When you go back to the nighttime world of low-seniority nighttime flying you're swapping back. Having a limitation of three night periods in a row will bounce us back and forth MANY more times. It is wishful thinking that a week-long pairing would be rebuilt with a 36-hour layover after three days.
6) The company has recently communicated directly to pilots about the potential impact inclusion in 117 could have on our operation. Whether you like how that was done or not, the plain truth cannot really be disputed: there will be an impact. Our ALPA National President weighed in calling such direct communication with pilots "union busting" (See full text and my commentary on DePete's letter below). Very few of us pay any attention to rhetoric from either side of an argument, but for the 50% of us who might be looking at Southwest Airlines type schedules and a doubling of our circadian rhythm swaps, we're going to be having to pay a LOT of attention.
7) This is NOT the first time ALPA has tried to add us back in to 117 since it was implemented. The FedEx MEC Secretary Treasurer has reached out in response to the rollout of this website and I sure appreciate the outreach. Here's what he had to say (in part) about this Part 117 "nothing burger:"
"The MEC confirmed a position that the FedEx MEC and pilot group have held since being originally carved out. This is the third or fourth time legislation to end the carve out has been introduced. Difference this time is a FedEx Pilot is ALPA President. All of the talking points the company has put out to this point are the same ones the entire airline industry put out to try to block 117 when it was first introduced. It turned out to be a huge nothing burger [my emphasis] for the passenger carriers. All the gloom and doom of worse schedules, the need for more pilots etc never materialized."
Reminder: we are NOT a daytime passenger carrier, which is the point.
An excerpt of my response to the Secretary/Treasurer: "What was a "nothing burger" for the pax industry isn't going to be one for us. Do a review of the lines in the bidpack (like I did) and look what happens. If you did do that, you're not sharing it with the other 5000 of us. Did the MEC attempt to build lines and pairings under the new rules with our flight schedule? If so, why not share with the membership before embarking on this effort? And how do you justify holding the briefings from committees in closed session? That is a slap in the face. If you have concrete info on the impact, share it and I'll link it on my site."
8) Recent feedback from a union member who spent some time conversing with one of our committee chairs. This committee chair thinks the 25% of our lines that would be non-compliant under Part 117 (note that to bring those 25% into compliance would require changes to 40-50% of our lines) are worth sacrificing and having replaced by less commutable lines, requiring more circadian rhythm swaps in order to provide the needed improvements Part 117 would bring to pilots AT OTHER CARGO CARRIERS. Yes, we have FedEx ALPA committee chairs willing to throw their OWN pilots under the bus to make UPS and ATLAS pilot schedules better than their current contract provides. Evidently the lobbying from those other pilot group chairs who were present at the meeting last July when your MEC voted overwhelmingly to ask ALPA national to put us under Part 117 was very effective. This same committee chair acknowledged that Part 117 will make FedEx schedules less commutable and isn't it good that the member wasn’t a commuter so it shouldn’t worry him. I'm not making this up.
One MEC member stated the following in justifying their support for our inclusion in Part 117: "Duty limits, FAR limit extensions, revisions, number of reserve/standby pilots, number of departures on lines (commutes), etc.... These are all things that we are discussing and evaluating. Our goals are to be as informed as possible."
Yet the decision was seemingly made without evaluating any hard facts on how these schedules would actually be made. Nor was there any outreach to the pilot group about whether to go down this path again. That is NOT being informed. If I'm wrong and there are indeed hard facts and I missed the surveying and results thereof, please email me, and I'll present them.
In a recent MEC "Fast Read" about Part 117, the MEC freely admits they're taking the "pass the bill to see what's in the bill" approach. The update literally states they have no idea what will happen to our schedules or the frequency of circadian rhythm swaps, but for duty period limitations alone, they're willing to risk your schedules or fatigue levels and then just see what happens. The update from the MEC states, "Since we cannot know which AMOCs (alternate means of compliance) will be sought or accepted, absolute forecasting of the effects of 117 are impossible. Nonetheless, the MEC is convinced that limitations on duty periods and having all industry under Part 117 is a safety issue worthy of pursuit."
Wow.
