Probe

I am not sure how 117 reads. I know one of the acclimatization rules kicks in at 60 degrees of longitude of difference between airports. IAH-SYD is much farther than IAH-NRT, but closer in longitude. And a lot closer in longitude than SFO-SIN.

catIIIc

777a models are weight restricted from ord to hnl doubt they will put a 777 on Iad-hnl.

Probe

They are weight restricted because they are 2 class, with a bunch of seats. We called them "cattle cars" when we bought them and a similar version of the 763. Just for HNL. They have the legs, the problems is the 180 minute ETOP fuel going to HNL. You end up landing weight restricted on the ETOPS legs. It also used to happen on the SFO-HNL flights that I used to do.

The ETOPS add in the middle of the leg puts you overweight for landing quite a bit, or at least it used to. I don't know if we ever paid Boeing for a weight increase. It has been a long time since I flew it.

catIIIc

Our weight restrictions are max takeoff weight now with the new configuration of 2 class and 364 seats. Lots of freight and minimal nonrevs with empty seats is the new norm out of ORD to the islands.

pilotgolfer

The Dulles flight could be a B model to HNL. Once the crew is in place, the A model would do the flying back and forth to Guam...same way the NRT trip is set up out of Dulles.

intrepidcv11

Unless something is changing, the problem is that HNL is not even close to daily year round out of Dulles.

APC225

Time Magazine 6/25/18

Flight attendants are exposed to a number of known cancer-causing risks, but few studies have rigorously quantified that risk, and researchers say they are an understudied occupational group.

The Harvard Flight Attendant Health Study (FAHS), begun in 2007, addresses some of the gaps in understanding health risks among flight attendants. In the latest report, published in the journal Environmental Health, researchers found that flight attendants had higher rates of many cancers, including breast cancer and melanoma, compared to the general population.

The FAHS included more than 5,300 flight attendants who were recruited through online and mailed surveys, and given in person at airports. The flight attendants answered questions about their flight schedules, as well as any diagnoses of cancer. The researchers, led by Irina Mordukhovich, a research associate at Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, then compared the responses to those from a matched group of people not in the airline profession from an ongoing national health survey.

Mordukhovich found higher prevalence of breast, melanoma, uterine, gastrointestinal, thyroid and cervical cancers among the flight attendants compared to the general public. The study also revealed for the first time a higher rate of non-melanoma skin cancers, such as basal cell and squamous cell carcinomas, among flight attendants.

The prevalence of breast, melanoma and non-melanoma cancers were especially striking, says Mordukhovich. Flight attendants had a 51% higher prevalence of breast cancers, more than two-fold higher prevalence of melanoma and four-fold greater prevalence of non melanoma skin cancers, compared to people not in the profession.

“Flight attendants are considered a historically understudied occupational group, so there is a lot we don’t know about their health,” says Mordukhovich. “What we do know for sure is the exposures that both pilots and flight attendants have—the main one being high radiation levels because of cosmic radiation at altitude.” That exposure may not be concerning for people taking individual flights, but for people whose jobs involve flying, that risk may have a negative effect on their health, as the study results suggest.