### June 28 , 2012

U.S. Department of Transportation Docket Operations West Building Ground Floor
Room W12

– 140 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. Washington, DC 20590

Re: Petition for Rulemaking

- Proposed Amendment to 14 CFR Part 117

Airlines for America (A4A) represents the major U.S. passenger and cargo air carriers and petitions the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) on behalf of its passenger carrier members

to amend recently adopted 14 CFR P art 117 governing Flight and Duty Limi t ations and Rest Requirements.

Summary

A4A requests that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) amend 14 CFR Part 117 t o permit

limited extensions to the daily flight time limits be cause doing so will continue current safe practices , align the U.S. with foreign flight and duty regulatory schemes, align aviation with other modes of U.S. transportation, and will benefit the public by minimiz ing the operational impacts of

Part 117

.
Background

Description of Current Rules

Current flightcrew member flight and duty time (FDT) rules include an 8 hour daily flight time

limit (FTL) between rest periods that can be extended for circumstances beyond the control of the operator, if the flights to which the flightcrew member is assigned normally terminate within flight time limitations. 1 

### A carrier's schedule must be based on realistic assumptions about the

1 

### “ A flight crewmember is not considered to be scheduled for flight time in excess of flight time limitations if the
flights to which he is assigned are scheduled and normally terminate within the limitations, but due to
circumstances beyond the control of the certifi cate holder (such as adverse weather conditions), are not at the
time of departure expected to reach their destination within the scheduled time. ” 14 CFR § 121.471(g)

. This
paragraph was extended to flag and supplemental operations by legal interpretation

. See Legal Interpretation
from Rebecca MacPherson to Randall Kania (April 29, 2004), and Legal Interpretation from Donald P. Byrne to John
H. DeWitt (November 8, 1990).

### 2

circumstances of the fli ght, and the delay must be due to circumstances truly unforeseeable or beyond the air carrier's control. 2 

### Current FAA rules also include minimum flightcrew member rest requirements that can be reduced under certain conditions. 3



### C urrent FDT rules that permit FTL extensions are safe, there is no evidence in FAA’s FDT docket to suggest otherwise. Safe FTL extensions include preventing in definite flight time

extensions and mitigating pilot fatigue by mandating rest while recognizing the fluctuating

o perational environment caused by factors out of a carrier’s control like unforecast weather

conditions and National Airspace System congestion caused by non

- recurring events

.

FDT Final Rule

After convening an Aviation Rulemaking Committee and issuing a Not ice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) , t he FAA published a FDT final rule on January 4, 2012 that includes daily flight time limit s

. 4 

### The final rule severely restricts extensions by allowing only post

- takeoff

extensions that enable the flightcrew to safely land at the next scheduled destination or appropriate alternate. 5 

### In a departure from historical application of flight time rules, t he new rule prohibit s any p re

- takeoff flight time extensions , even when a carrier’s schedule is realistic and

the affected flights normally terminate within the daily flight time limits

. In other words, the FAA no longer recognizes pre

- take off flight time extensions due to unforeseen operational reasons.

Justification for ‘ Hard ’ Flight Time Limits

The primary reason the FDT final rule impose s hard flight time limits is FAA’s conclusion , based on two studies, t hat working longer than 8 or 9 hours can increase the risk of an accident

. 6 

### T he first study, “Shift W ork, S afety and P roductivity” by Simon Folkard and Philip Tucke r, examines the safety and productivity of industrial nigh t shift work ers by reviewing and compiling results from various studies

. 7 

### One section of the Folkard study focuses on risk over hours of duty and compiles information from studies on Sweden and German national accident statistics. The FAA also cites one Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) s tudy that FAA states shows commercial truck drivers have an increased risk of an accident with increased hours of
work. 8 

### There are no aviation studies in the docket that examine “stick time” (actual time that a pilot is manipulating the controls of an aircraft), FTL or the impact of hard FTL s o n flightcrew
member error or accident rates. 9

2 See Legal Interpretation from Rebecca B. MacPherson to Patrick M. Ryan (February 23 , 2006);

3 14 CFR 121.471(c).

4 77 Fed. Reg. 330.

5 14 CFR § 117.11(b).

6 See FN 15 & 16, 77 Fed. Reg. 337.

7 See Simon Folkard & Philip Tucker, Shift work, safety and productivity, Occupational Medicine, Feb. 1, 2003, at

98.

