A Question for Blue-Aid Drinkers?

[jetblue320]

But Seriously


It's a refreshing change to have JBLU taking the role of "lowering the bar criminals". Thanks guys/gals for taking the heat off of SWA.

Carry on.


Aplus9

You're welcome. I was thinking along those lines just yesterday. I guess before there was jetBlue there was SWA taking a beating here. But then, when ya'll were lowering the bar maybe flightinfo.com wasn't around?

Anyway, here's to ya'!! This one on us. Cheers!

 

[AAflyer]

JB GUYS and GALS,

First, take the name calling with a grain of salt. When people get upset they resort to name calling, it gives them a way to vent or feel better about themselves (actually guilty of it myself in the past). I seem to be a SCAAB to Eagle pilots, and a year ago I was an overpaid arrogant A$$, now I have brought down the industry with our to new sh1t contract. Anyway, onto the subject.

I see your points of view, and even commend you for trying to think out side the box, but there will be ramifications. Some companies do not have the managment teams you have. If your mangt. team says they won't screw with you on this then great (or they might in the future), but pilots at other airlines do not have that luxury(and there are not enough slots for all of us to fly at JB), other companies will use it as leverage. Guranteed!!

I have flown transcons, especially ones with a headwind, JFK-LAX. The hour and a half prior then the 5.5 hour flight,I am tired!!! The thought of flying back to JFK is spooky.Mixing in the adverse weather element, or a emergency in the NY area on the return portion while fatigued is a nightmare.

I think a big concern is not that it couldn't be done, but taking a look at ALL the worst case scenerios (sp) that might happen. It also opens pandora's box. This will occur whether you guys like it or not. While it may be just for you and that specific sequence it will open up many what ifs at other airlines.

For instance, if 2 pilots start flying 10 hour turns, you can bet management types at arilines like AA,UAL,DAL would like 2 pilots to start flying from JFK-CDG, JFK-FCO, JFK-MAD etc. That is something that IS dangerous. I am tired doing it with 3 pilots.

These are my concerns, I just thought some of you would like to take a look at this from the other side.

respectfully,

AA

 

[FlyingFarmer]

Mission Accomplished?!?

Well,

I say Chaps.....

Well, I haven't been on the 'puter in awhile, but looks like I was able to start a lively debate on this issue. Although in retrospect, it seems more like quite the firestorm. I've read alot of these posts from all concerned, and I think the first thing I want to do is apologize for the tone in which this thread was started. As several of you have pointed out in responses, the name calling on my part was pure immaturity. I'd like to ask all of the very professional gentlemen posters on this issue, for forgiveness.
I'm afraid that once again I was perhaps reveling in the relative anonymity of the net, while simply enjoying one of my many contractually guaranteed days off.
I absolutely MUST stop doing this.
I realize that it accomplishes nothing.

I received an email from an old chum, (he's a River Pilot) and he mentioned that in order to ever change the course of any sizable object, it's best to parallel the course, then try to change it's speed or direction of motion.

As angry as I am at this attempt by some clearly uninformed and woefully misguided individuals to create an exemption, I really am going to try keep the name calling in check. Clearly, profanity and vulgarity are the last bastions of a weak mind. So in the coming missive, I'll endeavor to present several statements, sans name calling, or profane statements, in the hopes that I will clearly be able to demonstrate to all that it is my truest desire, to show nothing but those qualities for which pilots throughout the land are known for, and that word is of course, professionalism.

Nay, Nay, never let it be said that my name should ever be drug around the hallowed halls of Yonkers, not having emulated the qualities shown by these same good pilots, known everywhere as wearers of the blue cloth, and drinkers of the blue ale. Heretofore, shown now to the entire world, have at last, on this board, outed themselves regarding this issue to all. I might endeavor to put forth, that there could very well be, quite a few of their good and fellow peers, at aforementioned company, who may happenchance to disagree overly vehemently with these same brave, stalwart, young, forward and company thinking,
.... men. It may indeed, have served a good and elegant purpose, to show to all just who and what these Kryptonian, steely eyed, men of blue truly stand for. As they have put forth time and time again, erstwhile defending, their boldly held ideas, gallantly showing their adherence to a closely mimicked, and openly chanted "new" paradigm, exactly here, in this, this brave new forum of the next millennium, the Internet.

You know, it's just EASIER to curse and call names.



Darn, I think I got carried away.


