Originally Posted by sailingfun

Why did they stop building over the years many types of trips that were very fatiguing often without being forced contractually? The fatigue changes I saw were substantial. No 6 hour sleep windows, limit all nighters per rotation, limit early east coast departures for west coast crews, no tag on flying after all nighters, increased 3 man trips and circadian rhythms incorporated in rotations. There were many more changes. some changes were after specific events like the 727 attempted lawn dart in ATL and others contractual or FAR driven but if you talk to ALPA reps the company over the years has been responsive to fatigue. They are far from perfect but also have a railroad to run.
Every change also comes with consequences some known and others not predicted. Lengthened layover time in the room forced 30 hour layovers that led to 17 to 19 hour 4 day trips. Contractual changes led to cramming as much flying as possibly into the other 3 days with the ADG increases. Pilots love turns but increased ADG values make turns hard to build without large credit increases. You can’t pull the long legs out of the pool without substantially running up credit on the 3 and 4 day trips. Pilots also want what they don’t have. When we had 13 hour 3 day trips and 17 hour 4 day trips Pilots screamed they want to go to work and fly as much as possible. When we got better work rules that accomplished exactly that the cries were where have all the good layovers and fun trips gone! Your best single tool to improve fatigue issues is to write up every single issue and request a reply. That does have an effect yet most pilots don’t bother.

Originally Posted by GutterGuard

I just don't see how they can squeeze much more out of us already on a large majority of bid pack rotations. We're 117 limited by FDP and block, so there's really not a whole lot of wiggle room for the company to crank up the heat on duty periods across the board.

Squeezing more juice out of the lemon just serves to reduce stability.

Originally Posted by GogglesPisano

No change on the widebodies (except for that brutal 2-man BOS/LIS -- yikes.)

Originally Posted by Podrick

Hasn’t been 2-man for a few years now, thankfully.

Originally Posted by m3113n1a1

There's no reason we can't get AAs policy. No back up required. Even United just has "2 flights" ... Instead of the ridiculous 2 hours in between flights that we have.

Originally Posted by Variable39

Agree, there need to be some guardrails on the 2 hours deal. I commute from a station that has a flight every hour-hour fifteen. If I don’t make the primary, I’m walking to the next gate and trying again. Think the 2 hours, if the insist on it, should only be if your primary is on another airline.

Originally Posted by Khantahr

No time limit at all. The only restriction I would vote for is an undefined "reasonable time between flights." Any specific time will be an automatic no vote.

Originally Posted by planejoe

Why have multiple flights? AA's policy is 1 flight.

Originally Posted by FangsF15

Sure there is. It doesn’t have to be a 0600 departure to be uncommutable. A 0900 departure is also uncommutable.

Keep in mind that there is a sweet spot. The FA’s get way less for the same trip. That’s a huge data point for why a lower ADG is bad. Also, those broken trips will now be worth way less.

But again, ALPA has put higher ADG in the optimizer. I can’t say this loudly enough: you would hate the results. Yes, a few edge cases would be great, but the overall bid pack would be horrible. Even with a 15 or 30 minute addition.

Originally Posted by Milk Man

I hear this all the time, but we already have multiple 10 plus hr duty days. Not much will change, and if they squeeze more flying in, it would quickly be fatiguing. I call BS on this. This was a talking point from super sr guys when schedules werent as bad as they are now. ATL 320, you can guarantee a 3 day is always 3/2/3, and 2 day is 3/3. Not sure what else you can do to make those worse.

Originally Posted by immolated

It's not about making those trips worse. Those multi leg days would stay the same. It's about eliminating the few good trips we have left, such as 1 leg days under ADG. Used to have them all the time 5-10+ years ago, now they are there if you want them but few and far between, especially during months that the company turns up the dial on ALV, as identified by the OP. Higher ADG would completely eliminate them.

Let people have the option to bid for those if they want. Or let people bid for the high block trips. Don't force everyone into high block max duty trips.

It's not BS either. As several have said here, the scheduling committee ran trials and the result was awful, even when adding +0.5 ADG.

Don't vote for this unless you get the actual data from your rep and are okay with it.

Originally Posted by crewdawg

It would be sweet if they'd actually publish what those "awful" bid packets would look like, for us all to see and judge for ourselves. This was the excuse they gave for leaving the 717 out of 1-day trip mix protections. However, the few times they've put up a fair amount of day trips, the trips were great, the rest of the bid packet was no different than normal. The trips were so terrible that even at sub-20% in seat, I couldn't even sniff them.

Originally Posted by Casualinterest

unfortunately there is room. Without digging too deep, we are not at limited as it may seem. Only about 69% of the trips on the 320 in April had a single longest duty day over 9 hours (company wide) and 40% had a duty day longer than 10 hours.

so like someone else mentioned, it’s not about making those trips worse, it’s about making the rest of the trips all look like this. And eliminating the last few “good” ones.

you would be surprised, penalty laps have reduced a good bit the past few months, but they would certainly come roaring back with a higher adg.