Fatigue Changes & Pay Cheques

[Hot Fuel]

With all the talk of over-worked flight crews and changes to JARs being percieved as a better option that CARs when talking about crew duty and rest, I wondered to myself whether anybody would accept reduced pay if there was a shift to less hours?

[Banjo]

maybe we'd end up working 8 hours a day... just like the rest of the workforce?

[Nark]

, I wondered to myself whether anybody would accept reduced pay if there was a shift to less hours?

Can you clarify this?

Are you talking hourly wage as far as 705/704 ops?
Will there still be a guarantee of 80+/-

For those on salary, are you still expected to work 12 instead of 14>17? (or whatever the rules change to)

[Hot Fuel]

I’ve reworded the question in an effort to remove the “what about this situation” factor.

[altiplano]

=

[CBSW]

This is an interesting thread...


I talked to some bush pilots who had been flying for longer than I have been living. They actually cursed the 14 hour duty day! They wished the duty days were longer so they had the opportunity to make more $. This isn't a troll or a joke. They talked about the " glory days" of when a guy could fly as much as he wanted..

Its very interesting to see the difference in mentality between now and the past.

[Rockie]

A change to the CAR's F&DT regulations doesn't necessarily mean flying less hours. It means more intelligent scheduling that considers circadian rhythm, time zones, sleep schedules and sector limits. In fact you could work the same amount of hours but might end up working more actual days during any given month. Something a lot of guys won't be happy with strangely enough.

[Bushav8er]

Somewhat confusing - I wouldn't want a pay reduction but would expect to get one based on industry practice.

[Changes in Latitudes]

705 here. I make a base pay plus an hourly bonus. Rarely does my duty day go out to 14 hours, and when it does I can usually tell it was beyond the company's ability to have foreseen the situation. If am too fatigued to safely fly, I'd call and say just that. PDM.

[angry inch]

If such changes come around, while the issue is in the public spotlight it should be made clear that safety comes with a dollar cost. The flying public expect everything for nothing. The rates could take a bit of a hike in order for wages, scheduling, maintenance, etc, to improve. Sadly, it's unlikely to work that way...

[Changes in Latitudes]

This does tie in nicely to Colgan in Buffalo. If the wages weren't so brutally low, perhaps that desire to drive an airplane until every last ounce of your energy is depleted would disappear. Perhaps the desire to show up sick for work in order just to make LAST months rent would also disappear.

So I definitely see what you're getting at HOT FUEL. It definitely is a valid discussion.

[bezerker]

If we said the new standard was 10 hours of duty time, it will obviously depend on how many duty days per month exceed 10 hours. I can look at two extremes:

For companies that always fly under 10 hour duty days, there is no need for a staffing level change.

For a company that flies 12-13 hour duty days, 5 days a week (bag runs), there will be a significant change. The staffing level will have to double for that particular aircraft, as each day will require 2 crews. Not good from a companies standpoint.

With regards to number of duty days above 10 hours, most companies will fall somewhere in the middle. Unfortunately for any company that has high pilot utilization (read 1-2 crews per aircraft), this is almost as bad as the bag run situation for companies. Why? Because on any day that goes over 10 hours, they will need another crew. If the crews they have are already utilized (flying or on required days off), this means paying another crew. This probably means either paying for another full time crew each month for any aircraft that flies several 10+ hour duty days per month or giving up those trips.

Anyway you slice it, for most companies that fly multiple long duty days per month, if they want to continue business as usual, staffing costs will significantly increase (to as much as double).

I, for one, stand to lose significant money if we shorten the duty day, as I am paid in mileage. If there are the same number of miles to go around but more pilots required to do it, unless either the customer base rate goes up or the company is willing to take less profit, I will get paid less.

There is no way in my mind that reducing duty days will cause pilot pay to go up (at least in the short term). I still think something should be done about pilot fatigue though.

Feel free to correct me on my logic if able please.