Anyway, reading the posts by most of the Jet Blue Pilots, the main rub is that they want more days off and more money.
Join the club, as do we all, I just wonder guys, quite simply. might it not be a good idea to try to, instead of changing the FARS, whoops... pardon me.... we must be exact here, instead of trying to go for an "exemption" to the FARS, perhaps the pilot group could ask for pay raises, and increased guaranteed days off? This solution seems absolutely elegant in its simplicity.

Cheerio-

By the By-

Not all Blue boys support this, many are just afraid to be
"outed"-

Isn't that right 320?

 

[Eagleflip]

AAflyer--

Thanks for the cogent post. You bring up great points, issues that we will raise to the Chief Pilot's office before this goes much further (if indeed it has any promise in the first place).

Most of all I appreciate the tone of your response. I grow a bit weary of the name calling and vehement generalizations that many on this board--senior members as well--evidently hold dear.

To those that have debated the issue with facts and logic, thanks. I've noted your concerns.

To the others, well...I suppose name calling is a mark of immaturity and lack of coherent debating skills. Too bad. You could have made your points much easier if you'd only kept a civil tone.

FlyingFarmer--gee, you wax poetic and hmmm. ..JetBlue pilots are now "Kryptonian."

And General Lee--you have so many great posts. Don't get emotional--it spoils your logic...

Any of you ever wonder why a little airline with only 48 (or so) airplanes raises such hackles in this industry? It's a silly question, but a real one as well.

Nevermind. I don't relish reading more snappy retorts and generalized smears against my fellow JetBlue bros or myself.

I'm a dot on this thread--thanks for playing.

 

[FlyingFarmer]

Aww shucks---

Eagle Flip,

You are a true pro, it would be my wish to have
your patience, and innate ability to communicate
succintly and clearly.

You are an example to follow.
I'd like to further state that it's
refreshing to actualy see the bar
being, instead of lowered, raised.


.........on this forum, that is.


FF

 

[General Lee]

Eagleflip,

Yeah, I know I have gotten alittle emotional on this one, but it is because I can see what will happen next. We have all had our long days---many of mine have been waiting in long takeoff lines at ATL. I just think you guys should think this through alittle bit more. I also liked AAFlyers response---he had a lot of great points. I wish more of your guys at JB would read his response and then think about it.

Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[trueblue]

Congrats AA Flyer

AA Flyer and Eagleflip...excellent posts. Keep it up. By the way, just because an exemption is "being looked at" and indeed it is supported by SOME of the pilot group at JB, doesn't mean it is supported by the majority. Relax. A few here have brought up very interesting and informative ideas and to them I say thanks. As for the others, please quit grouping JB pilots into a common, mindless group of non-critical thinking mavericks out to screw everyone in the industry for the benefit of ourselves. Like Eagleflip mentioned aboved, we have our problems, and have made some mistakes, as evidenced recently for instance with the privacy issue. We are young and are "still in diapers" and yes, nearly all of us (myself included) are are extremely impressed with the support we've received from management thus far and they have earned our trust. All of that is true, but don't think for a second that we have lost our way, are subject to selfish groupthink, or all support transcon turns. If you are going to debate the issue, fine. But, the labeling and content of 95% of these posts are trash.

 

[typhoonpilot]

Pardon me for jumping into this thread a little late in the game. I was off on a three day trip which quite interestingly included two legs over 8 hours.

Networ-King brought up European Flight and Duty time limitations in a post very early on and nobody really expanded on it. I'd like to do that since that is what I work under ( more or less ) at present. I have also worked under 135, 121, and 121 Supplemental ( Yikes ! ). Before coming over to my present job I hadn't ever seen nor really heard about the European rules. They are quite interesting since they take into account, among other things, number of sectors flown, acclimatisation to time zone, and start time of duty period.

I wish I could cut and paste the whole chart, but can't so here is a representative example:

Acclimatised to Local Time

Local time of Start = 0800-1459

Sectors: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Max duty 14:00 13:15 12:30 11:45 10:15 10:00 9:30


It goes on to say that the maximum number of flying hours which a crewmember of a two crew aircraft may be permitted to undertake during any 24 consecutive hours shall be 10 hours.

The average weekly total of duty hours shall not exceed 50 hours and that is to include all types of duty both flight and ground.

A lot of analysis went into the rules including the chart for not being acclimatised to local time. I can see why Southwest would argue vehemently against these rules since they would really limit their flying to a lot lower level than present.

An even more interesting ( and applicable ) exemption that my company has been granted is: To increase the 10 hour flight time limitation to 12 hours on the non-stop DXB-HKG-DXB route provided no flight or cabin crewmember is assigned to duty on this route:

1) More than once in a 30 day period.

