Airline Pilot Forums

With the recent announcement of SLC-NRT being serviced by an A330, a few things have happened.

1. NW has started the process of "certifying the A330-200 for higher gross weights"

2. The pilot rest facility problem is "being looked at"

I have stated in other threads on the forum that management will be asking
for a "concession" on crew bunks if the A330 ever had to fly a leg over 12 hours requiring a 4 pilot crew. I believe that time is near, because the A330-200 at present holds 243 with a business class split between A zone and B zone (thats forward and aft of doors 2L and 2R). Management will NOT want to remove any biz class seats to accomodate an additional bunk or a larger bunk room. I don't believe it is possible to shoehorn a second bunk into the existing room... which leaves us with... management putting one of the pilots in the FA crew rest bunks beneath the floor at doors 3.

Now would be an excellent time to nip this in the bud and start contacting your MEC/LEC reps and telling them NO Way we are flying this without a usable dual pilot bunk facility

Just my opinion.

The plan is to use the existing bunk room by taking out the jumseat and the rest seat and installing two fixed bunks, one on top of the other. This is the way the rest area is for the A340 etc. Not comfortable but legal.

The plan is to use the existing bunk room by taking out the jumseat and the rest seat and installing two fixed bunks, one on top of the other. This is the way the rest area is for the A340 etc. Not comfortable but legal.

That's how it is on the 4-pilot DAL 767ER as well- two fixed bunks- upper and lower- and a super-tiny standing/changing space at the foot of those.

Soup

So, when you're not in the bunk or flying, do you have a business class seat to hang out in? Never done the international thing myself.

So, when you're not in the bunk or flying, do you have a business class seat to hang out in? Never done the international thing myself.

Speaking for DAL, no. On the 767ERs with bunks, we no longer have the seat in the cabin.

Soup

That's how it is on the 4-pilot DAL 767ER as well- two fixed bunks- upper and lower- and a super-tiny standing/changing space at the foot of those.

Soup

I just flew a trip with the 7ER facility, and it is wonderful. You say a "super tiny" area. I contend it is not. Yes, one guy has to wait outside for what...two or three minutes?...while the other guy changes and hops into the bunk. Then two or three minutes later you are off to dreamland.

Our CROT (Crew Rest Optimization Team) has done a very good job the past few years and no doubt will continue to.

I think this thread title of "fights on" is WAYYYY premature.

If they do the 7ER bunk then that will work. Its not the Hilton but it works. Maybe we should look at a more positive angle. How about they will have to make more A330 CA positions to man these 12+ trips and 4-man vice 3-man crews. That is a net positive for manning and high paying jobs. We may be able to avoid layoffs with announced capacity reductions and bad economy etc.

I just flew a trip with the 7ER facility, and it is wonderful.

I agree.

You say a "super tiny" area. I contend it is not. Yes, one guy has to wait outside for what...two or three minutes?...while the other guy changes and hops into the bunk. Then two or three minutes later you are off to dreamland.

Ahem. From Webster's "new-new" Super-Premium Dictionary:

"super tiny" SOO-PER TIE-NEE Adj. Of or relating to any 2-man crew rest facility wherein one crewmember must wait outside while the other changes for two-to-three minutes; see also coffin, cozy, quaint ;)

Our CROT (Crew Rest Optimization Team) has done a very good job the past few years and no doubt will continue to.

Again, absolutely agree.

I think this thread title of "fights on" is WAYYYY premature.

LOL no kidding!

Soup

Perhaps at DL it would be premature. When the NWA MEC originally started negotiations for the A330 pilot rest facility, prior to the first delivery, the company response was ... Put the pilots in the FA bunk room under the floor at Doors 3L/3R. If former NW management is in charge of this transition, then you need to start the fight earlier rather than later.

How do they plan on adding oxygen to the lower bunk if they stack them in the existing rest area? The current facility has a standard drop down mask coming out of the ceiling panel that would not be accessible by someone in the lower bunk.

The plan is to use the existing bunk room by taking out the jumseat and the rest seat and installing two fixed bunks, one on top of the other. This is the way the rest area is for the A340 etc. Not comfortable but legal.

