It’s been four weeks since the announcement of FAR 117 and the fact that cargo was excluded. Several of the major reasons are cited below, excerpted from the FAA’s own press release and rulemaking documents:
The 79 Snippet
The 79 Snippet
FAR 117 and the Cargo Cut
Out
17Jan12
Dear Fellow
Anchorage Pilots,
It’s been
four weeks since the announcement of FAR 117 and the fact that cargo was
excluded. Several of the major reasons are cited below, excerpted from the FAA’s
own press release and rulemaking documents:
“Covering cargo operators under the new rule would be too costly compared to the
benefits generated in this portion of the industry”
“The FAA also has removed all-cargo operations from the applicability section of
the new part 117 because their compliance costs significantly exceed the
quantified societal benefits (1)”
“(1)
“The projected cost for all-cargo operations is $306 million ($214 million
present value at 7% and $252million at 3%). The projected benefit of avoiding
one fatal all-cargo accident ranges between $20.35 million and $32.55 million,
depending on the number of crewmembers on board the aircraft.”
“These industry commenters asserted that, while a passenger-operation accident
can result in numerous fatalities, an all-cargo accident would consist primarily
of property damage.”
Now, if
you’re like me, you are furious that cargo was cut out, disgusted with the
motives, and underwhelmed by some of the press releases “applauding” the new
FARs. Then IPA filed a lawsuit and the FDX MEC issued a press release. It’s been
a frustrating three plus weeks for many of us that are wondering why aren’t we
doing more? Well, there are a lot of reasons that appearances may not be as they
seem.
Last week,
the FDX MEC had the opportunity to interact on a teleconference with the key
players from ALPA National (ALPA President Captain Moak, IFALPA President and
Chairman of ALPA’s Flight/Duty Time Committee Don Wykoff, ALPA Legal, ALPA Air
Safety, and ALPA Legislative Affairs) who have been working diligently behind
the scenes on our behalves. While we may not individually have approved of the
way events have played out so far, everything does happen for a reason. Although
I cannot elaborate specifically on many of the underlying reasons because of the
confidential nature of the briefing, hopefully these facts will provide you with
a better understanding of how ALPA National and the FDX MEC are not idly sitting
by on this issue:
I.
ALPA
attorneys have been extensively evaluating the lawsuit filed by the IPA, and
whether ALPA should join the IPA lawsuit, file our own, or file none at all.
a.
When the
Court of Appeals reviews a case, their job is to determine if the FAA acted in
accordance with the law, not to comment on whether or not cargo should have been
cut out.
b.
The Court’s
assessment is based on the methodologies used, explanations applied, scientific
basis and alternatives, participation of applicable parties, and applicable
legislation.
c.
In the event
a lawsuit is successful in proving that the FAA did not act in accordance with
the law, FAR 117 would go back to the FAA for review, comments, and
implementation. That would likely delay the implementation of the new rules as
well as open up the possibility of other changes within FAR 117 (we all know how
special interests played out this time.)
II.
The option
of voluntary compliance still remains. ALPA has already met with the DOT in
advance of the DOT’s meetings with cargo CEO’s. When meeting with the CEO’s, the
DOT will “encourage” cargo airlines to voluntarily comply with FAR 117. ALPA is
aggressively supporting this avenue.
III.
The
legislative arena also remains as a very attractive option to pursue the
remediation of the cargo cut out. ALPA has a very aggressive strategy detailed
to meet with and educate our legislators when our legislators return to DC
January 17 (House) and January 23 (Senate). This approach will also require the
participation of our pilots likely in “Calls to Action,” which are very
effective in making pilots voices heard, so be ready! ALPA is well prepared to
engage on the Hill as this legislative opportunity approaches.
IV.
Many pilots
(myself included) have expressed dissatisfaction over the ALPA National Press
Releases regarding the new rules, as well as the lack of nationwide media
advertising. After discussing this subject with Captain Moak, I can assure you
there are very calculated reasons why ALPA has not yet pursued these options,
including best targeting the use of our dues dollars, the return on our
investment, and (rather than poking them in the eye) fostering partnerships and
building relationships with those officials we’ll be working with to right this
wrong.