8 ‘‘The Impact of Driving, Non

- Driving Work, and Rest Breaks on Driving Performance in Commercial Motor vehicle Operations,’’ Blanco, M., Hanowski, R., Olson, R., Morgan, J., Soccolich, S., Wu, S.C., and Guo, F., FMCSA, April 2011

available at http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/facts

- research/research

- technology/report/work

- hours

- hos.pdf

. 9 In addition to the studies, the FAA states it did not want to eliminate FTLs because existing regulations generally limit FTL to 8 hours, and imposing only daily flight duty period limits would not differentiate between flight and

non

- flight duties. 77 Fed. Reg. 360, 361. The FAA is concerned that without FTL a pilot with 7 hours of block time would be treated the same from a FDT perspective as a pilot that has 2 hours block time and 5 hours of non

- flight

### 3

Part 117 Petition

Request

We request that the FAA amend 14 CFR part 117.11 to allow 45 minute FTL extensions to recognize operational uncertainties, as current rules have safely recognized for decades. In the alternative, we request that the FAA apply the FDT final rule FDP extensions to FTL s by permitting 30 minute extensions and one ext ension over 30 minutes per 168 hours. 10



### Justification

Decades of experience under the current rule establishes that extending FTL’s due t o “circumstances beyond the control of the operator” is a demonstrated safe practice

. It also provides a substantial public benefit because it enables many passengers to reach their destination without additional delay, including possibly having to incur an unplanned overnight stay. The current rule establishes a sound safe ty bar, but also recognizes that the impact of certain unanticipated operational demands, such as ground holds, airspace congestion and extreme weather conditions, can be safely accommodated. Although the current rule and extension policy has proven saf e, t his petition does not ask FAA to adopt the existing FTL

extension policy (created by legal interpretations of section 121.471(g) ) wholesale, it requests something less : a n FTL extension that could not last longer than 45 minutes. As the FAA has

recog nized by affirming and reaffirming FTL extensions in dozens of legal interpretations over

many years, and as recently as just two months ago , limit ed FTL extensions for operational

needs are safe and necessary to keep an efficient transportation system

. 11



### While rest requirements in current rules help mitigate fatigue by ensuring flightcrew members

receive mandated additional rest for FTL extensions, this petition requests a different but equal ly beneficial approach to mitigating fatigue

. C apping extensions to a 45 minute FTL limit

will prevent excessive FTL extensions. In addition, several other new restrictions in the FDT

duties. Treatment of pilots with different block or other time duty is not a concern in this petition because we are only askin g for FTL extensions, not a repeal of FTLs.

10 See 14 CFR section 117.19.

11 See, for example, the following legal interpretations that discuss application of FTL extensions: May 4, 2012 Letter to James W. Johnson from Rebecca MacPherson, Assistant Chief Co unsel for Regulations, page 2 (recognizing section 121.471(g) as an exception to the domestic, flag, and supplemental FTLs); April 14, 2011 Letter
to Ronald Thomas from Rebecca MacPherson, Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations , page 2 (discussing applica tion of FTL extensions to Subpart R, Flag operations and recognizing application to domestic operations); February 23, 2006 Letter to Patrick M. Ryan from Rebecca MacPherson, Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations, pages 2

- 3 (discussing application of F TL extensions to section 121.503(a) supplemental operations and recognizing application to section 121.471(a)(4) domestic operations; April 29, 2004 Letter to Randall C. Kania, from Rebecca MacPherson, Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations page 2 (discussing exceeding flight time limits and recognizing

that FTL extensions must be counted towards cumulative FTL s ; Feb. 9, 1993 Letter to David S. Parent, from Donald P. Byrne, Assistant Chief Counsel, Regulations and Enforcement Division , page 2; Nov ember 24, 1992 Letter to Mr. George Reich from Donald P. Byrne Assistant Chief Counsel, Regulations and Enforcement Division page 2; November 12, 1992 Letter to Richard P. Schweitzer Donald P. Byrne Assistant Chief Counsel, Regulations and
Enforcement Divi sion , page 2; Feb 8 1990 Letter to Mr. Bernard Geier Donald P. Byrne Assistant Chief Counsel, Regulations and Enforcement Division , page 2.

### 4

final rule work to mitigate fatigue, including reduced FTL daily limits of 8 or 9 hours

, 12 

### increased mandatory rest, 13 

### and shor tened FDP limits from 1 6 hours today to a maximum of 14 hours for unaugmented flightcrews

. 14 

### Also, the FTL extension we request would not apply to part 117 monthly or yearly FTL cumulative limits, which is another additional restriction that would prevent regular or excessive FTL extensions.