They are also removing the 3rd jumpseat? Then the PED panel has to be removed. What about the luggage stowage area in the rest facility?

Removing the existing rest seat would also violate the existing JPWA if the aircraft is subsequently operated more than 8 but less than 12 hours:

2. A pilot relief seat will be provided on all aircraft that are scheduled to be operated for
more than eight hours but not more than 12 hours, block-to-block.

d. on the A-330 aircraft:
1) the relief seat will be contained in a separate compartment located just aft of the
cockpit door which contains:
a) one fold-down bunk bed,
b) a fold-down relief seat, and
c) a jumpseat,
2) and is provided with a lockable door to the compartment.

Perhaps at DL it would be premature. When the NWA MEC originally started negotiations for the A330 pilot rest facility, prior to the first delivery, the company response was ... Put the pilots in the FA bunk room under the floor at Doors 3L/3R. If former NW management is in charge of this transition, then you need to start the fight earlier rather than later.

How do they plan on adding oxygen to the lower bunk if they stack them in the existing rest area? The current facility has a standard drop down mask coming out of the ceiling panel that would not be accessible by someone in the lower bunk.



They are also removing the 3rd jumpseat? Then the PED panel has to be removed. What about the luggage stowage area in the rest facility?

Removing the existing rest seat would also violate the existing JPWA if the aircraft is subsequently operated more than 8 but less than 12 hours:

You bring up some good points. All I can tell you is that our CROT has put in a lot of exhaustive, detailed work to ensure that our crew rest needs are absolutely addressed as well as they can be. It is a far better environment at our airline than 10-15 years ago, when mgmt expected (and for awhile, got!) pilots to crew rest in the COCKPIT! If/when the A330 flies segments > 12 hours and thus requires four pilots and two bunks, it will not do so until the crew rest facilities meet the CROT criteria. It will probably require the aircraft to be taken out of service for awhile so as to rebuild the crew rest facility, as well as a contractual side letter to change the language.

SLC-NRT tentatively starts 03 Jun 2009, that leaves about six months for approval by DL, ALPA, the FAA and the retrofit and rewrite of the contract. Sounds like a long time, but it is not when you are dealing with the FAA and negotiating with the union. I still maintain NOW is the time to get what we want, rather than wait to see what kind of crap management wants to install. Waiting will get us into the - "We need a deal now to start this route authority." threat from management. Maybe it is different at DL, but there are a ton of old NW management types coming over in the merger. Those are the ones that will ask for CONCESSIONS accompanied by the above panic/threat.

For the (former) NWA pilots, DAL's management's history of providing crew rest facilities is less than optimal.

I don't remember the whole story, but back when DAL operated the MD-11 the crew rest facility on flights over 12 hours was lame, to say the least. Many pilots complained about it.

A Captain who was somewhat legendary as a good (and outspoken) guy was on a flight to Asia (don't remember the destination) from ATL and decided to divert to (I think) PDX as they weren't able to get satisfactory rest in the crew rest facility.

The company went ballistic and the story made the Wall Street Journal. ALPA totally won the PR campaign with the public.

IIRC the crew rest facility was "built" after takeoff and stowed before landing...all in view of the passengers. ALPA described it in the WSJ as something like "...imagine the three stooges trying to put up a tent...".

It really was pretty funny.

I hope someone corrects any (and all) mistakes I made in the re-telling.

Wasatch,

The MD11 crew rest facility started out with a facility called the "Condo," I saw it and it looked pretty nice. I was on the 11 after that with the facility that was called "the coffin" and that is exactly what the bottom bunk was. The upper was not much better, it just had a higher ceiling that curved up along the side of the acft. (Not a good feeling if you are claustrophobic!)

It was located right behind the cockpit on the leftside. You are right, it had to be stowed for takeoff and at top of descent because it blocked the 1L door. It was certainly a pain in the arse. At least we did have one business class seat reserved.

My description of it would be "marginally adequate."

Denny

Fight's on. NW has officially scheduled an A330 on LAX-NRT starting 29Mar

For a 747-400 its blocked at 11:40 at .85-.86M

They are showing a block time of 11:55 for the A330 to avoid having a 4 pilot augment crew.

