double post deleted

 

Can someone point me to what the Minimum Base Layover amount is? I think that's what it's called-- I'm looking for the minimum amount of time between end of one trip and start of another (release to report), for both the initial PBS bidding and for the PCS.

I got a denial reason of "minimum base layover" for 11 hours ish... I searched the contract, PCS handbook, and PBS gouge for that phrase and got nothing.

I found in PWA 12G (hours of service) this:
10. For purposes of line construction only, a pilot will be scheduled for a break-in-duty at
4 base of at least:
5 a. 11 hours following a duty period that does not include an ocean crossing.
6 b. 18 hours following a duty period that includes an ocean crossing (subject to
7 Section 23 M. 8.).

Which makes me think 11 hours from release to report should be good--but I got denied a WS with 11.12. Is there some new buffer applied now, and if so what?
Can anyone give me the required time, and point me to the source in our documents? Thanks!

 

Maybe.....

 

T;
This stuff was put out in the LCA meeting to disseminate to the troops. Howz about you don't play coy, I got a secret, and share what was said.

 

Not playing coy, but not putting words in anybody's mouth either. There were a ton of "depends" qualifiers put on these kinds of statements. There is wayyyy too much view of these things as being set in stone, and this forum is very guilty of taking these statements to be gospel. They are intentionally vague for a pretty good reason. It is a dynamic world. The number stated was 50 widebodies. Do I think that will happen tomorrow? Probably not. Will they be all 777s? probably not. Will I get my hopes up that it will be 50? No. But the value in these statements is that we now know they are thinking about it, and that is good.


Oh, and also looking for some more 717s. Might be looking for some more 321s or 737-9s to replace the domestic 767s.

Stay tuned.

I'll believe any of it when I see it in the WSJ.

One last thought: I am not interested in being named "flyboy1". For that reason alone, I am going to be very guarded about what I DO say on here. Besides, talking about this kind of stuff on a public forum is kind of icky anyway. If you and I were to meet over a beer on a layover I would be much more forthcoming. But I will tell you this. I have been to quite a few of these meetings in recent years, and pretty much everything Mr Anderson and the rest of the team has told us has come to fruition. Going forward, things are bright.

Good thing bigger pays more though.

 

All time greatest post on APC, ever. I'm going to go hug a cat.

 

He later said that was in error, and a correction will be out soon.

 

I believe during that 12 hours you are obligated to return a call from the company at some point. That breaks your rest.

 

My understanding is they have no plans for any additional narrow body jets at this point. Comments about a 130 seat jet are for after the 2020 timeframe.

 

The A319 and 737-700 are smaller versions of much larger designs and structurally, they carry the weight and shape of every part that does not get scaled down. They are also designs with roots in the 1960's.

The C-Series brings to the table new structures, wing, tail and engine technologies. It is thus far very expensive and Bombarider is doing little in the way of incentives to get it sold.

Boeing and Airbus have amortized the cost of A320 and 737 development. Their factories are uber-efficient. They've been beating Bombardier on price and service. Also, the 737 is very inexpensive to maintain from a spares and rotables perspective.

The MD88, for all the crap I throw at it, is a remarkably efficient airplane. It's probably holds it's own against a new'ish 737 on routes less than 2 hours in duration.

IMHO, the airplane that is uncomfortably above the curve is the 717. There might be enough of a savings there to cover the C Series purchase price ... .

My guess, eventually, 787-900 and CS-300. Richard Anderson (and his team) are smart to want the stretched version (not the double shrink). But, he has no reason to get in any hurry. The MD88's doing fine and the 717 fills the gap. He wants to see someone else take on the risk of launching the new Bombardier type.

Of course, if Bombardier takes RJ's in trade for big discounts .... anything could happen.