Response to FAA Concerns

In the final rule, the FAA expressed concern that FTL extensions would increase flight times raising the risk of an accident. The limited nature of this petition addresses these concerns

because flightcrew member flight times could not drastically increase. For instance, for flightcrews with a report time between 0000

- 0459 and 2000

- 2359 with an 8 hour FTL, the maximum possible extension if this petition were adopted would still fall short of the longer 9 hour FTL permitted for 0500

- 1959 report times. Likewise, the maximum extension of a 9 hour FTL under this request would also fall short of a 10 hour FTL, the maximum FTL FAA proposed in the FDT NPRM. And, as already noted, the annual FTLs nece ssarily limit excessive instances of extended flight time periods.

In addition, the Folkard study that FAA relies on overstates the case and is distinguishable from the aviation industry. First, the primary purpose of the Folkard study was to examine indu strial employee shift work, not the impact of hours on duty. Second, the one short paragraph on length of duty in the Folkard study uses national general population accident statistics from Sweden and Germany, which are very different from focusing on a h ighly regulated aviation industry with an extremely low accident rate and the redundancy provided by two or more operators and two or more autopilots. It is difficult to compare two highly trained professional pilots operating a modern aircraft with a sin gle worker tying thread on a spindle or a switchboard operator. The tasks are very dissimilar. Third, there is no evidence in the study that worker hours used in the study include other redundant safety systems such as minimum rest requirements, overall work hour limits (equivalent to FDP) or time on task limits (equivalent to FTL). An examination of hard FTLs requires a much more detailed aviation study that correlates aviation accidents or incidents to FTL and FTL extensions, which the Folkard study

do es not provide.

Likewise, the FMCSA study referenced in the final rule also is distinguishable. The FMCSA study FAA relies on to support concern over increased FTLs examines commercial motor vehicle driving accident statistics. However, FMCSA just reaffi rmed in its hours of service final rule that 10 hours of driving time (comparable to FTL) is safe and a 15 hour work day is safe (equivalent to FDP) for passenger carrying operators, which are both longer than FAA limits. 15



### And unlike FAA rules for Part 1 21 operations, which require two pilots, FMCSA rules for commercial drivers do not require two drivers. Finally, relevant to the specific point of limited FTL extensions, the FMCSA found in analyzing accident data in its hours of service final rule

12 The FDT NPRM proposed FTL limits of 8, 9 and 10 hours, 75 Fed. Reg. 55888 , September 14, 2010.

13 See 14 CFR sectio n 117.25

14 See part 117 table B.

15 See 49 CFR 395.5(a).

### 5

that : “The available data, however, are not sufficiently robust to yield a statistically significant

distinction between the crash risk associated with any two adjacent hours of work.” 16 

### This last statement is significant because it indicates motor vehicle cr ash risk does not increase between two adjacent duty lengths (e.g. 8 hour duty length vs. 9 hour duty length) and therefore if FMCSA data is relevant to aviation, a 45 minute FTL extension would have no impact on safety.

FAA Recognizes the Operational Nece ssity of Limited FDP E xtensions

The FAA recognized the operational necessity of providing limited flight duty period extensions
in the FDT final rule by permitting unlimited 30 minute FDP extensions and one extension between 30 minutes and two hours in any one week period that arise prior to takeoff

. 17 

### In addition, the final rule permits unlimited 30 minute extensions and one extension that exceeds

30 minutes in any one week period that arises after takeo ff. The FAA also recognized that FDP extension abuse is unlikely because: “While a certificate holder can schedule FDPs up to the maximum presented in the tables, it is unlikely to do so because of th e cumulative limits (weekly and monthly) on FDPs.” 18



### The same logic and reasoning for permitting FDP exten sions applies to FTL extensions; both types of extensions provide safe operational flexibility that is unlikely to be abused because of

cumulative FDP and cumulative FTL limits. Recognizing that regular FTL extensions will cause flightcrews to rapidly approach cumulative FTL limits, t his petition does not request permitting

extensions to FTL cumulative limits

.

