Jet Blue and Duty
 

Heard a rumor that Jet Blue was petitioning the Feds to increase domestic flying time to over 8 hrs in 24. Is this true? If so, why? Just curious. Thanks in advance.

jetBlue wants the exemption so that they can fly roundtrips coast to coast with the same crew. I'm pretty sure that they already do it with flight attendants, but not with pilots due to the 8 hr rule.

JB was (past tense) doing 'research' to support that very concept.

Due to many circumstances it is now on the back burner. Don't be suprised to see it rear it's ugly head down the road again...

If JB were actually able to pull that one off, it would set a terrible precedent for all carriers regardless if they are operating under Subparts Q or S of the FARs. I'm sure ALPA, APA, SWAPA...etc are keeping a watchful eye out to see if this subject pops up again.

Just out of curiosity... Does JB heavy crew there transcon flights so they can get the plane and crew back to JFK?

No; although the F/A's often make the 'turn.'

It would be tough in the winter to make the turns. Seen a couple of JB planes land and getting gas in MSP on the east - west trips.

F/A's are covered by duty time limitions only. Tough break for them.

Amazingly, the transcon turns for F/A's often go senior due to the productivity. FWIW, this is the same short-sighted motivation that makes turns look attractive to some JB pilots.

"this is the same short-sighted motivation that makes turns look attractive to some JB pilots"

"STUPID IS STUPID DOES"
Forest

If they're serious about flying transcon turns, they should request to do it under current provisions of FAR 121.483. It applies to flag operations, but would be a much easier waiver to get than flying unaugmented more than 8 hours.

Here's 121.483:

121.483 Flight time limitations: Two pilots and one additional flight crewmember.
(a) No certificate holder conducting flag operations may schedule a pilot to fly, in an airplane that has a crew of two pilots and at least one additional flight crewmember, for a total of more than 12 hours during any 24 consecutive hours.

(b) If a pilot has flown 20 or more hours during any 48 consecutive hours or 24 or more hours during any 72 consecutive hours, he must be given at least 18 hours of rest before being assigned to any duty with the air carrier. In any case, he must be given at least 24 consecutive hours of rest during any seven consecutive days.

(c) No pilot may fly as a flight crewmember more than—

(1) 120 hours during any 30 consecutive days;

(2) 300 hours during any 90 consecutive days; or

(3) 1,000 hours during any 12-calendar-month period.


VOILA! An augmented JetBlue crew could now fly for 12 hours.

Hey,

You stole that from Delta. Don't you mean " Dumb goes around "?

Transcon turns
 

Transcon turns are a piece of cake. JFK-LAS-JFK with a 0700 show and a 1930 check out with 10:30 block is far easier to do than the current flight schedule.

The current transcon flights have for example: a 0700 show, arrive at LAS at 1030 local. You go to your hotel room for a 10-11 hour 'rest'. Ever try sleeping in a LAS hotel with all the traffic in the hallway?? Kids, drunks, winners and loosers talking at 95 decibels?? Good luck getting any rest. Then you get up at 21-2200 local [0000 to 0200 EST] and fly all night back to JFK, with poor rest if any, in the night during your normal sleep times. NOT very safe, but happens all the time since it is FAA legal. [FAA stupid IMO]

If the exemption [it is an exemption, not a FAA rule change] gets submited and goes through it will be for daytime or normal awake time periods only. No transcon red-eyes.

I also believe that if the trip goes into open time, that if it is assigned to a reservist, [not voluntarily picked up by a lineholder] then it may have to be heavy crewed, since only a person requesting this type of flight should have to fly one. I also believe that the FAA. if they approve the exemption. will require a heavy crew if the weather is below certain minimums on the second leg. This is pure guess work. The request for the exemption has not been filed with the FAA yet. [and may never be filed]

The research is done, the legal but unsafe flights with the day sleeps had very poor performance by the testing pilots, and the transcon turns had very good performance. I know since I was one of the pilots flying the flights and doing the alertness-testing and research.

I agree that some airlines would attempt to make some real nightmare schedules if they could. But if this exemption is filed and approved [unforturantely unlikely] then I believe it will have many stipulations attached to it to provide far more safety than the current rest rules provide.

ICAO rules would allow a JFK-LAS-JFK, and nobody is saying that ICAO rules are unsafe., I'm hopefull for this exemption, but I'm not holding my breath for it either.

B6guy

.

So why not just carry a third crewmember and heavy crew all flights? No exemption, just do it. Instead, you guys want to screw with every other pilots schedule in the country.

It's your company not 'us'
 

If you add an extra crewmember it defeats the purpose: productivity and cost. If you believe this will 'screw with every other pilot's schedule' then use your union to prevent or block YOUR company from filing for the exemption.

