I was dismayed to see DB's e-mail about the transcon turns.
Fatigue Management and education is good, but you don't need a NASA rocket scientist to tell us that some of our pairings are insensitive to human factors. These could be fixed at any time, even now!
I am respectful of Dr. Rosekind (sp?). A TCon turn done as it was tested is probably safer. The problem is, line ops aren't a research project. I was told by one of the test subjects that their sched was cleared 3 days before the test trip (and pay-protected). Unrealistic.
What about IROPS? Medical/WX diverts? Tech stops? Is JB going to cancel a Tcon turn because of a 1-hour delay? 2-hour delay? 3-hour delay? Lear Jet a crew in? (right... ) Is a Tcon turn safer if it becomes a 16 hour day?
Ask any pilot on reserve more than a couple of months about working with our crew schedulers. Not that they are bad people, FAR (no pun intended! )from it! But they have incredible pressure on them to fill those crew seats and move those jets.
JB has spent a lot of money on this. I hate to be negative, but I think they smell money in the increased productivity.

As an aside, non-JB people are welcome to comment professionally, just keep the mud-slinging to yourself.

You hate to be negative, really?

Yes, I do. But, I think this is a negative development.
Is your little zing at me your only comment?

I agree with AUTO we need to bit more introspective when it comes to combating fatigue. Spending money on AMP is great and all, but just look in open time and wonder why there are so many double redeyes, Ponce, etc. These are going to reserves who cannot decide what type of rest schedule to set ( still no new schedule guide). It doesn't take genius to figure out what 3 of those in a row does to someone.

A search of your posts reveals that the vast majority of your posts are negative. That's fine. Be negative all you want. Lord knows I have been negative a bunch in the last few years. It makes me grin, though, when you say "I hate to be negative".

I think you are correct, if the situation with the subject pilots was that way all thru the trials. JB really needs to test the way they will fly the TransCon round trip. I have heard very little about the project hope they did realistic trials.
I do like the increased productivity and would fly them if I could hold it. Have always been suspect of the IROP response and a 2 way TransCon will really spread the crew thin. Will probably need more reserve crews on west coast at the very least.

Well, I'm happy I could make you smile!
I'm really not that negative, it's just a way to vent.

Of course, you know the old joke:
How many pilots does it take to change a lightbulb? None, they just sit in the dark and b*tch!

Now, do you have an opinion on the thread?

I hadn't heard that old joke. But it's funny.

I must be French because I keep "waffling" on the AMP thing. I keep going back and forth. On one hand, I look at some of those "day sleeps" that we do now and think that the trans con thing HAS to be better than that. Then on the other hand, I wonder, will it be abused, what happens with WX problems etc....

SO, in conclusion...........................I haven't formulated a solid opinion either way. Seems pointless to post saying "I have no opinion" doesn't it?

I'm not opposed to the general concept. I think more realistic rest rules are long overdue. To me, it will be important to see how the details are ironed out, especially how IROP's are handled. Any plan that ASSumes that normal ops is the usual scenario is doomed to fail. Let's face it, the normal op is now IROP. Anything that doesn't keep that in mind isn't going to work for more than a day or two before the operation completely falls apart.

I don't think transcon turns are ever going to be viable. Most are blocked for at least 11 hours. What might work are 2-leg, 10-flt-hr days. Maybe Florida to the west coast via NY or Boston. These transcon-and-a-half scenarios I think have more potential than trying to push it with a two-leg, 12-flt-hr day.

Regardless, I remain extremely skeptical until and unless they're able to demonstrate equivalent or better safety and alertness vs. the current regs.

Yeah, I've gone back and forth on this one too. One thing I now know for certain though, is that I'd take 5 day transcon turns over just 1 of those perfectly legal early-start-transcon, day sleep, redeye, day sleep, redeye nightmares that we have quite a few of. No contest.

I agree that figuring out how it can all fall apart in an IROP is the key, but I assume that the no-kidding 16 hour day will remain the 16 hour day, regardless. Otherwise I'm way against it. That said, I don't see how delays leading to a 16 hour crew day in a day transcon turn scenario could be even close to as bad as delays leading to a 16 hour day in the previously mentioned nightmare pairings.

For the record -- I know there are lots of folks who like those pairings because they're hyper-productive and lots of us were screaming for more productivity. So I'm glad those pairings are there for you. I just think you're whacked.