Poundstone, you don't have a clue!!! I work for an international airline and we are one of the most profitable carriers in the world. Our contract is very specific about hotel requirements. First either 24hr/day room service or resturant in the hotel open 24 hours/day. Must have either business certer for internet or internet in the room. There are countless other criteria that must be met. The biggest one is "first class"

The problem as I see it is typical consumerism, champagne tastes on a beer budget.

 

Phil Squares, thank you for your reply.

In fact, your reply illustrates precisely a point I'd like to make.

You detail what your contract specifies regarding the type of rest accomodation (hotel) crews can use. Congratulations -- you seem to have a fine contract in that regard.

But I'm not arguing about what contracts should or shouldn't say about crew rest accomodations. Over time, contracts are mostly not a reflection of how tough the negotiators were at the table, but rather what the market would bear. I'm making the point that the only arbiter that matters -- the market -- is going to force most flight crew members (in the US, anyway) into something like a Motel 6.

Why? Well, read my previous post.

 

Sorry poundstone, I think I have an idea where you're coming from as it is one that I unfortunately run into more and more amongst the ill informed of our profession, and it is a place of concern for many of us actually in the industry.

I used to work for an airline that put us up in cheap hotels, and more often than not ended up with a hooker in the next room or a hockey team on the entire floor. After nearly killing myself and a load of helpless boxes because of a sleepless night (and no, I wasn't, as you appear to think is the norm with us, out on the town the night before), I looked into a career path change. I now work for a very good international carrier that, go figure, makes a profit and at the same time manages to keep us in top notch accommodation. Going to Hong Kong for a 24 hour layover requires possitive rest AND relaxation. This said, the flight back is still a killer on fatigue; I rather not imagine what it would be like if we were in second rate accommodation.

With all due respect, like many non pilots you hold an attitude towards us that is simply one of ignorance. If you are, or ever have been an airline pilot then I'll take back the "with due respect" comment and just say shame on you.

Oh yes, and the only arbiter that you speak of, if it keeps on its very dangerous path, will force not only pilots into Motel 6's, but them and their passengers into the grave. They'll be happy knowing that that they've saved a bundle though.

I guess what I'm trying to say, as politely as I can, is that the great majority of us have worked our way up a very long and steep stairway and understand that we require all the best tools available to us to get the job done as safely as possible, every time we do it, and that those tools include more than the EICAS or EICAM, ever more the case when we have long flights with short layovers.

This is simply something you are not able to comprehend as you could have no good idea as to what it is really like, but that's OK, because your just ignorant, and we generally don't hold things against the ignorant.

Finally, since you can't possibly understand where we're coming from, perhaps you could keep your thoughts to yourself and allow this to be what it was intended to be; commentary between professionals of equal standing, who have an understanding and respect for one another, as well as the proffession itself, that can only be EARNED over the many years in the proffession (you'll notice how many times I used that word).

And accommodation has two m's. Just here to help.

 

Koru, I'm not a non-pilot as you thought.

Think a minute about military pilots. Think a minute about the work experience of even non-combat (AMC) military pilots. Do they stay in upscale hotels?

I know for a fact that, with a few exceptions overseas, they don't.

And yet they get the job done, no matter how grueling.

By the way: "professional" is as just spelled. Just trying to help.

 

Touche old boy! Good catch.

Rather telling though, wouldn't you agree. I am certain that your job is, as you point out, "grueling", and you mostly get the job done. Unfortunately the accident rate amongst the military, if equalled in the airline world, would shut a carrier down.

Getting a mission accomplished in the military is at times expected to be hazardous. The crew understand this and cudos to them; in times of unrest civilians appreciate this fact. However, the minute you cross the line and begin to risk the lives of the innocent, passengers or otherwise, you are just dead wrong mate.

Airline pilots for years have worked very hard to get us to the standard we have today, safety wise and otherwise. Without the effort of the pilots groups and their unions and safety offices attitudes like yours, in combination with those of management cronies out to line their bonus package (this is currently happening in many parts of the world, with the accident rates to prove it) safety would be what it was fifty years ago.

The point I'm trying to make is that safety is all encompassing, not just good maintenance and training. . .But I digress, and I feer I waste my time.

I have read a number of your other posts and detect an underlying disdane for airline pilots. And your last post, I'm afraid mate, outed you. In fact, your posts remind me of another web site which I have stopped viewing long ago due to the input of non pilots and wanabes with a chip on their shoulder, and your chip is a big one isn't it.

A few posts back one of the participents in this discussion made an excellent recommendation when he said you were not worth the keystrokes. I think that I'll take his advice, and perhaps others should as well. If people were to ignore these types all together, as they have nothing of merit to contribute, well, wouldn't it just be a wonderfull world.

Oh yea, the last time I flew into Prince Sultan Air Base the breakfast buffet rivaled the Ritz, and I didn't think "what a waste of taxpayer money", more like good on 'em for treating the boy's and girls as they deserve.

 

A hotel is like a pilot's second home. I don't live in a trailer at home so why should I have to live in the equivalent on the road? Poundstone, do you live in a trailer? Why not? You can still get quality sleep in one. Maybe it's because you have a higher standard of living than that. When you spend half the month in hotels, even the nicest ones stink. Pilots are professionals and should be treated as such.

 

A bed is NOT the only thing required on layovers. That comment was made earlier and demonstrates how little some people know and understand about our business. While a decent room with an effective environmental control system (i.e., air conditioning and heaters that actually work) and drapes that will keep the room fairly dark (for all of the freight dogs out there) more is required. Note I said required and not desired. First is transportation. Not many hotels/motels in the Motel 6 range provide van service. Period. And second is a place to eat. And I'm not talking about Denney's and Burger King. It doesn't have to be a Ruth's Criss but something that provides some variety and halfway healthy food has to be available. Again, the neighborhoods where the average low rent motel is located generally doesn't provide that.

And as someone else so eloquently pointed out, it's more about being treated as a professional. I've stated many times that I'm very lucky to be where I am. And you can be sure that my company would very quickly ship us to the lowest bidder if we let them get away with it. Since I spend a lot of time in hotels I'm glad that our contract protects us.

 

As one of the AMC crews that you are talking about, I am currently on a trip where I have run the range of layover accomodations. I spent a couple of nights in a tent and several nights at nice hotels. The hotels range from adequate to first class. Guess where I got the best sleep and, as a result, felt most "on my game" on the ensuing leg. It wasn't after sleeping in a tent or in a mediocre hotel. I'm not saying I need to stay in the Ritz for a layover, but every passenger deserves to be in the care of a crew that has had a chance to get the proper rest and, as a result, provide the customer (be it the full fare first class passenger or the soldier returning home from a war zone) the safest possible product.

 

I have no doubt that one can sleep "better" at an upscale hotel than at a Motel 6. The question is, what type of accomodation is adequate for flight crews?

I think pilots' unions are going to have an increasingly difficult time justifying on the grounds of "safety" expenses that management views as ripe for cost-cutting. Hotels are one such expense. By all means, pilots should hold out for the best accomodation they can get written into their contract. But don't be surprised if/when management insists on downgrading that accomodation.

If the choice in a contract negotiation becomes one of maintaining a Marriott/Sheraton/Hyatt quality of accomodation at the expense of cutting ,say, health care or pension benefits, I know how I would vote.

 

Old-timers used to tell us new-hires about the days when only the Captain got a private hotel room; all the others had to double up. But why stop there? If "hot-bunking " is good enough for submariners......