Other Aviation R egulatory S chemes D o N ot R equire Daily F light T ime L imits and Therefore Do Not Consider “Hard” Flight Time Limits Necessary

As noted by comments in response to the FDT NPRM, other regulatory schemes do not include daily FTLs but rely on monthly or yearly FTL s to mit igate fatigue. FAA noted in the final rule that while some schemes like the European Union (EU) do not include daily FTLs, they make up for it with other more stringent requirements, like a 13 hour maximum FDP (compared to FAA’s 14 hour maximum) and the EU’s 12 hour min imum rest requirements, versus FAA’s 10 hour rest requirement minimum. 19 

### However, EU requirements are not, in fact, materially different than

Part 117 , except for daily FTLs . T aking a closer look at EU FDT requirements published two weeks after FAA’s final rule, the FAA provides a longer FDP in only about 50% of the FDP periods, in the other half

, the EU allows equal or lengthier FDP periods

. See comparison table

- attachment A . In addition, the EU’s 12 h our rest period is not uniform; the EU requires 12 hours of rest when a flightcrew is at its home base, 10 hours of rest are required when the flightcrew is away from their home base. 20 

### We also note the EU retains the ability to reduce rest

16 76 Fed. Reg. 81135.

17 77 Fed. Reg. 400, 14 CFR 117.19(a).

18 77 Fed. Reg. 369.

19 77 Fed. Reg. 357.

20 Compare EU ORO.FTL.235 (a) with ORO.FTL.235 (b).

### 6

to maintain ope rational flexibility, a concept FAA has eliminated in part 117. 21 

### Additionally, the EU offers more opportunities for FDP extensions. 22



### Finally FAA notes in the final rule that other schemes exclude daily FTLs but include cumulative
FTLs and “These cumulative flight

- time limits are significantly lower than the cumulative flight

time limits imposed by this [FAA’s] rule.” 23 

### We note

, however

, that EASA does not include weekly and monthly cumulative FDP limits and the United Kingdom’s CAP

- 371 has the same limits as FAA, except 5 hours less on the weekly cumulative FDP limit. 24 

### In addition, the only difference between FAA, EASA, and CAP

- 371 FTLs is that FAA includes a daily limit and EASA
and CAP

- 371 include a 900 hour calendar year FTL while FAA includes a 1,000 hour limit. 25


### Analyzing cumulative limits together, EASA and CAP

- 371 cumulative limits are not “significantly

lower” than FAA limits

.

C omparison of EASA, FAA, and CAP

- 371 Cumulative Flight Times and Flight Duty Periods
EASA (ORO.FTL.215) FAA (117.23) CAP

- 371

Flight Duty Period

Daily Variable (ORO.FTL.210(b)) Variable (Table B) Variable (CAP 371, section 13.3)

Weekly (168 hours) None 60 hours 55 hours

Monthly (672 hours) None 190 hours 190 hours

Flight Time Limits

Daily None Between 8

- 9

hours None

Weekly (168 hours) None None None

Monthly (672 hours) 100 100 100

Calendar Year 900 ≈ 1,000 900

12 Consecutive

Months 1,000 1,000 900

21 See ORO.FTL.235 (c).

22 See ORO.FTL.210 (e).

23 77 Fe d. Reg. 362.

24 See EASA ORO.FTL.215(a) and CAP

- 371, section 22.1.

25 See EASA ORO.FTL.215(b), CAP

- 371, section 21.1, 14 CFR 117.23(b).

### 7

Other U.S. Transportation Modes Either Do Not Require Daily Driving Time Limits or Permit
Extensions of Those Limits

Other modes of transportation under the Department of Transportation do not impose daily piloting or driving time limits, or if they do, the limits can be extended.

Federal Rail Duty Limitations

Like FAA, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and its implementing statute provide duty time limits for railroad employees to help mitigate fatigue. R ail employee duty time limits were governed solely by statute for decades until Congress gave FRA a uthority to adopt passenger

carrying train employee duty time limits in 2008. 26 

### The FRA adopted passenger

- carrying train employee duty time limits in August 2011. 27 

### Both the Federal duty time rail statute and new FRA hours of service regulations do not inc lude the equivalent of daily “flight time limits” or limits imposed for time actually piloting a train. I nstead the FRA statute and regulations impose daily duty hour limits that are similar to FDPs

. 28 

### Therefore, rail duty time limits do not include the

e quivalent of flight time limits and do not consider “hard” or non

- extendable duty limits

necessary.

