Duty regs extentions

[Hilroy]

We spoke about it in another post. Why governments are still extending the implementation of the new duty regs while the shortage of pilot is virtually over for the next 3 years?

Shouldn’t we request from our unions and lobbyists to push for a rapid implementation and bring back more colleagues to work?

If it was really done for ‘safety’ reasons, it’s a no brainer. Win-win situation for the government and the unions/work force.

[digits_]

If I had to guess, it is probably because the government would rather have the companies survive with the last amount of bailouts as possible. The duty regs mean more pilots and thus more costs to the airlines.

[Kosiw]

So does this now mean we all get a 3 yr holiday from recurrent training and medicals too... if we are talking about saving $$$ ??

[tdp19]

Can you post the source saying that they are delaying implementation?

[dialdriver]

Can you post the source saying that they are delaying implementation?

Reference please.

[VeRmiLLioN]

Source?

[goingnowherefast]

There's no change in the Gazette

[RippleRock]

If I had to guess, it is probably because the government would rather have the companies survive with the last amount of bailouts as possible. The duty regs mean more pilots and thus more costs to the airlines.

Do you seriously think that crewing aircraft properly, and safely by hiring a few relief pilots on first year pay is going to jeopardize the viability of an entire airline???

There are other ways to trim fat. These regs are many years overdue. Do you think these regs are being implemented for no reason other than to employ more pilots?

Unions would be safety negligent to support this.

[digits_]

If I had to guess, it is probably because the government would rather have the companies survive with the last amount of bailouts as possible. The duty regs mean more pilots and thus more costs to the airlines.

Do you seriously think that crewing aircraft properly, and safely by hiring a few relief pilots on first year pay is going to jeopardize the viability of an entire airline???

There are other ways to trim fat. These regs are years overdue.

It will affect the money the airline will need from the government. I expect most airlines to need government money/loans/... to survive in the next year. The more costs, the more money they'll need.

Politically it would be easier to explain to spend more money on EI for the laid off pilots vs paying more money to the "greedy airlines".

[RippleRock]

If I had to guess, it is probably because the government would rather have the companies survive with the last amount of bailouts as possible. The duty regs mean more pilots and thus more costs to the airlines.

Do you seriously think that crewing aircraft properly, and safely by hiring a few relief pilots on first year pay is going to jeopardize the viability of an entire airline???

There are other ways to trim fat. These regs are years overdue.

It will affect the money the airline will need from the government. I expect most airlines to need government money/loans/... to survive in the next year. The more costs, the more money they'll need.

Politically it would be easier to explain to spend more money on EI for the laid off pilots vs paying more money to the "greedy airlines".

You clearly have no idea what the new duty regs are all about.

It's not an "economic issue" at all.

[Ki-ll]

You clearly have no idea what the new duty regs are all about.

It's not an "economic issue" at all.

Everything is an economic issue, as well as political. These duty regs are no exception.
If they weren’t an economic issue they would have been implemented eons ago.

[digits_]

You clearly have no idea what the new duty regs are all about.

It's not an "economic issue" at all.

Nice. So you want the new duty regs to be implemented to employ more pilots. Yet it isn't an economic issue. Got it.

[dialdriver]

A change to the implementation date of the duty rules would require an act of parliament.

[GoHomeLeg]

In the eyes of those who pushed for and wrote the new duty rules, it's from a safety standpoint until those who opposed them because it became an economic issue.

Pilots will push for it until they are implemented and then when it becomes an economic issue because trips aren't as productive or high credit, only then will they be against it.

But I understand the reason in this case to want to implement the new rules on schedule.

[RippleRock]

You clearly have no idea what the new duty regs are all about.

It's not an "economic issue" at all.

Everything is an economic issue, as well as political. These duty regs are no exception.
If they weren’t an economic issue they would have been implemented eons ago.

….then I'll change my wording a bit to It's not an "economically significant issue" at all, but one of safety.

Remember San Francisco? It never should have happened, but for lax Canadian duty Regs. Both pilots were at the bottom of their circadian clock. How about the incident where the FO misinterpreted the planet Venus for traffic mid-Atlantic....again lack of augmentation.

[gtappl]

You clearly have no idea what the new duty regs are all about.

It's not an "economic issue" at all.

Everything is an economic issue, as well as political. These duty regs are no exception.
If they weren’t an economic issue they would have been implemented eons ago.

….then I'll change my wording a bit to It's not an "economically significant issue" at all, but one of safety.

Remember San Francisco? It never should have happened, but for lax Canadian duty Regs. Both pilots were at the bottom of their circadian clock. How about the incident where the FO misinterpreted the planet Venus for traffic mid-Atlantic....again lack of augmentation.

We love to bash on the US for no worker protection, but even our new regs are worse than theirs. We're paid quite a bit less too. Gotta love ACPA

[7ECA]

A change to the implementation date of the duty rules would require an act of parliament.

How about an Order in Council (you know, one of those things a few people are po'd about at the moment), or a Transport Canada Exemption?

[flyinhigh]

Correction, it is not a economical significant issue for you/us the pilots. As stated, that is until they are instituted and everyone realizes that their lifestyle has gone to shits due acclimatization in your time zones and how inefficient a pairing is.

As for companies, it is an extremely LARGE economic issue. At Transat alone, its roughly another 150-200 pilots prior to the implementation. $59,000 (first year pay now) * 150 = $8,850,000. That does not include the cost of upgrades. Based on that alone, I think you can see that it is a safety issue, however the economic issue is substantial.

As for lack of augmentation, that does not preclude and incident from happening. It could very well have happened near the end of a pilots time at the controls when he's tired. Will that help, yes....maybe, but not definitively. In addition, since you mentioned augmentation, how much does it cost to have that additional pilot on payroll, getting perdiems, and utilzing a hotel room for _____ nights?. Again, economical issue.

Don't take this away as me being against the new regs as that would be furthest from the truth. There is aspects in our regs that absolutely need to be corrected and some that don't. I have the benefit of looking at from both sides as I have been on both sides.

….then I'll change my wording a bit to It's not an "economically significant issue" at all, but one of safety.

Remember San Francisco? It never should have happened, but for lax Canadian duty Regs. Both pilots were at the bottom of their circadian clock. How about the incident where the FO misinterpreted the planet Venus for traffic mid-Atlantic....again lack of augmentation.