2) Nothing requires the company to negotiate with us on how they'd apply the new rules. Several MEC members have touted the contract language regarding changes in the law--that the company would have to negotiate with us on how they'd change parameters made null and void because of Part 117. A simple reading of the contract language in Section 26.C of the CBA tells a different story:
"If any provision of this Agreement is determined to be invalid or contrary to law, the parties shall consult concerning the effect of that law on this Agreement."
"Consulting" with the Union is not equivalent to negotiating. Some might even equate "notification" with "consultation" under this provision.
3) There is NO guarantee that waivers would be granted for compliance with the new rules. If the “SAFE SKIES ACT” passes, Part 117 would be in full force unless and until any waivers or "alternate means of compliance" get approved. Many of the Part 117 proponents on the MEC dismiss questions about how lines would change because the FAA would allow for "alternate means of compliance" or AMOC--that the FAA would grant a blanket waiver to FedEx to keep on doing what we do. One MEC member stated the following regarding this issue:
"Yes, there will be issues with our system form especially concerning 3 consecutive WOCL (window of circadian low) infringements. However, there are AMOC opportunities (Alternate Means of Compliance). I would guess that the pilots would want this as well as the company. It would be a unified push to get this changed."
The 1/14/2020 Fastread strikes a similar bullet from the same sheet of talking points: "One hazard of supporting broad science-based flight time duty time regulations is the reality that those rules may not support behavior that you, the Company, and/or ALPA deem safe."
Translation: The MEC knows and you know week-on/week-off night hub turns are safer than doing a maximum of three hub turns (the limit in Part 117) and having more frequent circadian rhythm shifts. They also know that those week-on/week-off night hub turn lines won't be allowed under Part 117.
The update goes on: "Importantly, there is the possibility built into Part 117 that an Alternate Means of Compliance (AMOC) can be obtained to deviate from the rule. The AMOC allows data collection to prove that operating outside the limits of Part 117 are demonstrably as safe or safer within the context of an individual operation, thus nullifying the one size cannot fit all arguments."
Nope. The possibility of AMOC doesn't nullify those arguments one bit. Not unless you know going in what AMOC would be approved and how long such AMOC would take to get approved. Unbelievably, in the next sentence of their 117 update, the MEC admits they have no clue about AMOC going in: "Since we cannot know which AMOCs will be sought or accepted, absolute forecasting of the effects of 117 are impossible."
Again, this approach is a huge a gamble. AMOC's can take years to get approval and given the heightened scrutiny on the FAA after the 737 Super Max debacle, don't expect the FAA to be bending over backwards to grant waivers to the rules. Buying a "fixer upper" is not a good move if you don't know fixing up is even possible or how much it'll cost.
4) Section 2.53 and Section 12.A.3 of the FedEx/ALPA 2015 CBA (contract) define an operational emergency. That is where the FAR limit phrase is in our CBA. Here is a sentence from that section: "When an operational emergency is declared, all flight, duty time and rest limitations may be extended/reduced to FAR limits, except as provided in Section 12.D.9. An operational emergency may be declared for a specific sort facility, a region of the system, nationwide or worldwide."
Supporters of Part 117 frequently cite the ability of the company to extend us to FAR limits during operational emergencies as a justification for going to Congress to "strengthen the backstop" of those times when we're in an operational emergency. I’ve heard from at least 4 MEC members who voted on the Part 117 resolution that we need Part 117 for all those times we are in operational emergencies and get extended to 16 hours of duty. In fact, the MEC Secretary/Treasurer recently stated, in an email, regarding the issue:
“I am convinced the only real thing the company is afraid of losing is the ability to extend us to 16 hours of duty.”
The Sec/Treasurer may be right—the company may not be “worried” at all about our schedules going from week-on/week-off to something much less commutable or palatable or safe. They care about moving airplanes as cheaply and reliably as possible. But WE should be worried about the decimation of our week-on/week off bread and butter schedules we operate safely and so should the union that is supposed to be representing us. They should be worried enough to at least build a sample bidpack and see for themselves and share with the crew force to demonstrate meaningfully and concretely that this would be a “nothing burger” as they contend.
