Duty Regulations

[Smitty]

Canada Gazette one has been released with a few amendments to CARS flight duty regulations. It starts on page 14 of the document.

http://canadagazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p1/201 ... -14932.pdf

[CanadianEh]

Looks like a step in the right direction. If these changes go through, the 705 carriers will need to add pilots to the roster to comply with the new regs.

[upintheair_]

While I like what is proposed, if this passes I expect wages to drop even further.

[teacher]

The time off from duty should be 10 hours away from base and 12 hours AT home base. The drive home from the airport is often longer than a cab to the hotel and I don't know about you but I need more than 1 hour at either end of a rest period to drive home, shower, eat, repack, SLEEP 8 HOURS, shower, eat and drive back to work.

[upintheair_]

For 705 yeah, I can understand or 703/704 in a major hub/city. My commute on the other hand is about 4 minutes. It's all relative.

If I worked for Jazz or Encore in Van/Calg. then yeah a 12 hour break would be ideal as most people on that salary can't afford to live anywhere near the airport. If I ever got a job at YVR I'd likely live in S. Surrey or Langley.

[oxfordhouse]

I also need more than 10 hours minimum at home base. What happened to needing 9 hours at home just to get 8 hours of sleep. Now take into consideration travel, food, personal hygiene. Come on transport, we know your listening. Also, what scares me is the loop hole for increasing FDT based on an approved FRMS. The operator i work for already takes advantage of the 14 hour duty plus the op spec for hour 15 on the 703 704 guys. When I go to work there are days with 9 or 10 legs crammed into 13 hours on 705. I feel like a zombie on the last 2 legs and can't just call fatigue because I'll end up in a place in the north you can't sleep at. So our pilots routinely just suck it up and fly tired.

[single_swine_herder]

I admit I didn't think I would see this ever hitting the Gazette due to the cost to the industry without an offsetting tangible benefit to the Canadian travelling public.

So, as they say in the legal world ..... "I shall watch this with interest."

[TrailerParkBoy]

I admit I didn't think I would see this ever hitting the Gazette due to the cost to the industry without an offsetting tangible benefit to the Canadian travelling public.

So, as they say in the legal world ..... "I shall watch this with interest."

There will be minimal costs to most airlines. Duty days will be shorter meaning less flying for pilots each day, forcing the pilots to work more days each month to make up the min guarantee credit!

[AirMail]

I admit I didn't think I would see this ever hitting the Gazette due to the cost to the industry without an offsetting tangible benefit to the Canadian travelling public.

So, as they say in the legal world ..... "I shall watch this with interest."

There will be minimal costs to most airlines. Duty days will be shorter meaning less flying for pilots each day, forcing the pilots to work more days each month to make up the min guarantee credit!

Unfortunately this will be all so true. RIP days off.... oh and of course less pay because hoes will be hoes

[florch]

I'm not sure where people are getting the idea of less pay from. I can see shorter days and more days because of it as the downside. If airlines, however, need an extra x% pilots to do the same work, and it's across the board at every airline, then supply/demand has swung in pilots favour. So don't condition yourself or your peers to think that this will result in less pay. It's not about what management tells you they can afford. It's about what it takes to attract and retain competent labour. Besides, we have $43 oil; they can afford to pay more.

[TrailerParkBoy]

I'm not sure where people are getting the idea of less pay from. I can see shorter days and more days because of it as the downside. If airlines, however, need an extra x% pilots to do the same work, and it's across the board at every airline, then supply/demand has swung in pilots favour. So don't condition yourself or your peers to think that this will result in less pay. It's not about what management tells you they can afford. It's about what it takes to attract and retain competent labour. Besides, we have $43 oil; they can afford to pay more.

You just said it yourself!

If you work more days each month to do the same amount of flight hours, then you are working more...for the same pay....so you are right it's not a pay cut...just working for free on the extra days!

[rudder]

Even with the FRMS let, some operators will see a significant reduction in crew efficiency when the new regs come in to effect. Pilot QOL will be impacted as many medium stage length single day turns will no longer be permitted due to start time/duty day restrictions (think Rouge/SW/AT/WJ). Alternatively, first flight departure times may have to be modified to permit max duty day crew planning.