ICAO rules are not 'screwing with every other pilot's schedule' and they function just fine. So what is your fear? Don't trust your company?? If ICAO-like rules work elsewhere why not here in the states??

IF this happens the trips will go super senior, and I'll never see any of them except by luck in open time.. But it is much safer than the current rules and is very productive, it will add like five more days off per month for a senior bidder. I can only dream.

B6Guy

Some of you "blue nuts" are about the most short sighted people I have ever seen. You seem to think that the things you do and the wages you accept don't affect anybody but yourselves. Take a look around the industry. Every management is trying to drive down the wages and increase the working productivity at every airline. And they are using the wages and productivity of other carriers as examples to convince a judge to throw out their contracts. But yet the "blue nuts" still hold on to the thought that it is up to us to stop this from happening at our company. I'm sure that you would just love it if we made this a strike issue and shut our company down. Then you could move in and take our routes. With "brothers" like you, who needs enemies.

Be careful what you wish for. ;) There are some real 'easter-eggs' in the current proposed EU FTL's. Check out the proposal here:

http://www.eurocockpit.be/media/FTL_...-05-1108-F.pdf

Among other items, note that the yearly limit is 900 hours of block time, which would be a pay-cut for our senior credit wh***s. ;)

For those without calculators, 900/12=75 hours/mo.!!

Hmmm...maybe we should adopt the EU rules. :D

Don't forget the other 'nuts'
 

Since you want to single out 'Blue nuts' I will invite you to think about the other [in your terms] 'nuts'

'Sprit nuts'
'Airtran nuts'
'SWA nuts' [30 years as a LCC, only now are they well paid.]

All the above companies have high productivity and lower than legacy pay rates. SWA has only recently emerged as a high paying company. But most legacy pilots would never work as hard as a SWA pilot does. If SWA didn't have their fuel hedges, I suspect that they would have had some wage negotiations by now. Probably initiated by the pilots since they have a good relationship with management.

Maybe these 'nuts' should also be included:
'ATA nuts'
'Midwest express nuts'
'National nuts'
'EOS nuts'

I can't keep up, too many 'nuts'

The real problem is revenue. The legacies have tried to undercharge for their seats in the belief that they could drive other companies out of business. Well it didn't work for Delta, it drove them into backruptcy. NWA charges low fares where they compete with Spirit and Comair, but charge high fares where there is no competion. Everybodies planes are full, but the fares are still below cost, it doesn't make sense. Everybody needs to raise fares.

If the bankruptcy judges would tell Delta and NWA that they could no longer charge under their cost for seats, and to add at least a $5-10 profit per ticket/seat, then 'instantly' the industry would be saved.

If you look, JetBlue often is more expensive than other airlines, so we are not driving down the industry with low costs. The other airlines are trying to use us and other Low-cost airlines as an excuse to break their union contracts. The problem is predatory management.

I'm sure the above is VERY simplistic, but it seems to fit with the current situation. At least from my point of view.

I appologize to any of the above listed 'nuts' if they take offense at the label.

B6Guy

No, do I not trust my company (AirTran). If they find a way to save a dime they'll do it, regardless of what the union says. The only thing we have going for us is a 12hr max scheduled/rescheduled duty day, which I'm pretty sure would prevent this bad idea from taking hold here.

Your problem is obviously with the hotel accommodations, not the FAR's. Do you have a hotel chairman? Get the crew into a suitable hotel or call fatigued for the return leg, simple.

even simpler
 

Even more simple would be to not leave the airport, just go get a sandwich, program the FMS and fly back to JFK, the duty day is around 12-13 hours.

The problem is not the hotel, it is trying to sleep during the time when your mind and body wants to be awake. It takes very little to awaken and a lot to get back to sleep. Yes we have a hotel committee. Our hotel is very good, but it can't turn day to night.

,

Try doing a week of night hub-turns like the folks at FDX or UPS or Airborne..............................
after six months of that you won't want the any FAR extension waivers.

Or fly around the world (Literally in one direction) in 6 days........................

Does wonders for the aging process..................

Change domestic duty limits
 

If domestic duty times can be reined in (13 hrs vs current 16 hrs) and consideration for time of day and number of legs; than I would support considering increases in domestic flight times. But it should be a charge of law, not some carriers exemption, so its fair and transparent to all. Given the lack of consideration the current rules have for time of day (when duty starts or ends) or the number of legs flown, I think the EU is on to a genuine improvement in rest and duty limits for domestic ops.:)

So when the hell does rest begin? We all know it's b.s. that is starts 15 min's after block in at some carriers. It's not just about duty, but about actual rest. 10 hours rest should be the minimum. Followed by a reduction in the max duty day to 12 hours. But there is no real reason why 8 hours needs to be expanded except for reasons of cost. And cost should never be a factor when it comes to saftey. So the blue nuts can't do a east-west turn. Boo hoo. If the blue nuts were based in St. Louis they could. But now, because of the blue nuts, that AA or UA ORD crew will have to do a LAX turn followed by a leg to DC. But I guess nothing that the blue nuts does affects the rest of us.