2) When his or her maximum duty time of 15 hours in any period of 24 hours will be exceeded.

3) Without an intervening rest period of at least 11 hours, including a hotel room in the immediate vicinity of Hong Kong airport.

4) Without a 12 hour rest period at the end of the return to home base before being assigned to further duty.


So, as we can see from this, under European style rules a flight time limit of 10 hours is not unrealistic provided that both the duty period and number of sectors are limited. The Hong Kong exemption still doesn't allow for an exceedance of the 10 hour rule without an 11 hour rest period. Based on this I would say it is highly unlikely that the FAA would grant an exemption to jetBlue for multiple 11.5 hour flight time days in any given month.

Typhoonpilot

 

[typhoonpilot]

I also saw some comments in the various responses about people not liking the 30 in 7 rule. I always found this quite restrictive and very commuter unfriendly. As I said above, I worked under 121 supplemental which was 35 in 7. During some of that time I worked a schedule of 5 days on 10 days off. That was the best schedule I ever had and would not have been possible under a 30 in 7 rule.

Again the flight time is not the main issue, it is the duty time that is the issue. Where I work now the daily flight time limit is 10 hours and the next limit up is 100 hours in 28 days. The restriction that comes into play is the duty time limit of 50 hours per week.

I'd have to say the jetBlue guys are on the right track, they are just asking for a little too much.

Typhoonpilot

 

[furloughed dude]

You guys don't get it. Who cares how many hours you fly in a 14 hour duty day? I am more tired doing turns in a DC-9 for 14 hours at NWA than I would be flying transcon turns in an Airbus. I don't find multiple hour sits help keep me fresh. I do better if I keep moving. What do you guys do to rest when you have a 3 hour sit? Call home, check your schedule, etc? It is rare to get any sleep or find a place to sleep. NWA doesn't provide hotel rooms unless you have a 4 hour sit. I think this is a great deal. I hope you guys get it approved.

It's is all about duty time for me. That is how the military does it, they don't care how much time we spend airborne, just how long we work. I don't want to talk too highly of the military's way though, a 26 hour augmented day isn't too fun. But, any way you look at it, working 14 hours sucks, but at least I would like to get paid for it!

Again, I think this is great, and good luck with the approval. Hell you could get your month done with 7 days of work. Fantastic! More time with the family and golf course!

One thing that I advocating is lenthening the duty day. It is plenty long as it is.

 

[flyguppy]

FlyingFarmer

You talk big but I bet you don't have the balls to post your name, airline, and JB application number.....

If you don't like what we do or don't do, go work somewhere else. If you think that WE, the little "start up" carrier are "changing the industry", then thank you for the compliment.

Thanks also for the unique names you chose for me/us. I enjoyed the laugh.... Sorry, gotta go clean an airplane now.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Yeah. "Thank you" for "changing the industry"?

OK........

Thank you for setting the bar low. For making this a "decent" job, with a "decent" wage, instead of the prestigious job it used to be. Thank you for allowing yourself to be paid less than what you deserve. (And work more hours for it, to boot!)

Not sure why anyone would try to get in this industry now. Work your axx off for a measly $100K/year? NOT WHAT A MAJOR AIRLINE CAPTAIN SHOULD BE MAKING! The whole thing is headed right for the crapper.

THANK YOU!!

 

[learob]

what all you other airline guys fail to understand is that we dont care what you think. The same way we do not care what you do. As for this being the worst thing ever are you all forgeting at Delta did Hawaii Turns from LAX in the DC10 where were you guys then? Will this happen, maybe maybe not. But I will tell you what if we the pilot group do not like it, it will not happen for long.

Anyway hey general did you not say that Song would put us out of business? If that is the case then it will never happen so why worry.

 

[JayDub]

[BThank you for setting the bar low. For making this a "decent" job, with a "decent" wage, instead of the prestigious job it used to be. Thank you for allowing yourself to be paid less than what you deserve. (And work more hours for it, to boot!)...
The whole thing is headed right for the crapper.

THANK YOU!! [/B]

This from a a professional in the industry where we can't even acknowledge with a nod a pilot from another airline walking through the terminal. Gawd forbid one with a "lower status" than our own, like some "icky" regional!

Have you ever been to Europe and seen how the public treats pilots? No, the disrespect you have seen goes so much deeper than perceived inadequacies of the JetBlue Pilots' contract, or their actions. All this happened long before some upstart like JetBlue ever entered the fray.

Boeing Man,

I won't even dignify your post with a response. It's a shame how much respect I've lost for you in the last week.