11:55 at .82? I don't think so...

There is a mod that USAir just got on their A330/200's, however it does require extensive modification on the aircraft...I believe that will be the one we are getting.

It looks like we will retrofit all the -200's with a new rest facility in the rear of the aircraft that will replace the exisiting F/A crew rest area with one that will add a seperate area to accomodate 2 pilots. The only concern is the distance from the rest area to the cockpit. No final decision has been made yet.

Are they going to retrofit them into the aircraft prior to 29 March?

What about the need for 2 biz class rest seats?

It looks like we will retrofit all the -200's with a new rest facility in the rear of the aircraft that will replace the exisiting F/A crew rest area with one that will add a seperate area to accomodate 2 pilots. The only concern is the distance from the rest area to the cockpit. No final decision has been made yet.

Just curious about the proximity from the crew rest area to the cockpit and why that would be an issue.

If they do the 7ER bunk then that will work. Its not the Hilton but it works. Maybe we should look at a more positive angle. How about they will have to make more A330 CA positions to man these 12+ trips and 4-man vice 3-man crews. That is a net positive for manning and high paying jobs. We may be able to avoid layoffs with announced capacity reductions and bad economy etc.


I don't think it will creat any more positions since the 330 will replace a aircraft already flying the route. It might in fact move up the retirement schedule on the whales again. That would not be good news.

It will only create more positions if management admits this is a 12+ hour leg. The 747-400 currently has this leg with a 3 pilot crew at 11:40 scheduled block time. An A330 with a scheduled block time of 11:55 would also be frlown by a three pilot crew, but at a lower pay rate than the -400. An A330 over 12 hours would add one captain position to this route versus the -400

Is 11:40 the scheduled block time for the whales in the winter or is that the summer time block. If its the winter time block then 11:55 for the summer may not be unreasonable on the 330.

Is 11:40 the scheduled block time for the whales in the winter or is that the summer time block. If its the winter time block then 11:55 for the summer may not be unreasonable on the 330.

11:40 is the block time for the 747-400 on the day prior to the switchover to the A330. Its based on winds on 28 March/29 March.

11:55 is the block time for the A330 based on winds for day of changeover so one day later than above.

747-400 cruise mach = 0.85 to 0.87
A330 cruise mach = 0.82

SLC-NRT would also be 12:00 + with these winds.

Side Note: It is not unusual for SFO-NRT flights to takeoff at MAX Structural GW, same model 330 as the one that will be flying LAX-NRT and SLC-NRT.

Generally they don't make daily or even monthly adjustment to the block. Its normally seasonal. The number you need to look at for the 747-400 would be what they are blocking it at today. If its blocked at 11:40 today they should not have any problems with the 330 for the summer. If however the switchover to summer block times is done on 15 May as a example then there may be a issue. If the 400 has been making it in the winter under 12 hours however there should not be a problem with the 330 making it under 12 hours in the summer. The good news is the FAA is all over Delta on this issue since they have pushed it in several markets. The rule is that the flight must come in under 12 hours 70 percent of the time to remain with a 3 man crew. The Delta flight planning system does not give the company the ability to fudge the numbers. It is very accurate on flight times. The varible is taxi time. Delta has been known to get special taxi clearances for flights that look like they will go outside the 70 percent rule to speed things up. Moscow-Atlanta on the 767ER is a example. You also get arrival priority on that flight. They don't grant exemptions so if you only make it 69% of the time you have to drop the route or add the 4th crewmembers or bunks.

I can tell you that we were looking at the bunk mods in France last week. ALPA that is. I had a little bird tell me that 12 or so of the 330-200's were going to get the bunks!