Federal Commercial Vehicle Driving Time Limitations

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) imposes a daily 10 hour “driving
time” limit for passenger carrying commercial motor carriers that is similar to FTL s because FMCSA defines driving time as “all time spent at the driving controls of a commercial motor vehicle in operation.” 29 

### FMCSA recently updated and amen ded its hours of service regulations

in December 2011 and still permits a 10 hour “driving time” limit

. 30 

### Commercial motor carriers

and drivers are permitted to extend the 10 hour daily driving time limit by up to two hours

– a 20% increase of drive time

- due to adverse driving conditions. 31



### Operational Impact

“Hard” FTLs as adopted in the FDT final rule will adversely affect the flying public because the final rule will prohibit a carrier or pilot from extending FTLs except in emergency situations

. C urrent rules , however, allow FTL extensions for circumstances beyond the control of the

carrier. In addition, carriers will incur significant costs from having to buffer crew schedules to avoid exceeding the new FTLs, and from the inefficient scheduling p ractices this will drive. Flightcrews will spend more idle time on duty rather than operating an airplane , driving down productivity

. Even with reasonable buffers, some passengers will be stranded at locations other

than their intended destinations due t o unforeseen circumstances. As stated in A4A comments

26 See 49 U.S.C. 21109

27 76 Fed. Reg. 50360.

28 See 49 U.S.C. 21103(a) (imposing daily duty limits) and 49 U.S.C. 21103(b) (defining duty time); 49 CFR 228.405(a) (imposing daily duty limits) and 14 CFR 228.405(b) (defining duty time).

29 See definition of “driving time” in 49 CFR 395.2 and daily drivin g time limit in 49 CFR 395.5.

30 76 Fed. Reg. 81134.

31 See 49 CFR section 395.1(b). We note this exception is distinct from an emergency situation that requires a driver to continue driving. See 49 CFR 395.1(b)(2)

### 8

submitted in November 2010, to prevent pilots from exceeding “hard” FTLs carriers will have to buffer existing schedules by 45 minutes, which will eliminate all but 0.55% of flight cancellations

due to potential flight time extensions. 32



### After publishing the FDT final rule A4A asked Oliver Wyman (OW) to assess the impact of
“hard” FTL s to follow up on the cost/benefit analysis it completed using carrier data during the FDT NPRM comment process. In examining the FDT final rule we asked OW to analyze the impact of t wo flight time exten sion scenarios; (1) 45 minute extensions, and ( 2 ) 30 minute

extensions.

In determining costs OW examined three components: (1) block hour costs; (2) carrier

cancellati on costs; and (3) passenger cancellation costs. Based on information provided by passenger carrying members, block hour costs were determined by comparing actual flight times to scheduled flight times to identify flights that would exceed the flight time limit, and result

in cancellations. Cancellation costs were estimated by assuming non

- domicile flights that

exceed FTLs would be cancelled , incurring costs to accommodate passengers

. The cost of including no flight time extension to passenger carriers wi ll be $323 million annually (optimized). The cost to passenger carriers if the final rule were changed to permit 30 minute extensions would be $163 million annually, and $95 million annually with a 45 minute extensio n permitted. (all costs optimized). Thus, permitting a 45 minute extension in certain circumstances will reduce the cost impact of the final rule by more than $225 million per year ; $98 million of this total are passenger out of pocket costs for canceled flights

.
Modifying the final rule as proposed would be consistent with Executive Orders 12866 and

13563 because it would be tailoring “regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives” and utilize “the least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends

. ” 33 

### Permitting FTL extensions would impose a lesser burden on society using less burdensome tools consistent with regulatory safety objectives because it would continue current safe FTL extension practices.

In addition, President Obama rece ntly reaffirmed his commitment to increase U.S. travel and

tourism

, recognizing that “ The U.S. travel and tourism industry is a substantial component of U.S. GDP, exports, and employment, and efforts to make America the top tourist destination in

the world offer a tremendous opportunity to create jobs and strengthen the U.S. economy.” 34


### Reducing the adverse impact of this rule on the flying public by avoiding delays , cancellations

and the inefficient scheduling it will impose, through the limited adjustment requested, would
better enable U.S. airlines to invest in their businesses, encourage travel to the U.S. and enable U.S. carriers to better compete in the global market for passengers traveling to the U.S. Granting the relief requested also would harmoni ze U.S. FDT rules with foreign FDT rules, putting U.S. carriers on an equal footing, allowing them to compete on a level playing field.

32 See A4A FDT NPRM comments Attachment 2 page 205 (OW NPRM review page 36). We note that even 0.55% cancellations will still burden passengers with cancellations and carriers with some cancellation costs.