Respectfully,

JayDub

 

[MDP727]

At ATA we have many long turns. DTW-PVR-DTW, MDW- ARU-MDW, LAX-HNL-LAX the list goes on. We carry an IO, unfortunately, if the feds by off on this those days are over. ATA already pushes envelopes with aircraft that most airlines don't. Rest assured our management team will be all over this one.
For you guys at Jet Blue, do you really have a choice? Who's in your corner on this one? Possibly the FAA? Are any of you really in any capacity at all to stand up to management over there about anything? I'm just curious how it would affect your 5 year contracts.

 

[Dizel8]

MDP727,

I will gladly bet my bottom dollar, that the pilots at jetBlue
have more pull with management, than any other airline, the exception being perhaps SWA.

The topic of the five year contract has been beaten to death already, so the only thing I will say,is that it is a nonissue.

 

[George Jetson]

Very interesting thread with many interesting ideas and opinions.

Here's one of my thoughts.

0700 departure to LGB from JFK. The crew was probably up at 0330 or so, give or take. Arrival at LGB at 1000. The 1 hour turn suddenly turns into a 3 hour ground-stop back into JFK due to WX/Flow/ATC/etc. So the 1100 departure is now a 2pm departure for a 11pm arrival. Drive home.....by 1am. Ouch, up for almost 24 hours.

Now if that ground stop was even longer....would JBLU have a relief crew standing by so when the 320 taxies back in due to the crew turning into pumpkins, they can still get the flight out?

GJ

PS - For the record...I think Duty Time AND Rest Requirements are still the biggest problem that we as pilots face. The fact that 8 hours of rest is still considered legal is a JOKE...as is 14 extendable to 16 of duty. Why not 10-12? 9 hours AT the hotel should be FAA minimum rest...so in reality, more like 10 or 11 hours of minimum rest. Unfortunately, the ATA would lobby HARD since the airlines would have to hire another 20% pilots due to the dramatic cost increases by such a provision.

 

[Pilotbob3]

Have you ever been to Europe and seen how the public treats pilots? No, the disrespect you have seen goes so much deeper than perceived inadequacies of the JetBlue Pilots' contract, or their actions. All this happened long before some upstart like JetBlue ever entered the fray.


Respectfully,

JayDub

so it is ok to keep lowering the bar, since pilots in europe and here are treated like cheeeeet....and since it happened long before jb came along.....huh??????????

come on! is there any jb pilot who thinks this is bad? or are they afraid to be not appearing to play ball? unbelievable!!!!!!!

 

[Boeingman]

Boeingman, you are out of line. Period.

Oh I don’t think so.

I know Bluedude. I know my peers. I know myself. We are not scabs, nor do we subscribe to that philosophy. To infer that we would act thusly simply because we debate an issue on this board is ludicrous. There is no incentive to "screw our co-workers," nor to hose pilots within the profession.

I counted 4 (four) we’s in the above paragraph You might recall that my post to Messer. Bluedude was an analogy solely directed at him. The key word there was ANALOGY.
What is truly sad about the above paragraph. The fact is you will hose pilots within the profession with this stupid idea. Your comrade Mr. Bluedude went out of his way to make it clear it didn’t matter what ramifications you folks could do to others within the profession. Of course I hit a nerve with that since his comments about ALPA and such show that he is just bitter from some real or perceived hosing from the past.

Might I also add you friend make jabs at the collective idea us all in this togethor as a "profession".

To blatantly lump JetBlue pilots into a pool of those willing to sell out to the mighty dollar--which is what this really boils down to--is generalizing far beyond your intellect.

Come on. This is nothing but an argument for “almighty dollar” and trying to fix a lousy scheduling practice at your airline. Once again, I have never “blatantly lumped” JB pilots as scabs. I did say that one of your boys comes across like one. If you feel the need to sensitize the discussion and apply it to all of your comrades, that sounds like a personal problem. And one that needs some reflection in front of the mirror.

I for one am not convinced that this extended turn concept is a good idea. I have learned a few interesting (and informative) points from this thread. There are indeed other factors that must be brought into play when the final determination is made. And, most importantly, I am willing to keep my mind open to the concept and weigh all factors, only then making a decision. This is a good thing, eh? Haven't we all learned something during this thread discourse?

A good idea? The only good idea is for something you “claim” it is not about. The almighty dollar. If it looks like a duck…………………

What slays me is the somewhat narrow view taken by a few on this board. I won't name names any more than I've done thus far, but is this debate really about "me, me, me?" Like the Age 60 rule, many of the arguments esposed here smack of the "what is best for me" concept. Your concern for our welfare smacks of false promise. Don't many of these arguments revolve around how this proposal would change the industry, not JetBlue?