Read it again
 

RedeyeAV8r: The testing and possible exemption is for daytime, normal wake-period flying. We are hoping to reduce the number of redeyes following day-rests.

Packer Backer, where did anyone say anything about three legs?? Our testing and possible exemption request will be for very specific TWO-LEG flights. Like JFK-LAS-JFK I described. NO Three or more leg flights over current flight/duty rules.

What is wrong with having a day with more flight time, only two legs, within a regular duty day, or shorter duty day??? I guess you don't see the advantages, you do work by the hour right?? And you do like being home with the wife/family right? So why not get more productive trips??

I'm sure you don't bid for pairings that have the LEAST flight/credit per day, do you?? I'm sure you bid for the most flight/cridit per day as long as the pairing doesn't have your personal avoid-cities or other preferences. Unless you like being on the road, staying in hotels.?

When I'm at work I want to work to the max and get back home. I work so I can have the home/life I have, not visa-versa.

Again, the exemption may never get filed, I fear it is still-born.

B6Guy

All JB has to do is put another pilot onboard. Then they can go back and forth as much as they want......

B6

The problem is this could open up Pandora's Box.
I understand that you would rather fly 8+ block hours per day if it gave you 1 or 2 more days off per month.

The problem is you need to be a forward thinker and think Outside the box.

Don't look at trips as they are currently built and try to apply the rules............ That can be a fatal mistake. Once a new rule is put into place, the company Scheduling software will maxmize the productivity to the extent possible. This doesn't always mean flying hard time.

You could potentially be on a layover in Houston....fly to JFK and then turn to OAK......blocking, for example, 8:13. Then you could layover for 28 hours and fly the Red-eye back to JFK........Now this becaomes a 3 or 4 day trip instead of an Out/back and what have you gained as a Pilot except you are now flying a longer day than is currently legal.

What if you guys get an OAK base...........your system form could change.
Would you like to fly a JFK out/back from OAK leaving at 11:00pm OAK time?

I already know the answer as FDX does this kind of flying.(although we can't and don't want to fly over 8 block hours)....take it from me it sux!

There is a major downside if you really look to the future. Remember the your company MGT(all of our MGTs included) do not have your quality of life at the top of their wish list. Their job is to maxmize productivity and stock prices.............

Hope this helps clear up why many of us are against any waiver............
It is the camels nose under the tent....................

If JB is allowed to do it.....others will follow

Yet again
 

Yet again, the testing was done for daytime, normal wake periods, NOT 11pm redeye turns. NORMAL AWAKE periods. Like for me living in EST 0600-2300 EST. The possible exemption would have wording spelling this out.

There is only so much money for the flight deck, add another pilot and divide the money three ways and it defeats the reason that some of the pilots like this idea: make more money in fewer days SAFELY without resorting to the mind-numbing day-rests followed by redeyes which are UNSAFE. Or even worse the multiple-leg redeyes, they really hurt.

When I flew as an IRO in a heavy crew, it was ridiculous: you cannot 'rest' sitting in a seat with the paying customers, and you cannot 'rest' sitting in the cockpit jumpseat. The 'IRO' deal is a joke from my experience, especially if we are talking about only an extra hour or two. It is an FAA 'exercise' to look like it is safer, in reality it is not. The ICAO-ruled flights were easy.

I understand the 'Pandora's Box' syndrom, but if our exemption [if it ever happens] spells out the specific time periods when it is valid, then if some other company wants to extend it further then that company is going to have to do the very expensive testing and documentation like we did. I don't see that happening.

I really think all of this moot, there are much more important issues in front of us right now for our management to spend the money and effort to go forward with this proposal.

BTW: RedeyeAV8r, thank you for the civil comments and discussion, it is refreshing to see this thread not turn into a name-calling JB-bashing thread.

B6Guy

1. Either change the law for all or none.
2. Consider start times of the duty day and when it finishes.
3. Limit the length of the duty day based on time of day (See above) and number of legs.
4. Ensure that operational limits aren't so generous that unrealistic scheduling can be allowed to end run the intent of the (scheduled) limits.
5. Minimum rest periods must allow a honest 8 hours in the rack.

I fly as an International relief pilot and even a short rest of an hour or two is a tremendous help with crew rest. Of course you need an appropriate crew rest area, or seat. One that lies flat, or nearly so, and has privacy curtains. I imagine that expense plus the third pilot makes it not worthwhile for anyone's transcon turns, not just jetBlue's.