121.195 is the regulation.

Hey, ATP/CTP is worth something after all.

Ok now that we all understand that, back on topic...

Rumours!!!!

New MEC email talks about how increased flow has basically been negotiated and an outcome has been reached between the union and company appointed negotiator, but senior management is sitting on the results they have come up with...

Basically we are just waiting on a green light from management is what I’m getting out of that.

Union is sharing a lot more with us recently, and we have a lot of new reps volunteering and I’ve already seen an effort by the union to communicate more to us and I appreciate it! It sounds like flow is being pushed through, then pay/work rules. I like the plan so far.

Where does it say 40%? It's the standard +15% (115%) over required.

Why would you negotiate more flow when we are already entitled to 50% of the class.... what are we giving up to gain what we are already owed....

This is a joke!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If you had problems getting pilots in on the flow and they have to negotiate then I would say that it will come back as a reduction, delay and a carrot.

121.195(b)

60% I.e required plus 40. This is also for dispatchability only.

(b) Except as provided in paragraph (c), (d), or (e) of this section, no person operating a turbine engine powered airplane may take off that airplane unless its weight on arrival, allowing for normal consumption of fuel and oil in flight (in accordance with the landing distance set forth in the Airplane Flight Manual for the elevation of the destination airport and the wind conditions anticipated there at the time of landing), would allow a full stop landing at the intended destination airport within 60 percent of the effective length of each runway described below from a point 50 feet above the intersection of the obstruction clearance plane and the runway. For the purpose of determining the allowable landing weight at the destination airport the following is assumed:

Flow flow flow. In the 10+ years it's supposed to take for new hires to flow, Envoy will have been merged with Piedmont, fuel prices will have sent all the scrap metal back to the junkyard (along with the new FMS's lol) and a concessionary contract will have been extracted to keep the lights on which eliminates the flow and rolls pay back to $12/hr for 1st year FO's.

Or better still, AA will sell us to Skywest and they'll bleed the airline dry like they're doing to Expressjet.

Rather than 40% I think the technical way to think about it is to multiply the unfactored landing distance by 1.67 and that will yield the regulatory requirement distance. The 115% is a turbojet factor for wet runways. I cant remember the regulation for that. So you get the base number or unfactored landing dist. Thats what a jet part 91 can use. Then the FAA says as 121 we need to land within 60% of the useable length (the whole obstacle plane/50ft phrase; displaced thresholds) so we multiply the unfactored distance by 1.67 and that number gives us a total landing distance that assures we will only use 60% of the useable runway. Further, if the rwy is wet, as a turbojet, we are required to add 15% to the landing distance. This is where the landing cards do allthe math for you. Its gonna be nice when the release the app for landing calculations. Think TPS for landing for your iPad.

Maybe HardLemonade can name the landing app....