Furthermore:
- Part 117 allows for 16 hours of duty in some cases: 14 CFR 117.19(a)(1)
- Why not NEGOTIATE a contract provision for operational emergencies instead of seeking a change to the laws of the entire country that might on a day-to-day basis have negative impacts on fatigue and QOL? It is, in fact, OUR CONTRACT (Section 12.A.3) that allows us to go to FAR limits. If there is collective concern about the provision, isn't the CONTRACT (also called the collective bargaining agreement) the place to start for "collective" concerns?
- Even without #2 above, if a pilot is currently too fatigued to comply with an extension, there are already provisions and remedies for these instances.
New information at the pilot website indicates that in 2019, there were 4 operational emergencies. During two of these operational emergencies, there were duty period extensions. A total of 10 duty periods were extended as a result of "operational emergency" declarations. That's 10 duty periods out of 347,736 duty periods in the year. Public math says that's .003% of duty periods. It appears to be very unwise to throw 99.997% of our schedules out the window to preclude those 10 duty periods extensions. The January 14th, 2020 Chairman's message nonetheless seems to be onboard and happy with the trade-off: "Nonetheless, the MEC is convinced that limitations on duty periods and having all industry under Part 117 is a safety issue worthy of pursuit."
5) Night flying IS DIFFERENT from daytime flying. One MEC member (who is currently a daytime flying line holder) stated the following to me: "The biggest reason I see for inclusion is that we have always asked for “One Level of Safety.” How can we say that we want to be treated like all airlines for cockpit security (doors), ramp security, and aircraft technology yet say that we that sleep/rest differently and are physiologically different than other pilots?”
Quite frankly, if you're a daytime flyer, I agree. However, to pretend that flying nights is the same physiologically as flying days is ignorant. A one-size-fits-all approach doesn't work when applying it to flying nights pure and simple, because it doesn't account for the existence and frequency of circadian rhythm swaps. There are frequent references to the "science" behind Part 117. I don't deny that some studies were offered to justify the rules. However, I've never seen any part of that science that says swapping days to nights on a body clock more frequently is somehow safer because it gives you a day off in domicile (likely without pay) after completing your maximum of 3 night hub turns (normal limit in Part 117). If someone has that science, again, please email me and I'll post it. I know and many I have spoken to on the flight deck at 0430 can tell you what the science of our bodies tells us: every time you go home to the daytime world your family lives in, you swap back to days. When you go back to the nighttime world of low-seniority nighttime flying you're swapping back. Having a limitation of three night periods in a row will bounce us back and forth MANY more times. It is wishful thinking that a week-long pairing would be rebuilt with a 36-hour layover after three days.
6) The company has recently communicated directly to pilots about the potential impact inclusion in 117 could have on our operation. Whether you like how that was done or not, the plain truth cannot really be disputed: there will be an impact. Our ALPA National President weighed in calling such direct communication with pilots "union busting" (See full text and my commentary on DePete's letter below). Very few of us pay any attention to rhetoric from either side of an argument, but for the 50% of us who might be looking at Southwest Airlines type schedules and a doubling of our circadian rhythm swaps, we're going to be having to pay a LOT of attention.
7) This is NOT the first time ALPA has tried to add us back in to 117 since it was implemented. The FedEx MEC Secretary Treasurer has reached out in response to the rollout of this website and I sure appreciate the outreach. Here's what he had to say (in part) about this Part 117 "nothing burger:"
"The MEC confirmed a position that the FedEx MEC and pilot group have held since being originally carved out. This is the third or fourth time legislation to end the carve out has been introduced. Difference this time is a FedEx Pilot is ALPA President. All of the talking points the company has put out to this point are the same ones the entire airline industry put out to try to block 117 when it was first introduced. It turned out to be a huge nothing burger [my emphasis] for the passenger carriers. All the gloom and doom of worse schedules, the need for more pilots etc never materialized."
Reminder: we are NOT a daytime passenger carrier, which is the point.
An excerpt of my response to the Secretary/Treasurer: "What was a "nothing burger" for the pax industry isn't going to be one for us. Do a review of the lines in the bidpack (like I did) and look what happens. If you did do that, you're not sharing it with the other 5000 of us. Did the MEC attempt to build lines and pairings under the new rules with our flight schedule? If so, why not share with the membership before embarking on this effort? And how do you justify holding the briefings from committees in closed session? That is a slap in the face. If you have concrete info on the impact, share it and I'll link it on my site."
