And it will coerce pilots into flying tired when managements remove the 3rd pilot from >8 hour flight time on such things as Caribbean turns. A further result of this will be less pilot jobs.

I'm hearing a lot of guys on this BB nebulously cite all this "studies." Can anybody specifically point to chapter and verse these supposed studies, or is it just cheap talk. This is not an exact science. There's a lot of subjective judgment that goes with it. Unfortunately, ALPA's judgment regarding increasing the fly hours is rooted in greed and actually decreases safety.

8 hours has been the traditional MAXIMUM flying time per day. It should stay the MAX, and then only during the 0700-1259 LBT start block.

 

My understanding is that there is significant scientific support for duty day limitations, but not much research in the area of actual flight time. If there are studies that support increasing flight time, please cite them.

 

Actually I agree with everything you wrote in the second paragraph. I don't, however, agree with your assertion that increasing flying time in VERY limited circumstances is by default a bad thing--it may in fact be, after all is said and done; I'm just not immediately rejecting the idea.

Why can't others respectfully disagree without your insinuating that anyone at least considering ALPA's proposals is just a management tool?

I will give you the respect to conclude that increasing hours above 8 is a bad idea (because that is your genuine position) if you give me and others the respect to at least consider concluding differently.

 

Yep, you're right.... so why don't we just forget about the times they are reducing it to 7 hour maximum then and just keep those at 8 too....

How can it not make sense to you that shifts starting very early, or very late get the least flight time, and that shifts starting at normal working hours gets the longest? They basically have broken the day down in to five start windows... two start windows have no change at all to maximum flight time, two start windows have reductions of maximum flight time, and one start window has an increase of one hour of maximum flight time.
In ALL cases they have limited the max guty day down from 16 to 13 hours... and they have increased minimum rest to 10 hours, reducable to 9...

You are definately a glass is half empty person.....

 

Sure, I think that what ALPA, and the FAA, is trying to do is good, however this is not like negotiations. There is a lot of pressure on the FAA to make changes to these rules right now and there was no reason for ALPA to "give" 9 hrs on the flight time limit, in fact I don't feel that there was any reason to change the 8 hr limit either up or down, if the duty limits are implemented the fatigue issue is solved.

For a lot of the regional airlines this will result an overall improvement to their schedules however, as you said, it could result in more days of flying. On the other hand, most mainline airlines are in high compliance with these rules already (just my guess) and the 9 hour flight time is a big win for airline managements.

If you think that 9 hours of flight time will have no impact on your flying you aren't being very realistic with regard to not only the Caribbean flying but also the west cost turns. The 9 hour rule will result in higher productivity and the need for fewer staged crews which will result in the need for fewer pilots.

I believe that you have made the argument that Delta's avg productivity increase over pre 9/11 and bankruptcy numbers has resulted in a sizable decrease in the total numbers of pilots. If you don't think that the 9 hr rule and the introduction of cross country turns as well as the Caribbean turns you are not being honest about the issue. At least with the more restrictive duty limits there will be some offsetting of the productivity increases.

Over the last 8 years there has been a lot of giving in the productivity area there is no need for ALPA to propose any increase block hours and allow further increases. That is my problem with the proposal. Let the APA make the increased productivity proposals.

 

The APA is dead against increasing fatigue levels, increasing the flight time per day and decreasing pilot jobs.

 

Cross country turns will cause no reduction in pilot jobs at Delta. Again pilot jobs are based on block hours. If you can have all your pilots fly 80 hours in 10 days or 80 hours in 16 days the manning required is the same. In fact if you build a lot of turns it tends to make your 3 and 4 day rotations less efficient and can lead to more credit time which increases pilot jobs. Even if allowed it might be the company chooses not to build a lot of turns because of that credit increase. It can be difficult to get a 4 day trip up to the 1 for 3.5 duty rig without a couple of long legs. I once helped try and build better rotations and the key was getting the long legs otherwise credit kicks in.
There will be a reduction in pilots needed on some turns to the Caribbean if we make the contractual changes to allow it. Since we currently require the company to double crew those flights and FAR's only require a relief pilot I am not sure we will change things. If we do it will be more then offset by all the Europe flying going to 3 man crews.

 

Actually, there is plenty of research regarding actual flight time, but none of it supports the idea that limiting flight time is the key to reducing fatigue. All research indicates that the duty day and the number of cycles are the imporant factors.

The APA also seems to be dead against getting a new contract anytime in the next century. Reality has to enter the mix at some point, and 53% pay raises are not reality. I wouldn't use the APA as some grand example of a smart union.

 

I must have missed something. Hub bank times permitting, management could just schedule the Europe flights to leave on west bound legs between 0700-1259 Home base time and not augment flights less than 9 hours instead of the normal 8. If the schedule change is acceptable to management, then you could actually reduce augmentation needs to/from Europe if the contract permits. This comment isn't airline specific because I don't know every carriers augmentation contract language.

This would also be pretty crappy for Hawaii to mainland flights like HNL-ORD and HNL-ATL if they moved those departures to the 9 hour home base time window. If you were based on the East Coast you could be leaving at either 0200 or 0300 Hawaii Time depending on DST.

In Asia some eastbound legs to the west coast could also possibly lose augmentation in winter time. Example: east coast based pilot could leave Japan at 9pm japan time and fly unaugmented for 9 hours at night to the USA.

It doesnt sound bad unless you have been in Asia for 10-12 days and have fully acclimated to the Japan/Asia timezone. Allowing a 9 hour redeye based on Home base time really doesn't help with fatigue at that point.

 

The problem with that is the landing times in Europe. Many stations have quiet hours. Business travelers would hate the wasted day in the air. Leaving at 0700 gets you to London after 1800 and anything further east even later. We take off in the evening for a reason.