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 Part 117 governing Flight and Duty Limitations and Rest 

Requirements. 

Summary

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

limited extensions to the daily flight time limits because 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 minimizing 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 certificate 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 flight, 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 

Current 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 indefinite flight time 

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

operational 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 Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM), the FAA published a FDT final rule on January 4, 2012 that includes daily 

flight time limits.

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, the new rule 

prohibits any pre-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 imposes hard flight time limits is FAA’s conclusion, based 

on two studies, that working longer than 8 or 9 hours can increase the risk of an accident.

6

 The 

first study, “Shift Work, Safety and Productivity” by Simon Folkard and Philip Tucker, examines 

the safety and productivity of industrial nightshift workers 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) study 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 FTLs on 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 FTLs by 

permitting 30 minute extensions and one extension over 30 minutes per 168 hours.10

Justification

Decades of experience under the current rule establishes that extending FTL’s due to 

“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 safety 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 safe, this 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: an FTL extension that could not last longer than 45 minutes. As the FAA has 

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

many years, and as recently as just two months ago, limited 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 

equally beneficial approach to mitigating fatigue. Capping 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 asking 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 Counsel 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 

application 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 FTL 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 FTLs; Feb. 9, 1993 Letter to David S. Parent, from 

Donald P. Byrne, Assistant Chief Counsel, Regulations and Enforcement Division, page 2; November 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 Division, 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 shortened FDP limits from 16 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 necessarily 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 industrial 

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 highly 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 single 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 

does 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 reaffirmed 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 121 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 section 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 crash 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 Necessity of Limited FDP Extensions

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 takeoff. 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 the cumulative limits (weekly 

and monthly) on FDPs.”18

The same logic and reasoning for permitting FDP extensions 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, this petition does not request permitting 

extensions to FTL cumulative limits.

Other Aviation Regulatory Schemes Do Not Require Daily Flight Time Limits 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 FTLs to mitigate 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 minimum 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. Taking 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 hour 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 operational 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 flighttime 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.

Comparison 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 Fed. 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. Rail employee duty time limits were 

governed solely by statute for decades until Congress gave FRA authority to adopt passengercarrying 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 include the equivalent of daily “flight time limits” or limits 

imposed for time actually piloting a train. Instead 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 

equivalent 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 FTLs 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 amended 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. 

Current 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 practices 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 to 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 driving 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” FTLs 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 two flight time extension scenarios; (1) 45 minute extensions, and (2) 30 minute 

extensions. 

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

cancellation 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 will 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 extension 

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 recently 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 harmonize 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-increasetravel-and-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 section.

(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 beyond 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 permitted 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 certificate 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 CRD35 vs. FAA Final Rule36 (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 WYMAN

AVIATION, AEROSPACE & DEFENSE

May 2012New Flight & Duty RegulationsLimits to Flight Time
© 2011 OLIVER WYMAN 

New flight & duty regulations

New Rule:The FAA published a Flight and Duty Time final rule on January 4, 2012 that includes seve

changes 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 pilot from extending flight time limits exce

situations, unlike current rules that allow FTL extensions for circumstances beyond the 

carrier.

– Carriers will therefore be forced into buffering pilot schedules to avoid exceeding the ne

This Analysis:

A4A is considering petitioning the FAA for FTL relief and therefore asked Oliver Wyman to of two potential relief scenarios not currently in the final rule. • What if FAA permitted unlimited: (1) 30-minute extensions to the FTL, or (2) 45 minute ex

FTL.

• To expedite this analysis we used the same data assembled for our November 2010 Eco

Analysis.
© 2011 OLIVER WYMAN 

Results of analysisProviding extensions to the hard time flight limits would substantially reof those limits.

• Retention of hard block time limits in the final rule has a substantial cost impa

– The inability to extend flight times requires airlines to add buffers (~45 minu

that cancellations and operational disruptions are minimized.

– Even with those buffers, some flights will need to be cancelled.

• Allowing extensions would mitigate some costs

– As the length of the permitted extension is increased, the impact of the fligh

proportionally

– Costs associated with hard time limits can not be fully mitigated by extensio

hard limit will result in some cancellations once the buffer is exceeded.

• Cost reductions for the passenger segment range from ~$214M per year (with 

extensions) to ~$305M per year (with 45-minute extensions).

• Including the FAA’s 25% optimization factor results in savings ranging from ~$

per year. The optimization factor is used to compare our results with the FAAindependent analysis supporting that figure. 