I doubt the bunk mods will get installed in ANY A330s prior to the startup of LAX-NRT on the A330

Generally they don't make daily or even monthly adjustment to the block. Its normally seasonal. The number you need to look at for the 747-400 would be what they are blocking it at today. If its blocked at 11:40 today they should not have any problems with the 330 for the summer. If however the switchover to summer block times is done on 15 May as a example then there may be a issue. If the 400 has been making it in the winter under 12 hours however there should not be a problem with the 330 making it under 12 hours in the summer. The good news is the FAA is all over Delta on this issue since they have pushed it in several markets. The rule is that the flight must come in under 12 hours 70 percent of the time to remain with a 3 man crew. The Delta flight planning system does not give the company the ability to fudge the numbers. It is very accurate on flight times. The varible is taxi time. Delta has been known to get special taxi clearances for flights that look like they will go outside the 70 percent rule to speed things up. Moscow-Atlanta on the 767ER is a example. You also get arrival priority on that flight. They don't grant exemptions so if you only make it 69% of the time you have to drop the route or add the 4th crewmembers or bunks.

NW has changed block times within their published timetable when they think it saves them money. NWALPA won a grievance years ago that the company had to pay us based on their published public timetable. This kept them from padding the times for On Time performance but paying us a lot less than the padded time.

As far as summer flying is concerned, the A330 may or may not make it in under 12 hours. It depends on the flight path. Our dispatchers have sent us on very southern routes for turbulence avoidance (i.e. not NOPAC). For the week that the A330 replaces the 747-400 on LAX-NRT service, the 747 scheduled block time is 11:40 (winter winds)

The decsion on the mods have not been made yet, forward vs aft...think its still a ways off.

Management has decided to fly this route with the existing one bunk configuration while they are deciding on the crew bunk facility.

Apparently they can fly it illegally for six months at which point they must either have the aircraft modified or must discontinue the service with that aircraft if it is over 12 hours block to block.

Should be interesting, I had one of the senior A330 instructors tell me that they are NOT going to buy the pilot bunk facility under the floor.

I am still betting they come to the MEC for a CONCESSION on the existing language for 8-12 hour flights that will allow them to remove the rest seat and jumpseat and all the other goodies in the existing bunk room so the can add a cramped second bunk.

Both mods require extensive modification(lots of money), I can assure you that the under floor bunk is in play as much as the one aft of the flight deck.

I doubt that either one will be in an actual aircraft prior to 29 March.

You are completely right, not even sure if it will make it before years end.

Just pull a "Roscoe," ( I believe that's who it was,) who diverted for fatigue. The company was furious, but he prevailed in the end, and the company backed down.

Yeah it's a slightly different situation. Roscoe was justified because the crew rest facility they had was totally inadequate. The dispute on the A330 will be that we are one pilot short of a legal crew due to the company claim of a block time less than 12 hours. This will also be the case on SLC - NRT in winter. Should be an interesting Christmas since SLC-NRT starts 01Jun, the company will run out of wiggle room on 01Dec.

The dispute on the A330 will be that we are one pilot short of a legal crew due to the company claim of a block time less than 12 hours. This will also be the case on SLC - NRT in winter. Should be an interesting Christmas since SLC-NRT starts 01Jun, the company will run out of wiggle room on 01Dec.

Well, if you are illegal to start the trip, then don't. Easier to say than do, I know.

Despite assurances from others on this forum, I have heard there is a BAD tentative agreement on the A330 rest facility for block times over 12 hours.

Supposedly it will be a lie flat seat in business class with a footrest and a curtain. The seat in front of it will be restricted recline.

I can't believe that the CROT would sign off on this after the original debacle on the L15.

Believe it was turned down.

I was told it was tentatively agreed to by ALPA and management.

The alternatives were double bunk in existing room - not acceptable to pilots or management.

Commandeer bunk number 4 from the purser in the LMCDR - didn't want to **** off FA's

Bulk compartment rest area - Was very nice facility, but if not installed during initial hull construction, was required to be removed every 5000 hours for inspections. 5K hours for removal was unacceptable to management.

Additional crew rest room in biz class - too much lost revenue due to losing 2 seats.

So the "concession" was horizontal seat with curtain in biz class and restricted recline seat in row directly in front.

Just repeating what I was told by NATCO 330 guys. The quote was "It's not very good."