33 Executive Order 13563, Section 1(a) and 1(b)(2).

34 http://www.whitehouse.gov/the

- press

- office/2012/05/10/obama

- administration

- continues

- efforts

- increase

travel

- a nd

- tourism

- unite

### 9

Conclusion

We respectfully request the FAA permit limited extensions to the daily flight time limits because doing so will continue current safe practices, recognize foreign FDT requirements, align aviation with other modes of U.S. transportation, and minimize operational impacts that will benefit the flying public and encourage technology investment and job growth.

Sincerely,

Thomas L. Hendricks Senior Vice President Safety, Security and Operations Airlines for America

### 10

Proposed Regulatory Text:

§ 117.11 Flight time limitation.

(a) No certificate holder may schedule and no flightcrew member may accept an assignment or continue an assigned flight duty period if the total flight time:

(1) Will exceed the limits specified in Table A of this part if the operation is conducted with the minimum required flightcrew , except as provided in paragraph (b) of this sec tion

.
(2) Will exceed 13 hours if the operation is conducted with a 3

- pilot flightcrew.

(3) Will exceed 17 hours if the operation is conducted with a 4

- pilot flightcrew.

(b) If unforeseen operational circumstances arise prior to or after takeoff that are b eyond the certificate holder’s control, the pilot in command and certificate holder a flightcrew member may extend exceed the maximum flight time specified in Table A paragraph (a) of this part by up to

45 minutes. section and the cumulative flight time limits in 117.23(b) to the extent necessary to safely land the aircraft at the next destination airport or alternate, as appropriate.

(c) A flight time extension under paragraph (b) of this section can only exceed 45 minutes and exceed a flightcrew member’ s cumulative duty limits in section 117.23 when

(1) the extension arises after takeoff; and

(2) the extension is necessary to safely land the aircraft at the next destination airport or alternate, as appropriate.

(d) A flight time extension under paragraph (b) of this section exceeding 45 minutes is prohibited

if the flight time extension arises prior to takeoff

.
(c) (e) Each certificate holder must report to the Administrator within 10 days any flight time that exceeded the maximum flight time limits permit ted by this section. The report must contain the following:

(1) A description of the extended flight time limitation and the circumstances surrounding the need for the extension; and

(2) If the circumstances giving rise to the extension were within the cer tificate holder’s control, the corrective action(s) that the certificate holder intends to take to minimize the need for future

extensions.

(d) (f) Each certificate holder must implement the corrective action(s) reported in paragraph (c) (e) (2) of this section within 30 days from the date of the extended flight time limitation.

### 11 

# Attachment A

### 12

Maximum daily FDP Comparison EASA CRD 35 

### vs. FAA Final Rule 36 

### (underlined)

Start of FDP 1

– 2 Sectors 3 Sectors 4 Sectors 5 Sectors 6 Sectors or

more 7 Sectors or

more (FAA)