[magyar]

holy thanks for bringing this up, i was thinking last weekend, how did it ever come to be that pilots are to have freakin 17hr duty days?!! instead of a normal 8hr work shift. if anything should it not be LESS than 8hr shifts because of the high workload and concentration required not to mention the many lives at hand that are sitting behind you. we are not just sitting at a counter in a mall selling makeup(no offense to anyone) single pilot IFR especially can becoming tiring very fast because of the obvious high work load.
and the funny thing is even if there is no work load( ie cruise flight) that boredom can still lead to fatigue, and when it's time for let down into that mucky stuff i sure hope we are not a least bit distracted by fatigue related factors.

[Brantford Beech Boy]

For a company that flies 12-13 hour duty days, 5 days a week (bag runs), there will be a significant change.

If the JAR duty rules were adopted here, it would also have a signifigant impact on Medevac operators. More crew may be required due to the stringent duty times for the o-dark:30 departures.

I would not expect a reduced salary... or maybe I should put it I would not accept a reduced salary, I would expect them to try to reduce it.

)
+1

BBB

[Liquid Charlie]

This is pretty funny to me -- lots of people get up on the soap box and preach safety and when the possibility of finally getting some regulations in place that will enhance safety we turn our noses up at it because it might impact a pay cheque -- but i'm thinking canada will @#$! it up anyway since the law makers have no balls - in my mind it's pretty simple -- there are already working models out there -- why does canada always feel the need to reinvent the wheel -- look at the approach ban --

[Rockie]

lots of people get up on the soap box and preach safety and when the possibility of finally getting some regulations in place that will enhance safety we turn our noses up at it because it might impact a pay cheque

Exactly, which is one of the reasons a large and potentially influencial pilot group are "no shows" when it comes to pressing this issue with Transport Canada. They have no desire to see the F&DT regulations change because they might then have to work more than 10 days a month, and since they are also owners anything that may negatively impact the bottom line is a non-starter.

In some circles it's called a conflict of interest.

[beaverbob]

Length of day cannot be just based on duty hours. It has to be a formula based on a combination of duty hours and flying hours per day. For example a longer duty day allowed if a lower number of flying hours or a minimum of rest hours (payed) during the middle.
Just food for thought. It is common to have a few hours rest during the middle of the day where I work now.
Bob Bates

[stopsquawk]

I have no problem flying a 14 hour duty day starting at 7am, with say, 2 or three long sectors on autopilot. I DO have a problem with flying a 14 hour duty day starting at 7pm, with 11 sectors, hand flown in minimums weather.

I think our duty day limits are ok, but need to be adjusted for time of day and type of flying.

My biggest complaint is that operators hide behind extremely lax federal labour regs. If operators were constrained by provincial regs (perhaps the province of the main base of operations or with the majority of employees), in most cases they would see an additional cost for working crews beyond 8 or 12 hours a day or 40 hours a week, or 160 hours every 4 weeks, depending on the situation. Naturally, operators will try to avoid overtime and plan shorter duty days.

[moose_meat]

I think it also depends a bit on what you're making to begin with. If you're in a good position making decent money for your work, and shortening the duty day would mean you are now making EXCELLENT money for your work, then accepting a pay cut may not be so hard. However if you're already in a position of being paid F*CK all for what you do, and are barely making ends meet as it is, taking a pay cut should be out of the question.

Somewhat confusing - I wouldn't want a pay reduction but would expect to get one based on industry practice

That is a fact. Everyone should EXPECT a pay cut to be attempted by the operators, the real question should be would you accept it?

Being paid straight salary to me means that you shouldn't have to take a pay cut for less of a duty day. Salary means you get paid whether you work 15 minutes or 15 hours for a day (in general). So shortening the possible duty day shouldn't affect how you're paid. I agree that this regulation (like MANY others that have to do with safety and efficiency) isn't as simple as shortening duty times or flight times. It should really be calculated based on how much of the day was spent in the cockpit vs other duties. Another factor is when you are scheduled to be flying next. If ample rest is available in between one shift and the next the working a 15 hour day shouldn't be a problem.

[Invertago]

If only they could just hire more pilots and spread the work out a bit... damn pilot shortage!!!