Rouge just got rouge'd

[leftoftrack]

Would the new duty limits defeat the whole point of rouge? How do the current Air Canada contract duty limits compare to the proposed new cars limits?

[rudder]

I guess this is proof that AC does not in fact control everything that emanates from YOW.

All operators affected equally. Biggest efficiency hit will be the sked charter operators due to the 24 hour ops and early/late check in times with long planned duty periods.

This will result in more pilots required at virtually every operator.

[Rockie]

This is a NPA - Notice of Proposed Amendment. Air Canada and every other operator still Have their opportunity to kick that can down the road just like they have every other time.

Don't pop the champagne corks yet...

[rudder]

This is a NPA - Notice of Proposed Amendment. Air Canada and every other operator still Have their opportunity to kick that can down the road just like they have every other time.

Don't pop the champagne corks yet...

These companies had representation on the Working Group Committee that created the document.

It is unlikely that they will now be able to reverse their position.

The NPA is more for those that did not already participate in the formulation of the proposed changes. It is in all likelihood a mere formality en route to becoming legislation. Those opposed to the changes have been able to keep the report 'shelved' for 2 years but looks like time is up.

To complete this review, the Flight Crew Fatigue Management Working Group was formed. The
working group was made up of stakeholder representatives and over the course of 18 months met
approximately for 43 days. The result of these meetings was the Report of The Canadian Aviation
Regulation Advisory Council (CARAC) Flight Crew Fatigue Management Working Group, dated 15
August 2012. The Report found that many of the elements of the current FDT requirements do not
reflect today’s fatigue science and included recommendations to correct these deficiencies.

 The Report recommends many changes to the current FDT requirements. These changes are supported
by today’s fatigue science and are harmonized with changes introduced by the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) and the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA).

[Rockie]

This is a NPA - Notice of Proposed Amendment. Air Canada and every other operator still Have their opportunity to kick that can down the road just like they have every other time.

Don't pop the champagne corks yet...

These companies had representation on the Working Group Committee that created the document.

It is unlikely that they will now be able to reverse their position.

They aren't reversing their opinion. The National Airline Council of Canada (AC,AT, Jazz and WJ) issued dissenting opinions to the working group recommendations that would leave everything pretty much status quo claiming repeatedly there is no science to justify change.

Their opinion is all too consistent.

[DBC]

There are a few things in there that are more restrictive than the mainline contract, but on the whole it won't change much other than the long single turn days and adding a 3rd or 4th pilot to some legs. The change from weekly flight hour to weekly duty hour restrictions would actually open up the ability to get 2 long overseas pairings done in the same week that would have been illegal before, and from the reading I have done I didn't see a clause that would stop this.

Example YYZ-HND-YYZ 24:55 flight time 27:55 duty time, could now be done back to back in a 7 day period. Popular for commuters but I don't necessarily see it as being safer scientifically.

rouge would be hit especially hard in terms of long duty pairings on the 319 and some of the widebody stuff would end up being augmented one way depending on time of departure and layover length. However, tweaking departure and arrival times would allow the company to minimize the augments.

Guess we wait and see what the amendment ends up as once the lobby is over, but on the whole I see AC being impacted less than the competition

[TheStig]

Would the new duty limits defeat the whole point of rouge? How do the current Air Canada contract duty limits compare to the proposed new cars limits?

Flying to CARS limits was extremely unpopular with the pilot group when the TA was released in 2012, the reasoning for not using the mainline duty/flight time limitations was that it was required to allow the LCC (rouge) to properly compete against Westjet, Canjet, Sunwing and Tranat, all of which fly to CARs limits. The proposed changes will have an equal effect on all the carriers, so please give the rouge'd stuff a rest.

I personally voted against the TA because I didn't feel it was justifiable that the countries largest pilot group lower its safety standards. However, there is no shortage of pilots who feel it isn't the unions responsibility to have to negotiate duty limits, but rather the regulators responsibility to set the safety standards, and if anything this is vindication of that view.

[Dockjock]

Couldn't agree more The Stig. In a sense, ACPA throwing in the towel and saying effectively, "we're done doing the regulator's work for them," (although that's not quiiite how it happened) may have finally pushed this file into the action required category. In fact it virtually says as much in the document itself!

PAGE FRIGGIN 1 of the NPA:

Some of the Subpart 705 air operators already address many of the short comings in the current FDT requirements through their labour agreements and good risk management. Others operate to the limitations of the current FDT requirement.

[Rockie]

In a sense, ACPA throwing in the towel and saying effectively, "we're done doing the regulator's work for them," (although that's not quiiite how it happened) may have finally pushed this file into the action required category.

What finally pushed this file as far as it's gone is ICAO saying five years ago member country's F&DT regulation had to be developed using science as its foundation. TC dragged its feet as long as it could and will continue to do so - encouraged by industry lobbying - doing its best to discard the science as incomplete or not supporting change. This particular government is quick to reject or silence any science that doesn't support their agenda as we all know.