I could care less about JB. You can wither and die on the vine or become the best thing since sliced bread. Point is, you guys start screwing with something so obvious as to cause harm to others, you will become the pariahs of the industry.

And it is not about me me me. It is about us us us as a collective profession. If you people are so blinded that you can’t see that then you will be in for a very rude awakening someday.

I readily accept the QOL vs. safety debate in the context of this extended flying day. There may be validity in the concept of how today's management treats us vice management in place 10 years from now. These are issues that must be sifted and debated.

Being in this industry for a long time I can assure it is more than a maybe on the part of fatigue and safety. Not to mention the fact that you never, ever get in bed with management. You’re making a deal with the devil.

However there is no room in my logic for extended arguments over how this policy will affect the rest of the industry like a virus. I am open to other examples of this having taken place. There probably are a few--I'm frankly looking for illustrations here.

Your logic is handicapped by your limited exposure to this industry then. Coupled with a hefty dose of euphoria by your success to date. Like I said before, don’t think that things will stay forever like they are now. I hesitate to say this because you boys are so sensitive over there about any issues or advice that doesn’t match your agenda.

What about precedents from JetBlue? Has our profit sharing model (something that rewards the bottom line) swept the industry? Has the reliance on laptops (a move that makes tremendous economic sense in many areas) made its way across the carriers? How does a carrier fill jets without overbooking? Why hasn't the concept behind that policy filtered down?

What in the hell are you babbling about? I’m not talking about (nor do I care) about your laptops or other issues. We’re talking about pilot stuff here and how it directly relates and may cause potential harm to your peers in the industry. All of you have conveniently ignored the pointed questions about fixing an onerous scheduling policy with a contract that would prevent such abuses. After all, if it is not about the “almighty dollar” than why complain? Oh, I forgot, it was productivity right? Well here is a newsflash, the two go hand in hand.

The proposal to fly consecutive transcons is rather problematic--we need to look at that one carefully.

The point is, and you keep missing it, you shouldn’t be looking at it at all.

We are inventive for sure, opportunist perhaps.

But no one should liken us to scabs.

Another post with “we” and “us” indicating a reference to the group. Again, for the sake of argument, it was an analogy (and a **CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED** fine one) towards one individual’s comments on the board.

Boeing man,

You really think doing a JFK-SJU turn is unsafe?

Not at all. I made reference to the fact that if it was scheduled on the back side of the clock.

[/QUOTE]

Boeing Man,

I won't even dignify your post with a response. It's a shame how much respect I've lost for you in the last week.

JayDub

Oh well Jay, it was an opinion and I’m entitled to it.

I twisted nothing. "8 in 24" is inaccurate and a misnomer. That's all I said or meant to say, and you argued the point. I'm done.

I argued the point? By saying “I beg to differ”? LOL, you’re a piece of work

Of course I read correctly. You didn't call me a scab, but you did indeed equate me to a scab, or at least a probable scab. If I cross a picket line, you have the right to call me that. It'll never happen, but until then you are out of line.

Nope. Like I said, not in it’s purest form, but your mindset is no different.

OK, the flight time exemption may be a bad idea. There's plenty of evidence to suggest it may be. I don't know, all the facts aren't in. Thanks to all those who contributed. But the mere fact that it would deviate from established practice at other airlines does not in and of itself bother me in the slightest. In the context you implied, acting scab-like is just an uglier term for being non-conformist. How dare we think outside the box? How dare we go against the will of the herd? How dare we potentially make life more difficult for someone at another airline? You're darn right I'm more interested in this airline than yours. Is that selfish? No more selfish than in any pilot group. I'll not do anything that intentionally harms pilots from other airlines, but my first loyalty isn't to them or some nebulous concept like "the profession."

You’re grasping here sport. It has nothing to do with you JB elites being “non conformists”. Please tell me you really don’t believe that and it is just a limp wrested attempt to justify a really bad idea.

You’re being two faced if you think this will not harm other pilot groups, or perhaps you’re just a neophyte with a lot to learn about the airline industry, contracts dishonest management groups. Trust me pal, your days in bed with management will come to an end.

Look in the mirror, pal. We're not in the business of screwing over our fellow pilot. ALPA on the other hand seems to have specialized in it of late.

Where and when did ALPA get into the conversation. Oh yes, you keep gringing it up. Like I said to flip, if you have some axe to grind fine. So do I. But when you keep trying to make your point about this by bringing up irrelevant shots at the union, it makes your argument look even weaker.

