A Question for Blue-Aid Drinkers?

[Freight Dog]

This whole thing is ridiculous.... You JB guys claim it's only for you, and not everyone else. Well, that'd be great if it were true, but ahhh... it won't be just for you. Step back a little and look at the effect on regionals Mesa had by signing their new contract. It snowballed throughout the industry. Think of what your exemption will do for everyone else.

Soon, it will become an industry standard. But then, I guarantee you it won't stop there. Your "daylight-only" will become modified. Then you'll be able to make 1 or 2 stops along the way. Then the next thing will be increasing the MAX from 100 hours to 120 hours a month like Part 135, AND YOU GUYS WILL BE DOING IT WITH SMILES! When they make 1400 hours per year rule, you will still be drunk from your Blue Aid. The other managements will follow suit, and voila... work rules out the window, everyone's bids being built to 100 hours AT LEAST, pilots getting furloughed as a result of everyone flying around 100 hours. That's EXACTLY what's going on at Hawaiian next door - their senior pilots are picking up open time left and right while the Company furloughed more than a 1/4 of their seniority list. Then THEY ALSO want the 8-hour exemption so they can fly mainland turns which will lead to even more furloughs.

You guys are opening a BIG can of worms. You want to clean planes? Fine. You want to fly the FAR's? Fine. You want to work till you drop with no defined retirement? Fine. But DON'T SCREW WITH THIS!!!!!!! Please!

 

[Dizel8]

Gen.Lee,

Yeah, I always heard that LA was bad

As far as the FAR's are concerned, jetBlue would get an exemption, there would be no change to the FAR's. Just like some airlines can designate two alternates, in case of weather not being cooperative and being less than standard. How some airlines can do rereleases. Or use less than standard landing mins with the use of HUD's.

As far, as to using three pilots, that may indeed be what we end up with, only time will tell.

 

[Maj]

Pre-emptive caveat: I'm no kool-aid addict, but I am DEFINITELY supportive of the success and prosperity of my employer (JB) and have faith in the management since they pay my bills.

Having said that, I would MUCH rather fly a few LGB turns intead of some of the current "legal" pairings that involve day sleeps followed by redeyes. I look at this as an opportunity to increase productivity (credit hours) while improving my quality of life (days off). Last time I checked, this job was pretty friggin' easy (99.44% of the time).

B-Scale wages? I guess I'm too young to remember the "good ol' days" when knucklehead pilots made as much as doctors (I think that's already been beaten to death on another thread!). In the meantime, I'll have to settle on a paltry $12K/month, averaging 15 days off/month, and the freedom and time to work a couple of side gigs so I can pay for my new tricked-out European luxury sedan. After all, there are more opportunities in life besides flying. So if you don't like your company or its' policies, I suggest trying some of them!

Rah Rah Rah...Blah Blah Blah.

Life's too short to be bitter and paranoid.

 

[Boeingman]

So if you don't like your company or its' policies, I suggest trying some of them!

I am sure you meant trying to change some of them. If you are happy flying your ass off for your wages fine. It is not a question of bemoaning your company or it's policies, but a blatent attempt to change a FAR that has an unlimited potential for abuse. You guys are more in dreamland than I thought if you don't think other managements will exploit this rule. The FAR's are a joke as they stand now and you want to relax them even further?

I guess that you are all so enamored to be flying for a living you can't see the true consequences and ramifications of your actions for the rest of your peers within the industry.

The race to the bottom continues.

 

[Maj]

BM,

"After all, there are more opportunities in life besides flying. So if you don't like your company or its' policies, I suggest trying some of them!"

No, I meant to try some of the other opportunities besides flying. Again, I think that we're trying to get relief from the FAR, not to change it. If your company follows suit (if it's even approved) and you are opposed well I guess I feel for you.

Race to the bottom? I guess that's what you call enjoying your job and your coworkers. I call it having a good attitude.

Cheers,
Maj

 

[Boeingman]

Pandoras Box

BM,

No, I meant to try some of the other opportunities besides flying. Again, I think that we're trying to get relief from the FAR, not to change it. If your company follows suit (if it's even approved) and you are opposed well I guess I feel for you.

Relief from the FAR is the same as changing it in my book. And I think everyone elses as well. Or is it like just being a little pregnant? So by saying I feel for you is the same as tough titties right? I mean who cares about years and years of negotiated contracts to be put under new pressure in favor of relaxing already flimsy crew and duty time regulations. I care for one and I'll bet I am not the only one.

And incidently, our mangement couldn't follow suit arbitrarily, but it would be one more thing they would come to us, hat in their hands, crying they have to do this to remain competitive.

Let me put the ball back in your court. Why doesnt the JB pilots get some collective spine and say NO to your stand up overnights, instead of changing the rules for everyone else?
And don't kid yourselves, change they will.


As far as outside job issues....trust me, I am the last one that needs a thought about that. I run an extremely lucrative business one that makes this whole airline thing a side show.

Race to the bottom? I guess that's what you call enjoying your job and your coworkers. I call it having a good attitude.

