satchip

Anyone ever non rev/JS with golf clubs? Do we pay an extra charge?

kobaracing1

Have not had the pleasure to test in the last few yrs, but I have never been charged for clubs. You do have to see the 'oversized' tsa folks before going thru security.

Although a pain. Check the full travelnet page and look at the hidden notes for nonrevs.

404yxl

You don't need any sleep to do a deadhead. A deadhead is a non-functioning task. You just sit there. Are you saying if you blocked into a west cost city at 10pm you would wait until the next morning to leave or hop on the midnight redeye home? Some pilots may choose the hotel while others will bail. Either way you are not a danger sitting fatigued in a passenger seat.

The beauty is if they give you less than 10 hours of rest, they can't touch you until after your DH blocks in + at least 10 hours of rest. If you got 10 hours of rest before the DH then, they can assign flying to you. Pick your poison.

trustbutverify

You're right. No sleep needed to perform DH. Just another unhealthy loss of sleep that makes me feel like crap down the road. No biggy. I'll sleep when I'm dead, which may be sooner rather than later with the *******y work rules permeating the industry.

There are times I would choose the hotel and there are times I would deviate from DH as in your example. Bear in mind, there are markets where the earlier DH deviation is not an option. So now I'm stuck with another company mandated crappy rest period. I want the option to choose for myself whether I am well rested or not.

Your example of assigned flying applies primarily to IROPS, which are not the norm, and reserves which is also a small percentage. But the scheduled 9 hour layover is becoming more prevalent in bid packages. It is a way of squeezing more productivity out of us at a cost of long term health...an argument could be extended to the 10 hour layovers as well IMO.

MikeF16

The preponderance of stacked sub 11-hour layovers drove me off the 717. Absolutely hate them.

Herkflyr

And yet prior to FAR 117 (widely criticized here) NINE hour layovers were quite common... reduceable to eight, for the flying crew! Yep, part 121 was all a bed of roses. I was actually shocked the first time I flew one of those as it truly did approach the unsafe realm.

117 got many things wrong, but the hard work 10 hour min layover, not reduceable, is one thing that they got right.

Tanker1497

Not sure which fleet you were on? I flew the 75 domestic, 73N, and 88 for six years. Not quite common for me, three in six years. The 10 hour layovers, now quite common on the 717, are sandwiched by 4 and 5 leg days. I do agree with the many things wrong with the gift that is 117!

trustbutverify

By all means, let's use the FAR that had to be changed because it was seen as a contributing factor in a fatal accident as a litmus test. Kind of like using the failed TA as a comparison for some of the BS concessions being agreed to in the current AIPs and TA'd sick leave.

Or we could look at other carriers who do it correctly and have 12 hour minimum layovers. Which do you prefer?

BobZ

Novel concept isn't it?......that our working agreement should set a higher standard of safe operations than the faa regs?

schedule with safety and all......yuk yuk.

trustbutverify

It's a sad reality. In too many situations, that slogan makes for a good soundbite, and not much more. I refer once again to noHat's post that started this conversation. Pay penalties for fatigue calls and declining duty extensions is a prime example of DALPA failing it's own safety motto and turning their backs on those who pay them for representation.

Before the DALPA attack dogs come after me, I'll admit that ALPA safety has historically done tremendous work in advancing safety. But DALPA needs to do much better. There is an article out today that cites AA's pilot union chief as calling out his company for pilot pushing. That's how a true pilot advocate acts.