8) Recent feedback from a union member who spent some time conversing with one of our committee chairs. This committee chair thinks the 25% of our lines that would be non-compliant under Part 117 (note that to bring those 25% into compliance would require changes to 40-50% of our lines) are worth sacrificing and having replaced by less commutable lines, requiring more circadian rhythm swaps in order to provide the needed improvements Part 117 would bring to pilots AT OTHER CARGO CARRIERS. Yes, we have FedEx ALPA committee chairs willing to throw their OWN pilots under the bus to make UPS and ATLAS pilot schedules better than their current contract provides. Evidently the lobbying from those other pilot group chairs who were present at the meeting last July when your MEC voted overwhelmingly to ask ALPA national to put us under Part 117 was very effective. This same committee chair acknowledged that Part 117 will make FedEx schedules less commutable and isn't it good that the member wasn’t a commuter so it shouldn’t worry him. I'm not making this up.
Where does that leave us?
Thanks to the vote of our MEC, ALPA is spending a great deal of union resources lobbying Congress to pass this law. Lobbying materials distributed to Congressional staffers tout the fact that your MEC's vote: "In fact, ALPA’s FedEx pilot group (Master Executive Council) has passed a resolution on behalf of its more than 5,000 pilots specifically endorsing the Safe Skies Act." Since the union is not fighting on our behalf ("My Union speaks for me" seems to ring hollow here), this bill can only be stopped by direct action from Congress. Please see HERE ways to urge such Congressional action.
Recent Communications and Commentary
After I rolled out this website, I received an email from the FedEx MEC Secretary/Treasurer. It was nice of him to send it. Here's his message:
loepke_email.pdf |
It was the mass email I received from ALPA National President Joe DePete on January 17th that prompted me to start this site. The link to his message is below. I've bantered back and forth with the MEC on their vote asking us to be put under Part 117. However, now seeing the huge push from National makes me think it's getting momentum in Congress.
depete_email.pdf |
Probably nobody is interested in my section-by-section discussion of DePete's email. But just in case...here it is:
In DePete’s opening paragraph, he states, “Airline management representatives are hard at work on Capitol Hill––and also reaching out directly to ALPA members––to spread misinformation about the importance of mandating the same fatigue rules for cargo pilots that currently apply only to passenger pilots.”
If what we heard from the VP is “misinformation,” then please—by all means—dispel it directly with factual information. Nothing distills misinformation better than the fire of certifiable facts. So far I haven’ seen any facts from ALPA National or the FedEx MEC that provide counters to potential impacts one could easily and logically deduce would occur.
The ALPA President uses the same approach that many proponents of Cargo inclusion in Part 117 take: that we fly the same planes in the same environment with the same challenges, so it’s wrong to apply rules differently…
“Cargo pilots operate to, from, and over the same cities and serve the same communities as passenger pilots. And cargo pilots deserve to be protected by the same strong safety rules that apply to passenger pilots.”
As a Fedex pilot himself, DePete should know better than anyone else at ALPA National that flying night hub turns IS NOT the same. Every time the night hub turn line-holder goes home, he/she swaps to the daytime world his/her family lives in. Every time there is a break in our schedule, a swap in circadian rhythm takes place. I really don’t care WHAT the “science” DePete continuously references says—I’ll go with what my body tells me: the high point of fatigue takes place during those swaps between days and nights. Part 117 on its face limits the number of consecutive days operating between 0200 and 0559 LBT to THREE. The only exception is if FOR EVERY SINGLE NIGHT in a sequence, there is a minimum of 2 hours between arrival at sleep facility (likely to be computed as block-in plus 30 minutes) and show for the next flight. If you have that 2 hours on each night, then you can do 5 days. Take a look at one of those bread and butter week-on/week-off night hub turn lines and see just how many would fail to comply. Try, for example, Feb 2020 MD-11 Capt line 1190. The “science” cited by ALPA ignores both the existence and frequency of shifts in circadian rhythm and the devastating cumulative effects thereof.