Boeingman,

AMEN

Thank you sir. I’ve noticed that anyone inside this JB operation doesn’t seem to have a problem with this. I can understand the new guys to the airline environment thinking this would be a great deal on paper, but for some of the airline retreads over there it is simply shocking.

 

[100LL... Again!]

Originally posted by whoever:
------------------------------------------------
Thank you for allowing yourself to be paid less than what you deserve.
------------------------------------------------

Yeah, taking a job sure makes you a creep.



After seeing the level of "professionalism" demonstrated here, I can't help but feel that the JB guys are sounding more lucid.

Whoever made the point about pilots who spend a good part of the day commuting and then spend the night doing a stand-up with little sleep should definitely stay out of this argument. That is if it is really about safety. I tend to think not.

Why not allow the exemption only if it followed by comp rest - or put a 10-in-24 limit on it or something. (Since we have all now ned that there is no 8-in-24 limit).

Thaankfully, calmer heads will prevail, and the FAA will likely be very cautious about such an exemption. The understand precedent too, you know.

Sound like a good idea, in some ways. I'd be willing to do that sked, provided it was front side of the clock only.

 

[AKAAB]

I'm amazed at the level of inane speculation about JB's possible exemption to the 8 hour flight day. I've read all of the posts and no one here has even gotten slightly close to the truth - including JB pilots! Baseless speculation is a waste of all of our time.

You can continue to argue about your various points if you choose to do so, but it is all imagined evils and made-up demons. Until you see just what the exemption entails, what the controls and protocols are, and what the scientific data is to support or detract from the application, you are simply tilting at windmills.

JB is not afraid to think outside of the box and look for solutions to problems. Simply assuming something can't be done, or shouldn't be explored because the rest of the industry thinks so is not the JB culture. That said, many ideas that never make it to these JB bashing boards are proposed, studied, and rejected.

What I do know is that Emery (Teamsters?) had almost the same program in 1995. Funny, I don't remember much chatter about them ruining the industry. Is that because they were union? (What year did they unionize?) This idea was originally proposed by JB pilots, not management. Before I saw some of the particulars of the program, I was just as concerned as some others are. However, if what I've been told comes to pass, the program will benefit the pilots in a safe manner, create the opportunity for more quality-of-life, not change the staffing levels one iota, and will save some hotel costs - which is good for my profit sharing.

Ultimately, if the program is approved, tested, and adopted, it will still be up to the pilots to decide if it is better than morning-out, daytime sleep, and redeye back to base. If the pilot group is not happy with it, like some other programs that have been tested, it will be ended. However, I would be greatly surprised if that happens.

AKAAB

 

[UpNDownGuy]

AKAAB-

I don't think you get it. This is a safety issue, pure and simple. It has nothing to do with profit sharing or "the JetBlue culture."


You can continue to argue about your various points if you choose to do so, but it is all imagined evils and made-up demons. Until you see just what the exemption entails, what the controls and protocols are, and what the scientific data is to support or detract from the application, you are simply tilting at windmills


I have to disagree. I do not need "scientific data", with or without "controls and protocols" to confirm what I already know as a fact. I have thousands of hours of empirical data to support my claim. During my career, I have flown international as a 2-4 man crew, transcontinental trips as a member of a two man crew, 3 man augmented crew, Hawaii turns, and now fly international as member of a 3-man crew. During that time, I have felt my own reactions to extended duty, and observed it's effect on my fellow crewmembers. There is no getting around it: Any pilot's abilities diminish the longer he/she is on the flight deck. There are no exceptions, regardless of how much you like your company. This is not an "imagined evil" or "made up demon"; it is a fact. What I cannot imagine is flying an early morning transcon westbound in the winter, only to have to turn around and go back with only 2 pilots. Lunacy, pure and simple.


What I do know is that Emory (Teamsters?) had almost the same program in 1995.

I confess my ignorance. I didn't even know Emery had any 2 pilot airplanes. I thought they only flew the DC-8 and DC-10, both 3 man airplanes. If they had a similar exemption, then I completely disagree with their having it as well.



Ultimately, if the program is approved, tested, and adopted, it will still be up to the pilots to decide if it is better than morning-out, daytime sleep, and redeye back to base.

I have done MANY of these trips, and even if you only get a few hours of sleep, it makes a huge difference. You will never convince me that JetBlue can provide an equivelant level of safety doing turns.

I think that it is admirable to attempt to "think outside the box". I think it is sheer stupidity to re-learn what the rest of industry already knows.