Any info on when new regs will come in to effect?

[rigpiggy]

reuters just published an exmption see "screwed again"

[florch]

I'm not sure where people are getting the idea of less pay from. I can see shorter days and more days because of it as the downside. If airlines, however, need an extra x% pilots to do the same work, and it's across the board at every airline, then supply/demand has swung in pilots favour. So don't condition yourself or your peers to think that this will result in less pay. It's not about what management tells you they can afford. It's about what it takes to attract and retain competent labour. Besides, we have $43 oil; they can afford to pay more.

You just said it yourself!

If you work more days each month to do the same amount of flight hours, then you are working more...for the same pay....so you are right it's not a pay cut...just working for free on the extra days!

More days but shorter days. It's a wash, just less convenient.
Do you not understand how more pilots required equals more pay on an hourly basis?

[TrailerParkBoy]

I'm not sure where people are getting the idea of less pay from. I can see shorter days and more days because of it as the downside. If airlines, however, need an extra x% pilots to do the same work, and it's across the board at every airline, then supply/demand has swung in pilots favour. So don't condition yourself or your peers to think that this will result in less pay. It's not about what management tells you they can afford. It's about what it takes to attract and retain competent labour. Besides, we have $43 oil; they can afford to pay more.

You just said it yourself!

If you work more days each month to do the same amount of flight hours, then you are working more...for the same pay....so you are right it's not a pay cut...just working for free on the extra days!

More days but shorter days. It's a wash, just less convenient.
Do you not understand how more pilots required equals more pay on an hourly basis?

How long of days are you working now?? It's not a wash if I worked more days meaning I have less time off!

And NO I don't understand how more pilots requires equals more pay on an hourly basis? Please explain for the simple minded people!

[Joe Blow Schmo]

The changes proposed on page 14 are basically what most of the rest of the developed world has had for a very long time. 1000 hours a year is still a lot. Plenty of jurisdictions limit it to 900.

[florch]

How long of days are you working now?? It's not a wash if I worked more days meaning I have less time off!

And NO I don't understand how more pilots requires equals more pay on an hourly basis? Please explain for the simple minded people!

I don't like it either. I work pretty long days right now, long enough that they'll probably be affected. You said yourself that you will be working the same number of flight hours...you work more days but shorter days - to equal the same total hours...so how is that more? It's less convenient for sure, no argument there. My worry is more layovers equaling less productive time.

As to your question: If there is more demand for pilots due to the regs requiring shorter days, then qualified pilots will be in shorter supply - more pilots are required to do the same work as before. When you are applying for a job when the supply of pilots is lower (or pilots are more in demand if you'd rather put it that way) you should have more choices of places to work and companies will have to be more competitive to attract pilots like you. If your existing company is looking to retain its existing pilots and attract more (and maybe your union is negotiating a contract as well at some point) you have better bargaining power to demand higher wages. I don't know how else to put it. Maybe someone can help me out and word this better.

[rigpiggy]

My commute on the other hand is about 4 minutes. It's all relative. If I worked for Jazz or Encore in Van/Calg. then yeah a 12 hour break would be ideal as most people on that salary can't afford to live anywhere near the airport. If I ever got a job at YVR I'd likely live in S. Surrey or Langley.

Not Ideal necessary. It's all relative I used to work in YVR, and walked to work. kill for that again

[watermeth]

Florch is saying it right I think.

looking at the problem from an accountant point of view hiring more pilots will increase your operation costs if you decide to pay them on the current payscale.
What air canada did by transfering pilots and new hires to rouge is very smart: they managed to decrease operation cost on the most paying routes, hence they're record financial results in 2015. outsourcing the regional flying to Skyreg is also very smart, because now they have high freq routes operated for a fraction of the previous operating cost (compared to when AC was operating on those routes).
you can increase yeld by increasing hours flown per pilot but since that won't be possible because the duty regulation is to reduce this amount, airlines will loose efficiency.

a solution would be to reduce GDO while having pilots working more often for the same pay while respecting new duty regs, increase block hours to 90ish before over-time kicks in, and reduce vacation days by a fraction/employee like 1 day less for each AC employee is 25000ish vacation days less to pay...

