Born2AV8

Max ground time on un-disputed RFO line is 1+30. These lines are 1+32

freezingflyboy

Gotcha. I'm curious, what constitutes a "high risk approach"? Any examples?

FDXLAG

Sorry that should have said high workload approaches. I ride domestic so a high workload approach for me is when I have to say "that was for us" more than once. It is not that we are pampered much, but a pairing can also get disputed when paired with oher trips that don't turn well. Two or 3 days of scheduled 12 hour turn that is actually 8 hours in a noise hotel can wear you out.

PastV1

Seems the company would make them 1+30 (the agreed soft parameter) and just eat the 2 min delay rather than have them disputed for that reason.

2cylinderdriver

It is another issue, look for the SIG notes to help explain.

FlybyKnite

The Message Line now contains links to All the DPs (hope it helps).

DP Trip Links (Post #3)

I'm fatigued just reading the notes on these pairings. I can't imagine flying them by choice.

================
Begin SIG/PSIT Notes
================

Disputed Pairings

The following is the FedEx MEC’s definitive list of the pairings that are disputed for March 2008. 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

#490/3MAR - Disputed for a day to critical sequence with an OAK 13:16 layover prior to an OAK-SLC-BOI sequence.

B727 MEM

# 137, 143, 144, 146 [YOW Short Layovers] After years of 35 hour layovers in YOW flying in and out of Memphis, the IND design shortens the layover to less than 11 hours. In this case, this occurs in a setting with three legs into YOW and two more out. This becomes an unacceptably short period for food and rest for the crew. In fact, the minimum scheduled layover of 10+15 is violated about 20% of the time.

MD-11 ANC

#106/7MAR, 107/8MAR, 107/22MAR, 108/14MAR, 109/15MAR, 110/21MAR, 111/28MAR, 112/29MAR, 113/4APR, 114/5APR, 2083/7MAR, 2083/14MAR, 2083/21MAR, 2084/8MAR, 2084/15MAR, 2085/22MAR, 2086/28MAR, 2087/29MAR, 2088/4APR, 2089/5APR - ANC-NRT-NGO was disputed in the 1st quarter of 2005. It was disputed along with ANC-NRT-KIX. This onerous and fatiguing long-short sequence was flown in dispute for a couple of months until an easy fix was accomplished. The RFO has little use on the first leg and no use on the second.

#9/9MAR, 17/23MAR – Due to a change in slot times an hour has been added to the STN turn. This makes an already arduous pairing even more oppressive. There are no facilities in STN for the 2:06 turn and their loading capabilities are never a problem with the 1:06 turn. The drool will make the busy last leg even more difficult.

#74/25MAR - This has nearly a 4 hour drool in DXB with no facilities. This creates an RFO like duty with a 7 hour block and increases the tiresome nature of this duty complicated by the long drool. This should have be broken in DXB or turned much quicker.

#116/4MAR - Two hub turn like events with a body clock swap after the ocean crossing is fatiguing. Adding the all night crossing to start the pairing is even worse. Starting the second hub turn like event after a ready-sleep-now is too arduous.

#139/13MAR - After the 37 hour reset, three hub turn like events then 2 body clock swaps from multi-leg AM launch back to hub turning (all long duties) is a design we find abhorrent. The fourth duty in the sequence alerts around midnight and arrives at the TPE hotel at 4:30pm. Rolling into the final SFS hub turn will be punishing.

#2003/16MAR - This rolling body clock to Europe and then back to Asia before the reset is onerous and a serious circadian problem. Over 2 hours in STN with no facilities complicates the situation. The reset is after 10 time zones to the East and 16 time zones to the West. This should simply use a MEM RFO for the European legs.

#2048/31MAR - CDG-MAN-MEM was disputed by the MEM MD-11 in September. These scheduled times are exactly the same as September (no historic data available). The September pairings broke the 13:30 duty more than half the time.

MD-11 MEM

#16/7MAR - This is a new design that the PSIT believes could result in significant fatigue risk. There is a cumulative effect on fatigue when hub turns are involved, especially at night. We normally do not see more than 4 hub turns on international pairings. In this type of pairing design we feel the cumulative fatiguing effect of hub turning combined with the circadian disruption of operating to Asia create unnecessary risk.

#53/25MAR, 219/5APR, 374/2APR, 385/5APR, 2011/6APR, 2076/4APR - These pairings contain a 2-leg sequence of CDG-MAN-MEM in the same duty period. In September 2007 this sequence was disputed and the disputable issues have not been addressed. These are all carryover trips and the sequence operates in the April Bid Month, in which the historical winds change for flight planning. This sequence exceeded the scheduled duty limit of 13:30 in SEP07 and the scheduled block times are virtually identical in APR08 with those in SEP07, and is scheduled for 13:24 Duty.

#153/15MAR, 162/22MAR - The PSIT is concerned about pairings that we consider to be a “slingshot” type design. Transiting over ˝ of the globe followed by one or more course reversals has proven to be a challenging issue for pilots to effectively employ fatigue countermeasures. These pairings reverse course twice, in PVG and ALA. ALPA SIG has not come to an agreement with management on what constitutes a “slingshot” design. However, we believe any pairing which reverses direction after operating half way around the world or more from domicile requires a reset layover at the reversal point or within 1 layover of that point to allow the crew a chance to be properly rested.

#254/15MAR, 2106/5MAR - These pairings contain flight 8, EWR-STN-CDG. This sequence has flown for years and is of the undesirable “long-short” design using an augmented crew. There has been a slot time change for the STN-CDG leg, which has extended the turn time in STN to 2:06. The PSIT feels this materially changes the design of this pairing and combined with the lack of contractual rest facilities at the STN Ramp makes the always challenging STN-CDG leg difficult.

#292/14MAR, 792/22MAR, 792/29MAR, 798/5APR - These 3 pairings contain the same duty period that contains 3 legs involving 4 high density airports that was disputed in the LAX Domicile in NOV07. The sequence is ORD-JFK-ATL-DFW with a show time of 1550LBT and terminating at 0304LBT. Since the duty period begins in the day duty period the maximum duty time is 13 hours, yet transits far into the critical duty period and is scheduled to 11:14. Combining the long duty day, weather, and ATC saturation associated with these airports we feel this design is unnecessary.

SNIZ

MD-11 MEM

#16/7MAR - This is a new design that the PSIT believes could result in significant fatigue risk. There is a cumulative effect on fatigue when hub turns are involved, especially at night. We normally do not see more than 4 hub turns on international pairings. In this type of pairing design we feel the cumulative fatiguing effect of hub turning combined with the circadian disruption of operating to Asia create unnecessary risk.


This trip has SIX Pacific (SFS/TPE) hub turns followed by a short Kix layover then Kix-Mem! Have you ANC guys seen anything like this in your bid pack? This the worst I've seen yet in the Mem Md-11 bidpack. The guys who pick this up from open time are....well....knuckleheads.

cma2407

Unfortunately, it's not much better in the Great White North.

I'm getting fatigued just thinking about it! Yikes!!

2cylinderdriver

The MEM MD11 cant even get through the View/Add Window without guys picking up disputes !

Captains have picked up:

219/05APR
162/22MAR

First Officer picked up:

2011/06APR (of course it is the one with the nice D/H to CDG)

If anyone happens to know these guys, an email or call to them would be a good idea...

pig on the wing

Email those guys whether you know them or not. Many of us in ANC email our offenders and it usually results in them dropping the trips. It's absolutely ridiculous that we have such selfish twats working for us. I don't buy the "I didn't realize it" garbage.