 

[G4G5]

I'm amazed at the level of inane speculation about JB's possible exemption to the 8 hour flight day. I've read all of the posts and no one here has even gotten slightly close to the truth - including JB pilots! Baseless speculation is a waste of all of our time.

You can continue to argue about your various points if you choose to do so, but it is all imagined evils and made-up demons. Until you see just what the exemption entails, what the controls and protocols are, and what the scientific data is to support or detract from the application, you are simply tilting at windmills.

JB is not afraid to think outside of the box and look for solutions to problems. Simply assuming something can't be done, or shouldn't be explored because the rest of the industry thinks so is not the JB culture. That said, many ideas that never make it to these JB bashing boards are proposed, studied, and rejected.

What I do know is that Emory (Teamsters?) had almost the same program in 1995. Funny, I don't remember much chatter about them ruining the industry. Is that because they were union? (What year did they unionize?) This idea was originally proposed by JB pilots, not management. Before I saw some of the particulars of the program, I was just as concerned as some others are. However, if what I've been told comes to pass, the program will benefit the pilots in a safe manner, create the opportunity for more quality-of-life, not change the staffing levels one iota, and will save some hotel costs - which is good for my profit sharing.

Ultimately, if the program is approved, tested, and adopted, it will still be up to the pilots to decide if it is better than morning-out, daytime sleep, and redeye back to base. If the pilot group is not happy with it, like some other programs that have been tested, it will be ended. However, I would be greatly surprised if that happens.

AKAAB

How does this improve safety? How does even working more hours in the same day improve safety?

Please tell us.

 

[Skank]

Upanddownguy,
You say that you have "thousands of hours of empirical data" supporting your conclusions. What you describe is thousands of hours of anecdotal experience. While your anecdotal experience may be of great value, it is not correct to call this empirical data. What the industry needs is a data base of empirical data so that we can start making rules based on safety-minded data- not anecdotal information, not ALPA style "productivity", and not ATA style "productivity."

 

[UpNDownGuy]

English 101

Webster's 2000 ed.

empirical (adj.) 1. derived from experience or experiment.
2. depending upon experience or observation alone, without using scientific method or theory, esp. in medicine.


I stand by my original post.

 

[AKAAB]

G4G5 - As you know, I usually don't reply to your posts as I'm convinced you usually oppose anything JB does. With that said, this time you asked a valuable question:

"How does this improve safety? How does even working more hours in the same day improve safety?

First - I am not at all involved in the project - so I am primarily trying to make the point that many of you are trying to judge without valid information. However, I have asked those involved some questions about it and am satisfied that the project is at least worth exploring to determine it's viability.

Your argument is based on the assumption that 8 hours is the magic number that delineates safe from unsafe. In fact, it is simply an arbitrary number, like age 60 for retirement, that was picked without significant study of the human factors involved. Since then, NASA and other agencies have done considerable research into fatigue factors. Your perception is that simply adding hours is less safe. If that were the only factor, I might agree with you. Perceptions are tricky - for example, the public's perception is that airplanes are not as safe as cars.

Again, I caution all to be careful when you assume you know the nuts and bolts of the proposed exemption. As for safety, as long as the controls are in place to prevent certain operations - such as flying through Circadian lows, and carefully monitoring of human factors - then I believe a West Coast turn is going to be just as safe, or safer, than a 0700 JFK-LGB, motel for 10-11 hours for a daytime sleep (attempted nap), then a redeye back to JFK. I've done these flights and they are extremely fatiguing. I've also flown Part 91, 12-hour flight/18-hour duty day, West Coast turns and had no significant fatigue issues - primarily because it was a scheduled out-and-back that did not interrupt my normal sleep patterns. The most fatiguing flights to me were the corporate roadshows; 6-9 cities a day for 3 to 4 days - usually with a redeye or two in the middle, and a redeye at the end to get everyone home from the West coast.

The salient point has already been submitted earlier on this forum; a two-leg out and back for 10-11 hours of flight and 13 hours of duty is less fatiguing than an eight-leg, 14 hour duty day.
AKAAB

 

[Skank]

In science, empirical data are derived from numbers, observations, etc. I acknowledge your experience and its value, but what is needed in rulemaking is science. The current system lacks scientific basis. That is my point. Quoting Webster's doesn't make your info any less anecdotal.