The
continuing efforts of ALPA National on our behalf marry nicely with the
five-point plan, which Captain Stratton has previously communicated:
I.
Researching
all aspects of the rules (positive and negative) as to their impact on our
current and future contract/negotiations.
II.
Asking FedEx
to opt-in voluntarily. A letter asking just that was sent to Captain Bowman
December 30. Previously, on December 19, a letter was sent to Captain Bowman
asking FDX to join ALPA in fighting the cargo cut out. FedEx has not responded
as of yet.
III.
Pursuing
legislative efforts to include cargo in the new rules.
IV.
Investigation legal options including the possibility of joining the IPA lawsuit
or filing a separate lawsuit if the legal team determines this a route that as
an option that is likely to succeed. The deadline for filing a lawsuit is Feb.
19, 2012.
V.
Continued
communication with our pilots on our ongoing efforts.
In the midst
of these concerted efforts to achieve “One Level of Safety”, there is an area of
great concern. Some pilots have expressed dissatisfaction with the new rules
because of scheduling flexibility and/or some of the longer flight and duty
times in the new FARs; hence don’t believe FDX should be covered under the new
rules. I could not disagree more strongly. There is either “One Level of Safety”
that applies to all pilots, or we’re still back in the dark ages with antiquated
rules from the 1940’s that have no basis in science and little in the way of
actual limitations. Personal preference and convenience should never supersede
safety. Here are a few things to consider:
I.
The new
rules are based on scientific fatigue data, so they are designed to reduce
fatigue and increase pilot alertness taking into account circadian rhythm
disruptions in the round the clock, round the world flying environment we
continually operate in. Ultimately the new FARs were developed to enhance
safety.
II.
We have a
contract that in many cases is already more restrictive than FAR 117. For those
areas that are not, ALPA has made it clear that we do not plan to expend
negotiating capital on areas that should have been addressed by regulatory
changes.
III.
In FedEx’s
comments on the original FTDT NPRM, FedEx stated if implemented as proposed,
the new rules would require 812 more pilots and cost $2.054 billion dollars over
the next 10 years.
IV.
Based on
years of feedback from our pilots, the single largest area that always needs
improvement is scheduling. Significant enhancements in the new rules include:
a.
Hard time
limits for flight hours and duty limits
b.
Addressing
circadian rhythm disruption for international flying
c.
Improved
protections on the back side of the clock flying
d.
Enhanced
rest periods
e.
Simplification of the existing rules.
V.
Last year
the “Data Collection MOU” was signed which provides a scientific method of
gathering fatigue data from FedEx pilots flying FedEx airplanes on FedEx routes.
That data, under the MOU, and under specific conditions, may be used to support
the approval of the Company’s FRMS by the FAA. According to the FAA
Rulemaking Document, FRMS can act as “an alternative regulatory approach to
provide a means of monitoring and mitigating fatigue. Under an FRMS, a
certificate holder develops processes that manage and mitigate fatigue and meet
an equivalent level of safety.”
Additionally, “FRMS provides flexibility for certificate holders to conduct
operations using a process that has been approved by the FAA based upon an
equivalent level of safety for monitoring and mitigating fatigue for certain
identified operations.” What this means is as our FRMS becomes operational
and data is collected, there may be opportunities to apply for exemptions under
the new rules if that FRMS data shows an equivalent level of safety and pilot
alertness can be maintained. It’s also important to note that FRMS is a
partnership between ALPA, FedEx, and the FAA.
“One Level
of Safety” is just that. With rules that are now based on scientific data, it’s
hard to justify that one’s personal preference should trump scientific data
designed to improve safety. When changes do occur, there’s always an upside and
always a downside. Fortunately we’ve got experts that have been diligently
studying the new rules, their consequences, and our best course of action.
Mark Your Calendar
Third Thursday
Thursday – January 19, 1630-1800
@ Simon &
Seaforts - 420 L St # 200, Anchorage, AK, 907.274.3502
Validated
Parking @ Captain Cook Garage
A la Carte
Family Awareness Event – spouses encouraged to attend!
