Airline Pilot Central Forums - FDX: Dec '07 Disputed Pairings

MD11Fr8Dog,

Sorry I couldn't beat you to the punch, but I was happily having a crew post-flight vino in paris. You did the really hard part by making all the VIPS links, especially all those for the MEM MD11. Guess I'm stuck with posting the pairing notes for those who don't get or won't read the emails.

I also get to say that the Disputed Pairs file for the new Automatic DP feature in MagicWebFX is ready for download for those with Version 1.51 or 1.52 (free and paid versions). Just check the update before download box.

Now back to the news. . .

ALPA's founders chose "Schedule with Safety" as our motto. The SIG/PSIT is Scheduling for OUR Safety !!

Support them in upholding the standard -- Don't fly disputed pairings!

Remind those you know who fly disputed pairs, either by force or by choice, to fill out a Critique Sheet on their experiences (or email/call the SIG) so they have some ammunition for the disputed pairs resolution process.

Disputed Pairings for December 2007

The following is the FedEx MEC’s definitive list of the pairings that are disputed for September 2007. These pairings should not be available in any bid pack lines and should not be assigned to any secondary lines without a specific request, by pairing number, from the crewmember to do so. The comments associated with the disputes are those of the ALPA SIG/PSIT.

A300 MEM

#65 - Disputed due to an onerous BDL-IND-SAN all night sequence scheduled to an unrealistic 11+27 duty. The A300 PSIT feels that the crew will likely go operational and get to end with a LOC approach.

MD-11 ANC
45,57

45/20DEC - The two-legger through EWR during the CO launch is onerous and fatiguing. It is a 2:49 am body clock launch (12:49 alert on the ANC circadian cycle) after a 180 degree circadian swap. This is exactly like the MEM-EWR-FRA that we always disputed. Adding to the onerous issue, this sequence is followed by another circadian swap into a CDG hub turn.

57/17Dec - The ALPA PSIT believes that 2 hub turns and a multiple-leg day after the ocean crossing is onerous and fatiguing.

MD-11 LAX
28, 37, 38, 42, 76

Pairing #28 is disputed for the long night duty period from JFK-IND-SAN. The ALPA SIG believes this is an onerous sequence that has the potential for exceeding the night duty limits. San Diego is known for its marine layer and localizer only approach. This could place the crew in a demanding scenario at the end of a very long night. It is our belief that the long west coast legs should be paired with a shorter leg.

Pairing #37 is disputed for the 5th duty period that contains 3 legs involving 4 high-density airports. The sequence is ORD-JFK-ATL-DFW with a show time of 1450L and terminating at 0303L. Since the duty period begins in the day duty period the maximum duty time is 13 hours. It is currently scheduled for 12:13 of duty. Combining the long duty day, weather, and ATC saturation associated with these airports demonstrate that this design is unnecessary.

Pairing #38 is also disputed for the long duty night duty period of JFK-IND-LAX

Pairing #42 contains multiple day/night/day circadian swaps. It deadheads LAX-OAK at 0900 followed by a 0210L OAK-SEA-ANC departure. It then operates ANC-EWR with a day launch, EWR-ANC at night followed by an ANC-ORD day launch.

Pairing #76 was disputed for 2 reasons. The first duty period operates LAX-IND-PHX with a total block of 7:25 at night. The ALPA PSIT believes that long block hub turns and high duty times at night can lead to fatigue. The 3rd duty period contains a normal OAK-IND-ORD night hub turn but has an ORD-MSP leg added after a 1+42 sit in ORD.

The following pairings were held out of the bid pack and will be fixed by the company. Pairing numbers 1, 27, 32, and 35 will be broken up and possible variations of these pairings will be available in the secondary process.

MD-11 MEM
23,34,77,78,80,343,396,397,403,437,824,860,2005, 2006,2067,2069

Pairings 23, 34, 343, 437, 2005, 2006, 2067 and 2069 are all continuing disputes from November. These pairings all contain flight 0005 that operates CDG-STN-MEM. It is the contention of the PSIT that the use of an RFO on a 2-leg sequence in which one of the legs would normally require an augmented crew should not have an additional flight leg. Flights from STN-MEM are 9:29 of block time alone. The total duty in this 2 leg duty period is 13:14, only 16 minutes from the CBA limits.

Pairings 77, 78, 80, 396, 397 and 403 all contain front end design that we believe is going to be very difficult to be properly rested. It is a 3-leg sequence ending in either IAD or ATL. The flight has a show time of 1843 LBT and with normal travel time, parking and check-in we predict most crews will have to leave for work by 5:30 PM. These duties all transit IND on a hub turn and end in the morning after almost 10 hours on duty. This ALPA PSIT believes this design is not ideal and we have requested for the pairing to layover in IND or use a closer city for the 3rd leg.

Pairing 824 contains a new sequence that originates with OAK-IND, transits IND to ORD and then from ORD-MSP, arriving at 0656 LBT. A long duty of 11:12, operating into 3 major hub airports, with a chance to have weather, de-ice and ATC issues makes this an unsatisfactory plan. This flight needs to layover in ORD as in the past.

Pairing 860, although having a nice SAN weekend layover, the ALPA PSIT believes this is a punishing design that involves high block time night duties and eventually leads into coast to coast IND hub turns. This is a demanding design.

.