Nosmo, You have posted on this tread and the other thread that Delta is illegally flying the LAX-NRT flight yet your produce no evidence of that other then your personal feeling the flight should be over 12:00. Here is my post on the other thread.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The simple fact of the LAX-NRT service is that it is not illegal. It is not even close to illegal so far. I have checked the times since this was posted. The flight averages about 11:30. Not one single day that I have checked has it gone over 12:00. It is being flight planned at normal speeds also. You can wish the flight was over 12:00 but it is not. It may be in the winter. If so it will be dealt with by ALPA. For now its legal in all regards from both a FAA and contractual perspective.

Nosmo, You have posted on this tread and the other thread that Delta is illegally flying the LAX-NRT flight yet your produce no evidence of that other then your personal feeling the flight should be over 12:00. Here is my post on the other thread.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The simple fact of the LAX-NRT service is that it is not illegal. It is not even close to illegal so far. I have checked the times since this was posted. The flight averages about 11:30. Not one single day that I have checked has it gone over 12:00. It is being flight planned at normal speeds also. You can wish the flight was over 12:00 but it is not. It may be in the winter. If so it will be dealt with by ALPA. For now its legal in all regards from both a FAA and contractual perspective.


First, it is NOT just about LAX-NRT. For the record 12 of the first 13 LAX-NRT legs were over 12 hours on the A330. That data is from our DAL-N ALPA scheduling committee. I can give you the name of one FO that did the leg 3 times in the first 2 weeks and had 2 of the 3 block times WELL OVER 12 hours. The winds in late April changed enough so that it was under 12 hours block time, but the company has already agreed that in winter it will be OVER 12 hours thats why they started looking at 4 pilot rest alternatives.

Second, it IS about getting a good crew rest facility for FOUR pilot crews on the A330. LAX-NRT went back to a 747-400 so if you are checking recent block times with summer winds, yes it is under 12 hours. With winter winds it will be over 12 hours for boh LAX-NRT and SLC-NRT should they choose to use an A330 on either leg. The 3 pilot facilities are wonderful.

Now they have apparently wrangled a concession out of ALPA for that extra pilot rest area.

Third, it IS about getting a DECENT rest area PRIOR TO those legs being flown over 12 hours block time. The DAL-N rules for establishing augmentation block times are different than DAL-S as a result of a grievance and an FAA ruling because of that grievance. I don't believe DAL-N transitions to the DAL-S method of determining augmentation block times until after SOC. I am not talking about the FAR, I am talking about the methodology used to determine what months the block times can be considered to exceed 12 hours based on actual data. The longest scenario DAL-N can use is a 12 month period of data collection and any month with 50%+1 of the legs over 12 hours can never be flown again without double crew. I believe DAL-N was given a least two other methodologies as options by the FAA.

What you are telling me is that the DAL-S method is to wait for something bad to happen, even though you knew it was coming, and then scramble to fix it? Typical Reactive negotiating instead of PROactive negotiating.

Sailing, perhaps you should call your scheduling committee and have them contact the DAL-N scheduling committee and ask them about the first 2 weeks of LAX-NRT A330 flying and ask about block times for SLC-NRT in the winter. Maybe you will get a different answer than I did and I can call my guy up and tell him he is a liar... or maybe he isn't lying and your information is wrong. I certainly disagree with your method of not fixing leaks until after the fact rather than trying to prevent leaks that are obviously going to occur in the near future.

I guess we don't need to negotiate a 4 pilot rest facility on a 787 until they actually fly it over 12 hours.

FWIW I heard 5 or 6 airplanes will be getting the crappy seat for the 4th pilot.

I got the times for LAX-NRT from the actual blocks times. I have looked at 20 plus flights since you posted this. Not one single flight has exceeded 12 hours. Most were at least 30 minutes under 12 hours. Not one other airlines blocks this flight over 12 hours or double crews it. I don't know what else I can say. If it starts to exceed 12 hours then DALPA will take action as they have on every other route where these type issues come up. The company has not fudged the numbers on any route I am aware of. Taxi times have been a issue that has forced some changes. I know a dispatcher who works on new routes. They don't cheat and use real flight planning and historical wind data. The LAX-NRT flight as it stands now is 100 percent legal from both a contractual and FAR standpoint. Its now a 400 anyway.