0600

– 0659 13:00 13 12:30 12 12:00 12 11:30 11:30 11:00 11 10:30 10:30

0700

- 1159 13:00 14 12:30 13 12:00 13 11:30 12:30 11:00 12 10:30 11:30

1200

- 1259 13:00 13 12:30 13 12:00 13 11:30 12:30 11:00 12 10:30 11:30

1300

– 1329 13:00 12 12:30 12 12:00 12 11:30 11:30 11:00 11 10:30 10:30

1330

– 1359 12:45 12 12:15 12 11:45 12 11:15 11:30 10:45 11 10:15 10:30

1400

– 1429 12:30 12 12:00 12 11:30 12 11:00 11:30 10:30 11 10:00 10:30

1430

– 1459 12:15 12 11:45 12 11:15 12 10:45 11:30 10:15 11 09:45 10:30

1500

– 1529 12:00 12 11:30 12 11:00 12 10:30 11:30 10:00 11 09:30 10:30

1530

– 1559 11:45 12 11:15 12 10:45 12 10:15 11:30 09:45 11 09:15 10:30

1600

– 1629 11:30 12 11:00 12 10:30 12 10:00 11:30 09:30 11 09:00 10:30

1630

– 1659 11:15 12 10:45 12 10:15 12 09:45 11:30 09:15 11 09:00 10:30

1700

– 1729 11:00 12 10:30 11 10:00 11 09:30 10 09:00 9 09:00 9

1730

– 1759 11:00 12 10:30 11 10:00 11 09:30 10 09:00 9 09:00 9

1800

– 1829 11:00 12 10:30 11 10:00 11 09:30 10 09:00 9 09:00 9

1830

– 1859 11:00 12 10:30 11 10:00 11 09:30 10 09:00 9 09:00 9

1900

– 2159 11:00 12 10:30 11 10:00 11 09:30 10 09:00 9 09:00 9

2200

- 2259 11:00 11 10:30 10 10:00 10 09:30 9 09:00 9 09:00 9

2300

- 2359 11:00 10 10:30 10 10:00 9 09:30 9 09:00 9 09:00 9

0000

- 0359 11:00 9 10:30 9 10:00 9 09:30 9 09:00 9 09:00 9

0400

– 0414 11:00 10 10:30 10 10:00 10 09:30 9 09:00 9 09:00 9

0415

– 0429 11:15 10 10:45 10 10:15 10 09:45 9 09:15 9 09:00 9

0430

– 0444 11:30 10 11:00 10 10:30 10 10:00 9 09:30 9 09:00 9

0445

– 0459 11:45 10 11:15 10 10:45 10 10:15 9 09:45 9 09:15 9

0500

– 0514 12:00 12 11:30 12 11:00 12 10:30 11:30 10:00 11 09:30 10:30

0515

– 0529 12:15 12 11:45 12 11:15 12 10:45 11:30 10:15 11 09:45 10:30

0530

– 0544 12:30 12 12:00 12 11:30 12 11:00 11:30 10:30 11 10:00 10:30

0545

– 0559 12:45 12 12:15 12 11:45 12 11:15 11:30 10:45 11 10:15 10:30

Green = EASA longer FDP periods Blue = Equal EASA and FAA FDP periods

Orange = FAA longer FDP periods

35 CRD ORO.FTL.210, page 78.

36 FAA FDT Final Rule, Table B, 77 FR 402.

### 13 

# Attachment B© 2011 OLIVER WYMANAVIATION, AEROSPACE & DEFENSEMay 2012New Flight & Duty RegulationsLimits to Flight Time1© 2011 OLIVER WYMANNew flight & duty regulationsNew Rule:The FAA published a Flight and Duty Time final ruleon January 4, 2012 that includes several significantchanges from the proposed rule.• Scope limited to passenger-carrying operations• Two out of three of the high impact proposed requirements eliminated:– Schedule reliability, and– Overly restrictive flight duty period extensions.• However, FAA retained one high impact requirement– pilot flight time limits.– Burdensome because it prohibits a carrier or pilotfrom extending flight time limits except for emergencysituations, unlike current rules that allow FTL extensions for circumstances beyond the control of thecarrier.– Carriers will therefore be forced into buffering pilot schedules to avoid exceeding the new FTLs.This Analysis:A4A is considering petitioning the FAA for FTL relief and therefore asked Oliver Wyman to analyze theimpactof two potential relief scenarios not currently inthe final rule.• What if FAA permitted unlimited: (1) 30-minute extensions to the FTL, or (2) 45 minute extensions totheFTL.• To expedite this analysis we used the same data assembled for our November 2010 Economic ImpactAnalysis.2© 2011 OLIVER WYMANResults of analysisProviding extensions to the hard time flight limits would substantially reduce the costof those limits.• Retention of hard block time limits in the final rule has a substantial cost impact on the industry– The inability to extend flight times requires airlines to add buffers (~45 minutes) to ensurethat cancellations and operational disruptions areminimized.– Even with those buffers, some flights will need tobe cancelled.• Allowing extensions would mitigate some costs– As the length of the permitted extension is increased, the impact of the flight limits is reducedproportionally– Costs associated with hard time limits can not befully mitigated by extensions because anyhard limit will result in some cancellations once the buffer is exceeded.• Cost reductions for the passenger segment range from ~$214M per year (with 30-minuteextensions) to ~$305M per year (with 45-minute extensions).• Including the FAA’s 25% optimization factor results in savings ranging from ~$160 – ~$228Mper year. The optimization factor is used to compare our results with the FAA’s; there is noindependent analysis supporting that figure.• These cost estimates include three components: (1)block hour costs; (2) carrier cancellationcosts; and (3) passenger cancellation costs.3© 2011 OLIVER WYMANMethodology overview (1/2)Modeling Approach:• Same approach used as in the original Flight Timelimit analysis (described in Chapter 5 of the November2010 Economic Impact Analysis).• To estimate the economic impact of the hard flighttime limit, we:– (a) analyzed the changes required in scheduled flight times to reduce the likelihood of violating theflighttime limit by adding a buffer; and– (b) compared actual flight times to scheduled flight times to identify flights that still would exceed the flighttime limit, and result in cancellations. We estimated the economic impacts for air carriers in terms ofthecost of adding block hours needed to minimize cancellations and the costs of the increased number ofcancellations. Separately, we estimated the costs for passengers resulting from the increased number ofcancellations.Limitations and comparison to FAA approach:• The data set used tor this analysis includes representatives from mainline and LCC carriers. It is only asample of the industry.• We applied the 25% optimization factor used by theFAA to our original study results and to the results ofthis new analysis.• The FAA claims that its new economic impact numbers are the result of running carrier schedules throughan optimizer. We do not know what impact that approach would have on the results of this analysis. (Weremain skeptical that the FAA has accurately optimized the results given the complexity of completingthisexercise for the entire industry.)4© 2011 OLIVER WYMAN300320340360380400420440460480500 100 1,300 2,500 3,700 4,900 6,100 7,300 8,500 9,700 10,900 12,100 13,300 14,500 15,700 16,900 18,100 19,300 20,500 21,700 22,900 24,100 25,300May-24-12Methodology overview (2/2)Providing extensions to the hard flight time limits allows airlines to reduce schedulebuffering, allowing them to truly benefit from additional flight time allowed under the rule• Adding the ability to extend flight time allowsairlines to reduce the 45 minute bufferassumed in the original analysis• As for the original analysis, pairings thatwould touch the buffered period weretruncated– The number of truncated pairings wasreduced with the smaller buffers– 45 minute extensions would effectivelyeliminate the need for buffering, removingblock hour costs• Cancellation costs were determined byreviewing actual flight times that exceededthe limit and assuming those flightscancelled if non-domicile– Cancellation costs also decrease with theprovision of buffers– Incremental cancellation costs will alwaysbe incurred as the hard limit is a newlimitation, even with 45 minute extensions– These costs, however, are relatively smallScheduled Flight Time - MarchMarch, mainline carrier, un-augmented