Cheers,
Maj

No, the race to the bottom implys another weakening of long standing contractual benefits vis a vis FAR limitations. Now we have a group of gung ho company boys and girls that want to go one step further and erode, as I said, already flimsy work rules and regs.

Having a good attiude does not mean bending over for mangement and in turn porking your fellow pilots by precedent setting changes to FAR work rules and duty time limitations.

It is also concerning that the JB pilots do not see this for what it is a fatigue related safety issue.

 

[G4G5]

What about doing something positive for the profession?

How about demanding a relief pilot, like all of the other airlines do?

 

[Dizel8]

The FAR's as they are now, is a fattigue relating safety issue. How staying on the same circadian rhythm will be worse is beyond me.

 

[Boeingman]

The FAR's as they are now, is a fattigue relating safety issue. How staying on the same circadian rhythm will be worse is beyond me.

Exactly. So don't petition for a change to the flight and duty times and tell your management no to stand up overnights.

I don't know your background but one thing is true I heard years ago, the union is there to protect us from ourselves. This is a shining example.

 

[General Lee]

I know what would be even better for you JB guys----see if you can fly 4 consecutive transcons in one full 24 hour day---and then you would only have to go to work 3 days a month!!! Or, you could pick up another days worth (4 or 5 legs)---and get that full 100 hours of flying in just 4 days!!! Think of the productivity! Just load up on ludes and Starbucks------get wired!!!! You can do it----I think you can!! Go for it---you can then go back home and sleep for 27 hours straight, get up and beat the kids, and then go play golf for 5 days straight. That sounds wonderful. Why not? You can get an exemption for just you guys, because we all know that you guys can handle it.

Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[Dizel8]

Sounds good to me, you trhink the FAA will go for it

Oh, never mind, just realized, I do not play golf!

 

[FDJ2]

This is probably one of the worst ideas I've ever seen. But what is truly disappointing is that the JB pilots apparently don't have a problem with this.

 

[General Lee]

Dizel8,

But, if it happens you could! I try to play but get frustrated---unless I actually hit it into the air--which makes me happy.

FDJ2,

I agree. This can only open a large can of worms. Next thing we know we will competing with other pilots on productivity issues----or who can fly the most. The Delta ranks will shrink from 7400 pilots to 1000 pilots---all flying 230 hours per month. (or 10 days of flying)

Bye bye--General Lee

 

[G4G5]

Under part 91 this is perfectly legal. NOT SMART, but legal.

With that being said I have done it plenty of times. Fly empty out BUR or VNY to pick someone up and fly back to NYC. I hate it.

Think about what you are asking for. Day light only? Half of the year you are looking at a 7am take off. Who in NY is going to come out any earlier for an LA flight? East coast time. You need to allow for 6 hours to LA (1300 est). Then a one hour turn (1400 est). Now you need to allow for 5.5 to fly back to JFK (1930).

How many months of the year are these times 700am to AND 1930 arrival, day light only?

Tell me they won't try to stretch it to dusk.

What's going on at JFK at 1930 every day? It's the peak time for east bound European departures. "Turkish 123 I said hold short"

What time was your sign in? 6am? Who cares about your body rythm, when you now have been up since 5am and flown 5000 miles in 11.5 hours?

Are you telling me that fatigue is not going to be a factor in a foul wx approach into JFK?

Or that every flight will go smoothly and you can always expect to land on time at JFK with no added pressure?

Thanks for lowering the bar................

 

[Blue Dude]

Let's face it, there are plenty of scenarios that are legal under the rest requirements in the FAR's that are not consistent with actually getting useful rest. The standup overnight was just an example; JetBlue doesn't have them. Another is the schedule typical for commuter airlines and sometimes SWA: 6 to 8 legs, 7 hrs of flying and 14 hrs on duty. Do that for a few days in a row and see how you feel. JetBlue doesn't do that either. But there are other scenarios that are legal and "safe", and well within most contractual limits, without ensuring that truly adequate crew rest takes place. We've all been there, but interestingly none of those are decried as watering down the profession, nor is there a push to change the FAR's to limit these.

But just as there are legal but not adequately rested scenarios, the converse is also true. There are a number of scenarios that are consistent with safe operating practices that aren't allowed under the regs. Operating two legs during "normal" awake hours, for longer than 8 hrs of block, with appropriate extentions of required rest, is one of them. Working for 12 hrs, the vast majority of which is in cruise, isn't nearly as physiologically draining as anything in the first paragraph.

But you knew that. In fact, nobody said anything about reducing safety margins or affecting safety in any way. All I hear is stuff about damaging the profession or how it's going to affect your next negotiations. Well, in one person's words, tough tittie. I would have been open to a dialogue about operational safety or even advice on how not to have this rule be unfairly expanded or exploited. Instead, it's just all about you, isn't it? I couldn't care less about how my company's operations affect yours, just as you don't spend more than lip service about same when it comes time to set your own work rules. This work rule would improve my QOL and so I support it. You take care of your own. You would be hypocrites so suggest that you ever do otherwise when the chips are down.