DePete contends that it was Congress who pushed back on the “cargo cutout.”
“Late last year, Congress pushed back. Recognizing that the safety of millions of passengers, crews, and cargo shippers cannot be sacrificed for the financial gain of a few, lawmakers introduced the Safe Skies Act, which would apply the same science-based fatigue rules to both passenger and cargo pilots.”
In fact, it was ALPA, armed with a fresh resolution signed by the FedEx MEC (passed after closed-door meetings and with the consultation of the IPA President and the Teamsters President), who lobbied Congress to REINTRODUCE a bill to include cargo operators in Part 117. Here is a list of Bill sponsors and cosponsors:
House of Representatives (H.R. 4075)
Sponsor:
Rep. Carbajal, Salud O. [D-CA-24]
Cosponsors:
Rep. Katko, John [R-NY-24]*06/23/2021
Rep. Cartwright, Matt [D-PA-8]*06/23/2021
Rep. Fitzpatrick, Brian K. [R-PA-1]*06/23/2021
Rep. Kahele, Kaiali'i [D-HI-2]*06/23/2021
Rep. Van Drew, Jefferson [R-NJ-2]*06/23/2021
Rep. Garamendi, John [D-CA-3]*06/23/2021
Although the Bill has not been introduced yet in the Senate, the previous version of the Bill from the previous Congress had the following sponsors:
Senate (S. 826)
Sponsor:
Amy Klobuchar [D-MN]
Cosponsors:
Sen. Cantwell, Maria [D-WA]
Sen. Blumenthal, Richard [D-CT]
Sen. Markey, Edward J. [D-MA]
Sen. Duckworth, Tammy [D-IL]
Sen. Merkley, Jeff [D-OR]
Sen. Gillibrand, Kirsten E. [D-NY]
Sen. Feinstein, Dianne [D-CA]
Now here’s where DePete's rhetoric REALLY gets thick:
“Despite these facts, recent communications I've seen from cargo airline management seek to mislead pilots. This propaganda promotes a management position that dismisses safety to focus purely on profit. Management outreach directly to pilots who fly cargo represents a classic union-busting tactic [underlined and highlighted by me for emphasis] in a futile attempt to divide our members.”
Really?
I don’t like rhetoric. But I HATE being played for a fool.
In DePete’s opening paragraph, he states, “Airline management representatives are hard at work on Capitol Hill––and also reaching out directly to ALPA members––to spread misinformation about the importance of mandating the same fatigue rules for cargo pilots that currently apply only to passenger pilots.”
If what we heard from the VP is “misinformation,” then please—by all means—dispel it directly with factual information. Nothing distills misinformation better than the fire of certifiable facts. So far I haven’ seen any facts from ALPA National or the FedEx MEC that provide counters to potential impacts one could easily and logically deduce would occur.
The ALPA President uses the same approach that many proponents of Cargo inclusion in Part 117 take: that we fly the same planes in the same environment with the same challenges, so it’s wrong to apply rules differently…
“Cargo pilots operate to, from, and over the same cities and serve the same communities as passenger pilots. And cargo pilots deserve to be protected by the same strong safety rules that apply to passenger pilots.”
As a Fedex pilot himself, DePete should know better than anyone else at ALPA National that flying night hub turns IS NOT the same. Every time the night hub turn line-holder goes home, he/she swaps to the daytime world his/her family lives in. Every time there is a break in our schedule, a swap in circadian rhythm takes place. I really don’t care WHAT the “science” DePete continuously references says—I’ll go with what my body tells me: the high point of fatigue takes place during those swaps between days and nights. Part 117 on its face limits the number of consecutive days operating between 0200 and 0559 LBT to THREE. The only exception is if FOR EVERY SINGLE NIGHT in a sequence, there is a minimum of 2 hours between arrival at sleep facility (likely to be computed as block-in plus 30 minutes) and show for the next flight. If you have that 2 hours on each night, then you can do 5 days. Take a look at one of those bread and butter week-on/week-off night hub turn lines and see just how many would fail to comply. Try, for example, Feb 2020 MD-11 Capt line 1190. The “science” cited by ALPA ignores both the existence and frequency of shifts in circadian rhythm and the devastating cumulative effects thereof.
