Transcon Turns
06-05-2005, 09:42 AM
#21
Da Man
Joined APC: Feb 2005
Position: DC-10 F/O
Posts: 436
Like many, I tend to be a cynic these days... 
With the reserve rest "look back" rule and some in house oversight, it "could" work with acceptable margins of safety.
That's a good point about shorter duty days with no sits at out stations, hadn't thought of that. At carrier "x", there was a rule that the duty day was a function of home domicile start time. If you released brakes at 0300 (for example) body clock time, then the duty was reduced. I recall that duty day was reduced 6 minutes for each minute prior to 0600 body clock time that the brakes were released.
That might be a good tool with the 8 hour waiver to ensure the waiver is an efficiency tool, and not a manpower tool. For every minute of 8 hours of flight time - max duty day is also reduced.
NASA Ames has lots ands lots of scientific data on sleep debt that they share for free. Might be a good resource: http://human-factors.arc.nasa.gov/zteam/
Cheers
With the reserve rest "look back" rule and some in house oversight, it "could" work with acceptable margins of safety.
That's a good point about shorter duty days with no sits at out stations, hadn't thought of that. At carrier "x", there was a rule that the duty day was a function of home domicile start time. If you released brakes at 0300 (for example) body clock time, then the duty was reduced. I recall that duty day was reduced 6 minutes for each minute prior to 0600 body clock time that the brakes were released.
That might be a good tool with the 8 hour waiver to ensure the waiver is an efficiency tool, and not a manpower tool. For every minute of 8 hours of flight time - max duty day is also reduced.
NASA Ames has lots ands lots of scientific data on sleep debt that they share for free. Might be a good resource: http://human-factors.arc.nasa.gov/zteam/
Cheers
06-05-2005, 10:24 AM
#22
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by FNG320
Remember, that reserves have limited windows where they can fill a "transcon turn" so they will only be options for such during their first few hours of a reserve period. After that, they would be illegal to fly a turn. So I don't think the reserves will be at risk.
06-05-2005, 01:56 PM
#23
Guest
Posts: n/a
My other concern is how long it will take before the elimination of the 8 hours of flight per duty period changes from a "waiver" to a memory. In that case, imagine this.
SFO-NRT is now a 2 pilot flight.
ORD-LHR is now a 2 pilot flight.
LAX-AUK is now a 2 pilot flight.
Yikes.
SFO-NRT is now a 2 pilot flight.
ORD-LHR is now a 2 pilot flight.
LAX-AUK is now a 2 pilot flight.
Yikes.
06-05-2005, 02:15 PM
#24
Da Man
Joined APC: Feb 2005
Position: DC-10 F/O
Posts: 436
Originally Posted by mm320cap
My other concern is how long it will take before the elimination of the 8 hours of flight per duty period changes from a "waiver" to a memory. In that case, imagine this.
SFO-NRT is now a 2 pilot flight.
ORD-LHR is now a 2 pilot flight.
LAX-AUK is now a 2 pilot flight.
Yikes.
SFO-NRT is now a 2 pilot flight.
ORD-LHR is now a 2 pilot flight.
LAX-AUK is now a 2 pilot flight.
Yikes.
06-06-2005, 09:31 PM
#25
Guest
Posts: n/a
I Think I am missing something. Why get a waiver for the 8 hour rule, when we can’t get schedules with an avg. daily block (ADB) of 7 hours now? HM……….
I think it’s better to give 800 pilots a 1hr ADB increase than give the top 200 3 or 4 hours. Wouldn’t this keep Safety our # 1 value, create more RSRV’s, give us more days off, save the company money, keep the whole pilot group happy instead of the top 200, and give Loyd the scheduler less ammo to screw with us?
Maybe I don’t have the BIG PICTURE.
I think it’s better to give 800 pilots a 1hr ADB increase than give the top 200 3 or 4 hours. Wouldn’t this keep Safety our # 1 value, create more RSRV’s, give us more days off, save the company money, keep the whole pilot group happy instead of the top 200, and give Loyd the scheduler less ammo to screw with us?
Maybe I don’t have the BIG PICTURE.
Last edited by Kermit; 06-06-2005 at 09:39 PM.
06-22-2005, 05:27 PM
#29
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by Double Digit
What is less safe? A morning JFK-LGB with a day sleep followed by a red eye LGB-JFK or a morning BUF-JFK-LGB-JFK. I say the former is much less safe having done them both.
I'm not arguing the science isn't there. I'm saying JB scheduling can't handle it. Let's use a more benign pairing. BUF-JFK-SLC-JFK. MX, wx, whatever, the flight is delayed on the ground in SLC. Do you think the crew should continue up to the FAR limit of a 16 hour duty day? I don't. I'm sure the "guidlines" that acompany this won't either. Do you think JB is going to Lear Jet a crew into SLC to keep within those company "guidlines"? Right. The magic P-R mantra will be invoked (profit-sharing).
And the trip will continue...
06-22-2005, 07:28 PM
#30
Guest
Posts: n/a
Maybe we should give the top 200 guys double pay instead of time and a half on those transcon turns. After that we can all chip in and buy them tickets to get to work so they don't have to jumpseat like the rest of us. I have heard that JetBlue mgmt has spent upwards of $1,000,000 to conduct the research to get the top 200 a better QOL. Money well spent.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
