New FAA Rules & Regulations Regarding Pilot Fatigue

1) Which of the key points has the potential to have the largest impact on the safety of the industry and why? Be specific.

There are many points in the article that have a significant impact with regards to safety in the industry. However, I believe that the greatest point lies with the newly defined 10-hour minimum rest period. There are two key concepts to discuss with regards to the new 10 hour minimum rest period. One, the fact that the rest period has been increased by 2 hours (previously set at 8 hours, now 10). Two, and the most important point, is how this new 10-hour minimum rest period is defined. Notice how the FAA now describes the rest period as "a pilot must have an opportunity for eight hours of uninterrupted sleep within the 10-hour rest period". The key word here is uninterrupted. Previously, this designation was never mentioned, and pilots simply had an 8 hour rest period, but the "uninterrupted" part was omitted. For example, in the past, a pilot having done a days worth of flights, say, arrives into Detroit at 11:00pm. By regulations, they only needed an 8 hour "rest period". Therefore, the airline was legal to call them for duty for say, a 7:30am flight. There was never any mention of sleep. Therefore, the pilot could get to his/her hotel at 11:45pm, by the time they eat, shower, and wear down for the day, they may not fall asleep till 1am. Next, they'd likely have to wake up by 6am to prepare for the day, eat, shuttle to the airport, and catch their flight -- with only 5 hours of sleep.

Clearly, between the shuttles to the hotel, common 'no brainers' (i.e. -- the need to eat, and personal hygiene), you could see that many pilots could begin a new workday with only 4-6 hours of sleep. That's why this newly defined rest period has such a significant impact on the safety of the industry. Now, that same pilot could arrive at 11:00pm in Detroit, get to his hotel by midnight, eat, shower, get to sleep by 1am and actually be able to obtain 8 hours of sleep within the 10 hour rest period, an opportunity that was not previously afforded to them.

2) Using the key point you selected in #1, discuss how this is a change from the previous regulation. If you have selected Fatigue Risk Management Systems, discuss how companies were managing fatigue prior to this regulation.

I ended up answering this in the first question; however I’ll reiterate what I said. The prior regulation had omitted any reference to the word "uninterrupted" (sleep), or essentially any guarantee to the pilot having the opportunity to obtain eight hours of uninterrupted sleep. Now, the pilots have this opportunity, fortunately.

3) Discuss how the change in the regulation (the specific one that you addressed in the above questions) will have a financial impact on the industry.

While the new regulations will be costly to the aviation industry, with respect to the newly defined 10-hour minimum rest period, the airlines will need to hire more pilots to fill certain rest-period based gaps that'll now exist. Since pilots are now entitled to more rest time, this reduces the amount of pilots once available at certain times of the day. This may not be a dramatic change (or large change) to the airlines but significant enough that they'll probably need to hire more pilots, or exercise their reserve pilots more frequently. As a result, expect the airlines to incur more costs with respect to the training of those new pilots, and of course the salaries of those new pilots. It's also possible that the new regulation may have an impact on how flights are scheduled or timed, which changing the scheduling (the times of the flights) could have an effect on the yields the airline receives. Lastly, any cost is sure to be passed on to the passengers, so you could likely expect some sort of increase in ticket fares.

4) Do you agree with the exemption of cargo carriers? Why or why not? If you disagree, what is your solution to the financial impact of cargo carrier compliance? If you agree, what is your solution to the fatigue issues that continue to exist within the cargo industry?

I agree with the exemption of cargo carriers, and there are several reasons why. First and foremost, the cargo environment (from a pilot perspective) itself is pretty lax and laid back. Cargo pilots are not subjected to the noise and people stressors that plague passenger-pilots. Nonetheless, I think this is something that should be worked out within each individual airline, and should not be a federal regulation. The FAA was right in ensuring that cargo carriers are exempt from the new rule. Why? Because the cost would be enormous, and would probably drive several cargo carriers (especially the smaller ones) immediately into bankruptcy -- or worst, sending all their planes to the desert (with their company out of business).

Smaller cargo carriers such as Ameriflight, Key Lime Air, US Star Check, and others couldn't possibly fathom the costs incurred by a regulation. However, larger carriers such as FedEx and UPS probably could. What you'd end up with, possibly, is a near-monopoly amongst the U.S. cargo giants. That is, the big cargo companies whom are able to effectively cope with the new costs (had the regulation passed) would succeed, while the smaller cargo companies with little capital, would likely fold. The markets served by the smaller cargo carriers would then be absorbed by the larger cargo companies (and subjected to higher freight costs), or lose service all together (likely in many rural communities).

Cargo companies have a relatively simple solution that they should offer their pilots. A rough estimate, I’d say, is that if the pilots voted to opt the new rule voluntarily (as the FAA encouraged) for the airline, then they should do so while agreeing to a (probably maximum) 50% pay cut. The <50% pay cut would be necessary to mitigate the costs of hiring nearly double the amount of pilots for the new fatigue rules. The net loss by the cargo carrier from adopting the new rule would then be relatively negligible. This would really be the only feasible option based on cargo-carrier's flight schedules which are often highly unpredictable.
Also, the impact on some sectors of the economy (had this rule been passed for cargo carriers) would be enormous. Take a look at the US Postal Service, whom is undergoing a pretty severe financial crisis of its own -- and on the brink of financial collapse -- How Should U.S. Postal Service's Financial Problems Be Fixed? The US Postal Service no longer flies its own mail, and nearly all domestic airlines have abandoned domestic mail-based cargo. Now, who hauls nearly all of the domestic mail and package freight flown by air? FedEx. If you've ever wondered why there's almost always a FedEx drop box right at the front door of every post office, it's because that drop box is a stipulation mentioned in the contract to haul the USPS mail that was signed nearly a decade ago in 2001 -- FedEx, USPS Forge Two New Service Agreements. The contract was a seven-year contract, however was extended to 2013 in 2007. Imagine if the costs of this new fatigue rule (which would likely be passed on to consumers, if unable to make up for it elsewhere), were then passed on to the US Postal Service? Afterall, the USPS is FedEx's largest customer. The impact on the economy (and every American citizen) would be huge, as mail costs would soar. The US Postal Service, already dealing with a financial crisis, would likely suffer an immediate collapse.