DePete contends that it was Congress who pushed back on the “cargo cutout.”
“Late last year, Congress pushed back. Recognizing that the safety of millions of passengers, crews, and cargo shippers cannot be sacrificed for the financial gain of a few, lawmakers introduced the Safe Skies Act, which would apply the same science-based fatigue rules to both passenger and cargo pilots.”
In fact, it was ALPA, armed with a fresh resolution signed by the FedEx MEC (passed after closed-door meetings and with the consultation of the IPA President and the Teamsters President), who lobbied Congress to REINTRODUCE a bill to include cargo operators in Part 117. Here is a list of Bill sponsors and cosponsors:
House of Representatives (H.R. 4075)
Sponsor:
Rep. Carbajal, Salud O. [D-CA-24]
Cosponsors:
Rep. Katko, John [R-NY-24]*06/23/2021
Rep. Cartwright, Matt [D-PA-8]*06/23/2021
Rep. Fitzpatrick, Brian K. [R-PA-1]*06/23/2021
Rep. Kahele, Kaiali'i [D-HI-2]*06/23/2021
Rep. Van Drew, Jefferson [R-NJ-2]*06/23/2021
Rep. Garamendi, John [D-CA-3]*06/23/2021
Although the Bill has not been introduced yet in the Senate, the previous version of the Bill from the previous Congress had the following sponsors:
Senate (S. 826)
Sponsor:
Amy Klobuchar [D-MN]
Cosponsors:
Sen. Cantwell, Maria [D-WA]
Sen. Blumenthal, Richard [D-CT]
Sen. Markey, Edward J. [D-MA]
Sen. Duckworth, Tammy [D-IL]
Sen. Merkley, Jeff [D-OR]
Sen. Gillibrand, Kirsten E. [D-NY]
Sen. Feinstein, Dianne [D-CA]
Now here’s where DePete's rhetoric REALLY gets thick:
“Despite these facts, recent communications I've seen from cargo airline management seek to mislead pilots. This propaganda promotes a management position that dismisses safety to focus purely on profit. Management outreach directly to pilots who fly cargo represents a classic union-busting tactic [underlined and highlighted by me for emphasis] in a futile attempt to divide our members.”
Really?
- What facts? Show them to us! Don’t discuss them in smoke-filled back rooms of closed executive sessions and hide them from the membership. WE are the ones you have an obligation to share those facts with.
- Please state specifically the misleading information from anywhere and provide the correct non-misleading information. If that information is convincing, I’ll post the proof on the site. In fact…maybe I’ll just take the whole site down!
- “…dismisses safety to focus purely on profit”? I’m not a ring-kisser by any stretch of the imagination, but to anyone who's witnessed the evolution of the safety management system, it sure seems like it's been a collaborative effort between ALPA and FedEx and to state that the company has “dismissed safety” is really not being genuine.
- And talk about dividing our members! The optics are terrible: our own MEC and ALPA has done more to divide this group than management ever could have dreamed of doing. It’s an unforced error. Instead of establishing a dialog with the pilot group, providing them with FACTS about how schedules would or would not change (or even how ALPA THINKS they might change) for what some MEC members freely admit may be up to 50% of us, the MEC receives three closed-door briefings and then votes for this without any pilot input outside of those closed-doors, except maybe UPS’s and Atlas’ union presidents.
I don’t like rhetoric. But I HATE being played for a fool.
The 1/27/2020 Fastread had a link to an MEC Part 117 update which parrots many of the same prop Part 117 argument discussed above, but very instructive is the quote, already cited in #3 of the "Facts, Arguments and Lines of Discussion" above that the MEC has no earthly clue how Part 117 would affect us and rely on the completely and admittedly unknown parameters related to "alternate means of compliance" (AMOC).
"Since we cannot know which AMOCs will be sought or accepted, absolute forecasting of the effects of 117 are impossible."
Here's the whole update:
"Since we cannot know which AMOCs will be sought or accepted, absolute forecasting of the effects of 117 are impossible."
Here's the whole update:
011420_mec_fastread_117_from_officers.pdf |