• These cost estimates include three components: (1) block hour costs; (2) carr

costs; and (3) passenger cancellation costs.
© 2011 OLIVER WYMAN 

Methodology overview (1/2)

Modeling Approach:• Same approach used as in the original Flight Time limit analysis (described in Chapter 5 

2010 Economic Impact Analysis).

• To estimate the economic impact of the hard flight time limit, we: 

– (a) analyzed the changes required in scheduled flight times to reduce the likelihood of 

time limit by adding a buffer; and 

– (b) compared actual flight times to scheduled flight times to identify flights that still wou

time limit, and result in cancellations. We estimated the economic impacts for air carriecost of adding block hours needed to minimize cancellations and the costs of the increcancellations. Separately, we estimated the costs for passengers resulting from the incancellations. 

Limitations and comparison to FAA approach:

• The data set used tor this analysis includes representatives from mainline and LCC carri

sample of the industry.

• We applied the 25% optimization factor used by the FAA to our original study results and 

this new analysis.

• The FAA claims that its new economic impact numbers are the result of running carrier s

an optimizer. We do not know what impact that approach would have on the results of thremain skeptical that the FAA has accurately optimized the results given the complexity o

exercise for the entire industry.) 
© 2011 OLIVER WYMAN

300320340360380400420440460480500

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

25,300

May-24-12

Methodology overview (2/2)Providing extensions to the hard flight time limits allows airlines to redubuffering, allowing them to truly benefit from additional flight time allow

• Adding the ability to exte

airlines to reduce the 45 assumed in the original a

• As for the original analys

would touch the buffered truncated– The number of truncat

reduced with the smal

– 45 minute extensions w

eliminate the need for block hour costs

• Cancellation costs were 

reviewing actual flight timthe limit and assuming thcancelled if non-domicile– Cancellation costs also 

provision of buffers

– Incremental cancellatio

be incurred as the harlimitation, even with 45 

– These costs, however

Scheduled Flight Time - MarchMarch, mainline carrier, un-augmented

Scheduled pairing Flight Time (Minutes)

Number of FDP’s

 30 minute extensions would 

allow pairings that are closer to the FTL stated in the new rule

 These pairings would not 

need to be supplemented by additional crews, reducing cost impact

7:15 Hours8:00 Hours

FTL

Max. Scheduled FTL no extensions

7:45 Hours

Max. Scheduled FTL 30 minute extensions
© 2011 OLIVER WYMAN 

$431 

$217 

$126 

0

100200300400500600

No extensions 30 Min Ext 45 Min Ext

$214M

$305M

$323 

$16

0

100200300400500600

No extensions 30 Min 

$160M

Extensions to flight time limits: Overview of results without cargo carrieAllowing carriers to extend flight time when required for operational reasubstantially reduce the impact of the new rule to the industry. 

May-24-12

Impact of allowing extensions to Flight TimeAnnual cost, Non-optimized, excludes cargo

Impact of allowing extenAnnual cost, Optimized, e

Costs with a 45 

minute extension 

are related to 

cancellations that 

will occur at 

FTL+45

Cost ($M)

Cost ($M)
© 2011 OLIVER WYMAN 

Extensions to flight time limits: Detailed results without cargo carriers(Assumes no benefit from optimization)

May-24-12

Cost with no extensions Annual cost, Non-optimized, excludes cargo

Cost with 45 mAnnual cost, No

Note: 1) Assumes extensions are unlimited

0

0

100200300400500600

Block

Hour

Costs

C

(A

Cost ($M)

Cost ($M)

Cost ($M)

80

146

205

431

0

100200300400500600

Block

Hour

Costs

Cx

Costs

(Airline)

Cx

Costs

(Pax)

Total

Cost with 30 minute extensions1Annual cost, Non-optimized, excludes cargo

25

80

112

217

0

100200300400500600

Block

Hour

Costs

Cx

Costs

(Airline)

Cx

Costs

(Pax)

Total
© 2011 OLIVER WYMAN 

Extensions to flight time limits: Detailed results without cargo carriers(25% optimization factor as used in the original analysis)

May-24-12

Cost with no extensions Annual cost, Optimized, excludes cargo

Cost with 45 mAnnual cost, Op

Note: 1) Assumes extensions are unlimited

0

0

100200300400500600

Block

Hour

Costs

C

(A

Cost ($M)

Cost ($M)

60

110

153

323

0

100200300400500600

Block

Hour

Costs

Cx

Costs

(Airline)

Cx

Costs

(Pax)

Total

Cost with 30 minute extensions1Annual cost, Optimized, excludes cargo

19

60

84

163

0

100200300400500600

Block

Hour

Costs

Cx

Costs

(Airline)

Cx

Costs

(Pax)

Total

Cost ($M)