since airlines will need to hire more pilots, they'll be offering more jobs of a lesser quality.
I'm just having fun and by no way pretend to have an answer to whatever, but by accepting jazz entry level pay, as well as skyreg, encore, GGn, what each pilot is doing is just validating the airlines' choice to reduce our wawcon on a long term basis. SWg & AT are doing the same by introducing the new "seasonal job" notion which in fact gives even less benefits, pay and long term employment since you're disposable and have to work more to make ends meet when contract comes to an end. which in itself is not an improvement.

the bargaining power will be in pilots' hand since it's up to them to accept or not a decrease in working conditions when comes the job offer.
by creating a single list, Westjet just resolved the problem and killed that bargaining power, as well as AC by guaranteeing a job interview to Jazz's employee and regional careers'.
it is very subtle but by showing negligence on that last item, canadian airline pilots cornered themselves

[human garbage]

My commute on the other hand is about 4 minutes. It's all relative. If I worked for Jazz or Encore in Van/Calg. then yeah a 12 hour break would be ideal as most people on that salary can't afford to live anywhere near the airport. If I ever got a job at YVR I'd likely live in S. Surrey or Langley.

Not Ideal necessary. It's all relative I used to work in YVR, and walked to work. kill for that again

Same here except bike vs walk. It was pretty sweet. I got my 8 hrs of prone every day. Couldn't say the same for my colleagues that lived in Surrey or Langley. None of them seemed to care however.

Any info on when new regs will come in to effect?

You have to wait for it to be published in Gazette II. That is when it will get Royal Assent. Based on reading the Gazette for years, my guess is between 8 to 14 months...

[upintheair_]

My commute on the other hand is about 4 minutes. It's all relative. If I worked for Jazz or Encore in Van/Calg. then yeah a 12 hour break would be ideal as most people on that salary can't afford to live anywhere near the airport. If I ever got a job at YVR I'd likely live in S. Surrey or Langley.

Not Ideal necessary. It's all relative I used to work in YVR, and walked to work. kill for that again

Same here except bike vs walk. It was pretty sweet. I got my 8 hrs of prone every day. Couldn't say the same for my colleagues that lived in Surrey or Langley. None of them seemed to care however.

Any info on when new regs will come in to effect?

You have to wait for it to be published in Gazette II. That is when it will get Royal Assent. Based on reading the Gazette for years, my guess is between 8 to 14 months...

I could understand if you were working at say Orca or something where you're back and forth a lot. But if you fly for an airline where you go away on few day pairings then having a 30-40min commute for the sake of lifestyle then I wouldn't mind. And by lifestyle I mean being able to live in a house or townhouse vs. a smaller condo or apartment in Richmond. That, and the valley is pretty nice... White Rock area etc.

[rigpiggy]

Your in fantasyland, the only townhouse in whiterock on mls 2bed/bath 699K. you find me something other than a mobile home that any 704 guy could buy within an hours commute. ie 55-75K/salary

[Flyboycanada80]

Your in fantasyland, the only townhouse in whiterock on mls 2bed/bath 699K. you find me something other than a mobile home that any 704 guy could buy within an hours commute. ie 55-75K/salary

Lots of condos and even townhouses for under 400K in South surrey. Here are some examples:

http://www.realtor.ca/Residential/Singl ... bia-V4A1T5
http://www.realtor.ca/Residential/Singl ... bia-V3S2X5
http://www.realtor.ca/Residential/Singl ... bia-V4P1C4
http://www.realtor.ca/Residential/Singl ... bia-V3S8V8

Man there are a ton on MLS.... Just Click Row/Townhouse under options and click the under 400K slider.

[rigpiggy]

your mortgage shouldnt be more than 40% of your take home whats take home for 65 k in yvr yyc and yyz?

[upintheair_]

I grew up out here, and see them putting stuff up every month in an obtainable price range.

I'm likely going to do what a few of my friends have done. Buy a townhouse, and have a room mate. Likely just a friend who lives around the area. I won't have much trouble finding someone. I'm single and have no dependents. So if for a few year I have to pay a bit more than %40, it's no big deal. Better than renting a condo for $1000/mo in Richmond.