ALPA in the 90's also felt that duty times should be negotiated by the pilot groups and didn't really consider it a safety issue. The group that I belonged to at the time strongly disagreed with them, and it wasn't long before ALPA too saw the light. F&DT regulations are for safety and are not negotiated working conditions.

[Dockjock]

Completely agreed Rockie. But TC always had the statistical fallback of the largest airline and pilot group in the country operating under better FD&T rules. Now that it's trending the other way (rouge)- action. Just connecting the dots.

[Wacko]

This will result in more pilots required at virtually every operator.

... so the end result will be either:

A). Lower pay due to shorter/less days work (ie. 12 days work vs 16) new guys will still line up to fly for the majors
or
B). More actual work days.. (not sure if that's possible at WJ) though shorter ones.... but now you'll have 18 working day blocks vs the 16 or less at Jazz/AC to get the same flight time credit?

Or did I read that wrong?

[rudder]

On average? Regular gross pay will not change although availability for overtime opportunities will be reduced due to duty time and rest requirements. More work days per month. More multi day trips. Shorter duty days. Crews less efficient so increased pilot rosters to do same number of block hours. This has been the experience in the US with the implementation of similar restrictions.

There is a reason that operators are opposed.

[mbav8r]

This will result in more pilots required at virtually every operator.

... so the end result will be either:

A). Lower pay due to shorter/less days work (ie. 12 days work vs 16) new guys will still line up to fly for the majors
or
B). More actual work days.. (not sure if that's possible at WJ) though shorter ones.... but now you'll have 18 working day blocks vs the 16 or less at Jazz/AC to get the same flight time credit?

Or did I read that wrong?

Neither, with the new rules you will be able to work 60 duty hours in 7 days and as far as I can tell, 60 flight hours less ground time. No longer a 40 in 7 flight time restriction which is limiting as my last two rotations I had the last leg dropped because due to block growth I was over the 40 in 7. So for companies to not need more pilots for the same work they will need to make pairings more efficient, I'm hoping for no more 9 hr duty day for 4.5 credit, ideally 10 hr duty day for 7.5 credit giving a 45 credit week for 6 days worked.
The pay won't change as the contract has a min guarantee of blocking average, unless of course you work for Encore which has no such guarantee, but nothing will change for them as they are already working more days for less credit. As for WJ, I believe their contract has a max of 16 days and I'm not sure if they have a monthly guarantee, maybe a WJetter can chime in, if not that could cost some money and require more pilots. Every pilot on the roster cost money, so more efficient pairings is the likely outcome.

[TheStig]

I can't believe pilots are debating the 'down-side' to these proposed changes, in my opinion they are nothing but a big step in the right direction over our current regulations in 3 areas; duty day limitations based on the hour of the day, long haul augmentation, and reserve/standby rules.

I did some digging through some of the longer duty days I've worked and could only find a handful which fall outside of these new guidelines (although I'll be the first to admit I'm no expert). Such as, YYZ-UVF (St. Lucia)-YYZ, it was over the proposed 13 hour limit. I'd hardly be upset about being forced to layover there though.

I agreed with rudder, these proposed regulations would require airlines to so probably hire more pilots (mostly due to increased reserve coverage and augmentation requirements), but I imagine the pairing/daily flying productivity wont suffer that much once the pairings are 'tweaked' to comply. I know some pilots are concerned about flying overtime, but as far as I can tell the 1000 hour/year restriction is actual flight time not 'credit' time, and if you're that concerned about flying overtime spread your vacation out over as many months as you can. I find on average I actually fly 700-800 hours per year despite being credited for 900-950.

[Fanblade]

I wouldn't count my chickens just yet. Now the hard lobbying will start.

Sorry for my skeptisim but I have my doubt's the current document will survive intact.

[cpt.sam]

As much as I wish for shorter days and more respectable rest periods....I fear this change, as good as it may be, may hinder smaller operations' pilots!
We will certainly be required to work more days. This is a bummer, BUT, the real scary thought....
What will this do to wages?
If an operator requires 25 FOs and 25 Captains instead of 15 or 20 each.... Do you think the salary will be as rewarding?
Who knows?

[leftoftrack]

[quote="cpt.sam"]As much as I wish for shorter days and more respectable rest periods....I fear this change, as good as it may be, may hinder smaller operations' pilots!
We will certainly be required to work more days. This is a bummer, BUT, the real scary thought....
What will this do to wages?
If an operator requires 25 FOs and 25 Captains instead of 15 or 20 each.... Do you think the salary will be as rewarding?
Who knows?[/quote?]

What that's called is leverage. It bodes well for employees and shitty for employer's every employer is going through the exact same changes at the exact same time. Who can retain there employees vs who wants to pay less.

[rigpiggy]

considering your still waiting to get the 4 bars this would be better for you n'est ce pas