Scheduled pairing Flight Time (Minutes)Number of FDP’s30 minute extensions wouldallow pairings that are closerto the FTL stated in the newruleThese pairings would notneed to be supplemented byadditional crews, reducingcost impact7:15 Hours8:00 HoursFTLMax. Scheduled FTL no extensions7:45 HoursMax. Scheduled FTL 30 minute extensions5© 2011 OLIVER WYMAN$431$217$1260100200300400500600No extensions 30 Min Ext 45 Min Ext$214M$305M$323$163$950100200300400500600No extensions 30 Min Ext 45 Min Ext$160M$228MExtensions to flight time limits: Overview of results without cargo carriersAllowing carriers to extend flight time when requiredfor operational reasons willsubstantially reduce the impact of the new rule to theindustry.May-24-12Impact of allowing extensions to Flight TimeAnnual cost, Non-optimized, excludes cargoImpact of allowing extensions to Flight TimeAnnual cost, Optimized, excludes cargoCosts with a 45minute extensionare related tocancellations thatwill occur atFTL+45Costs with a 45minute extensionare related tocancellations thatwill occur atFTL+45

Cost ($M) Cost ($M)6© 2011 OLIVER WYMANExtensions to flight time limits: Detailed results without cargo carriers(Assumes no benefit from optimization)May-24-12Cost with no extensionsAnnual cost, Non-optimized, excludes cargoCost with 45 minute extensions1Annual cost, Non-optimized, excludes cargoNote: 1) Assumes extensions are unlimited053731260100200300400500600BlockHourCostsCxCosts(Airline)CxCosts(Pax)Total

Cost ($M) Cost ($M) Cost ($M)801462054310100200300400500600BlockHourCostsCxCosts(Airline)CxCosts(Pax)TotalCost with 30 minute extensions1Annual cost, Non-optimized, excludes cargo25801122170100200300400500600BlockHourCostsCxCosts(Airline)CxCosts(Pax)Total7© 2011 OLIVER WYMANExtensions to flight time limits: Detailed results without cargo carriers(25% optimization factor as used in the original analysis)May-24-12Cost with no extensionsAnnual cost, Optimized, excludes cargoCost with 45 minute extensions1Annual cost, Optimized, excludes cargoNote: 1) Assumes extensions are unlimited03955950100200300400500600BlockHourCostsCxCosts(Airline)CxCosts(Pax)Total

Cost ($M) Cost ($M)601101533230100200300400500600BlockHourCostsCxCosts(Airline)CxCosts(Pax)TotalCost with 30 minute extensions1Annual cost, Optimized, excludes cargo1960841630100200300400500600BlockHourCostsCxCosts(Airline)CxCosts(Pax)Total

Cost ($M)