But you’re missing the point of what Hoss and I were saying. IAH is within 100 number of EWR for JRM on the snapshots. And we lost our 400 flying years ago. So it’s not just that. Probably is why in EWR, but irrelevant to IAH and it’s gone just as senior as EWR. We even had spots last bid for IAH 756 and it went just as senior.

 

I think some people that have been waiting for a EWR 756 CA spot decided to just get on it and then try for EWR later.

 

I've done a lot of international flying unaugmented in my career. I don't find LHR to be particularly challenging, especially in a 787 with all of its automation; YMMV.
A typical LHR arrival would be a bit of holding then longazz vectors to final with a constant rate descent … 700 FPM was ballpark IIRC; 500-600 FPM to start would keep you safe. In tight trail of the plane in front of you where he's touching down when you're 500 ft AGL. Around that time, you'd get landing clearance. Rinse, repeat.

As far as unaugmented EWR-LHR flights, LCAL used to do the eastbound leg unaugmented. This wouldn't be anything new.

1) At what mach?
I just looked at my last two LAX-HNL-LAX IDs and all four flights were over 5 hrs. But they're a couple hours shorter than the unaugmented HNL-DEN flights which I've also flown.
A 787 is going to cruise at a higher mach than a 756 and a 777 so the flight time will be shorter.

I rarely flew HNL-LAX under 5 hrs in the 777; what plane were you flying that would do it under 5 on a regular basis?

2) LHR-EWR is also all daylight. Let's not get wrapped around the axle about day vs night because both IDs have all day and all night legs.

3) I usually used that bus ride to the hotel to sleep and the bus ride to LHR to download/look at the flight plan. What do you do on the bus ride?

4) How many times have you flown in/out of LHR? How many flights did it take for you to be fully familiar with LHR?
As for EWR, I'd hope that anyone based in EWR would be familiar with the airport.

5) I've never been sensitive to time zone changes so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.


I think you're grossly overestimating how junior EWR 787 would go if there were unaugmented Atlantic crossings.

 

I think you know that I’m not saying LHR in itself is challenging but you’re trying to make it sound like that’s my point. It is not. Flying back side of the clock across the Atlantic across four and five time zones with two pilots is more challenging and THAT is my point. I just used LHR as one example. This could spread to CDG, AMS, etc..

 

Well, as I previously stated, LCAL flew those transatlantic routes unaugmented. They'd deadhead a pilot eastbound (their contract paid deadheading less than on duty) and fly augmented back to EWR. So this isn't new ground.

Personally, I'd prefer to be the flying pilot rather than the Bunkie and I think most others feel the same way. I just don't see unaugmented transatlantic flights making the 787 go junior in EWR.

 

When I was a kid I had to walk to school uphill thru the snow 10 miles both ways. I didn’t have an iPhone to play with and there was no internet.

That my friends is real hell.

 

That was 20 years ago.

Swiss Air still does, btw. Fly it unaugmented.

 

What’s safer? What pays more? What’s easier? What creates more wodebody jobs? THREE GUYS. No reason to argue the company logic as to why or how we should do it.

 

I know a few gals that can do it just as well, even on a widebody.

 

Did 2-pilot EWR-LHR and LGW on the 777. Did not like it one bit. Having the third crewmember and a break, even if it was short, made all the difference.