 

[thav8r]

Emery in fact did request and was approved for an exemption that allowed its crewmembers to operate utilizing domestic scheduled rules as opposed to domestic supplemental. The primary reason for the grant of the exemption was to prevent precisely what we are talking about specifically circadian flips. Domestic Supp rules forced the Emery pilots into operating not only circadian flips, but also extended layovers, which in fact contributes to sleep deficit. Empirical data, (yes hard scientific studies run by Dr. Paula Tsung University of Ohio and NASA) confirmed that extended layovers in and of themselves not only contributes to sleep deficit, but makes acclimation to circadian transitions through the period defined as a circadian low more difficult.

At that time everyone opposed the exemption despite the fact that hard data sanctioned by the FAA, NTSB, NASA, the Flight Safety Foundation, University of Texas at Austin, University of Ohio, and Stanford University Medical Center Sleep Disorders Clinic confirmed that operating under domestic supp rules not only made no sense, but contributed to a quantifiable and measurable decrease in safety. Ultimately the exemption was approved and the net result was a huge improvement in the quality of schedules, days on, days off and even more important that ever non-existent and not discussed safety gremlin--the commute.

Contrary to popular belief, or the assumed belief, there is hard empirical (yes scientific studies, valid data, calibrated instruments on live human beings in cockpits while flying and while sleeping) that supports every aspect of an exemption request that prevents circadian flips. That is why EVERY country in the world, except for France and the US have moved away from flight time and established a formula for duty time + cycles + time of origin (circadian baseline) as the means for determining what is reasonable and safe from a work standpoint.

Logic (and data) supports the concept that operating 8+ cycles with 8 hours aloft and 16 hours of duty with duty beginning at 2300 is inherently less safe than one that begins at 0900. Having said that, and once again logic (and data) supports the notion or concept that its not unsafe to begin a pairing at 0900 fly west, come east and end your day at your circadian baseline having flown NOT MORE than 2 cycles and receiving 12 hours off to sleep on your own baseline circadian low and receive an opportunity to sleep through your own period of circadian low. Not conjecture, experience, but hard data supported by NASA, FSF, Ohio State, and numerous other hard studies too numerous to mention. The most significant of which involved wiring a statistical sampling of pilots to measure their sleep and alertness responses (both inside and outside the cockpit) measuring brainwave activity to determine the quality and amount of REM sleep, and T-wave data followed by coordination testing which established alertness and tendencies to exhibit episodes of "micro-sleeps" which is in fact the medical issue that is exhibited with extended period of sleep deficit (read circadian transition disturbance). The alternative to this is a daylight departure (short duty day) followed by an attempt at a day sleep, followed by a redeye, followed by another day sleep, followed by a evening departure and night sleep and a day sleep. Optional to that, would be 24-hour layovers, which in fact has been scientifically proven NOT to work. The MINIMUM period established by science and data to acclimate to a circadian transition is 3 days with at least two periods through the circadian low of the new circadian baseline. It was finally this data that convinced the Canadians (who have historically been light-years ahead of the US on flight and duty time issues) to adopt a system that finally ties duty, to circadian, to cycles and encourages schedules that enhance your opportunity to sleep and rest while penalizing those schedules that are produced during the known periods of maximum risk and reduced safety margins.

Assuming the data, the studies, and findings are found to be valid, the concept of a carrier(s) or pilot group(s) taking advantage of that concept and moving towards an improvement in safety margins and quality of life should not be shocking, or the subject of scorn and ridicule. The idea of improving safety AND quality of life should not be mutually exclusive.

An exemption (or even a regulatory change) that encourages multiple cycles and extended hours aloft does not make sense and is completely invalidated by scientific data and would not be approved. By the same token, the same concept taken with the idea to operate through the period defined as a circadian low would also make no sense and would not be supported by data.

Finally, by and large the same science that brought us today’s flight and duty time rules is now refined, with modern instruments, testing techniques, statistical analysis, computers, and yes accident data, that tells us changes should be made along the lines that the exemption is exploring. To repudiate the new science, and data, makes a mockery of the argument that supports the very foundation of what is currently in place. Ultimately, ridiculing the current Science also repudiates the previous Science and therefore completely invalidates current regulatory restrictions. There is a significant difference between destroying the old for the sake of destruction and selfishness, and adjusting that very same reality to new data, refined data, and a new environment with the primary goal of enhancing safety and reducing risks.

To do any less would be compromising safety for absolutely no gain whatsoever and that is what our profession has never been about.

 

[Mr.Aviation]

jetBlue pilots are the biggest Kool-Aid drinkers this industry has ever seen!!!

 

[Skank]

Mr. Aviation,
Intelligent post. And yes, the koolaide is good.

 

[TonyC]

Look, General, you and I both know there's nothing magic about 8 hrs of flying. In certain circumstances, 6 hrs of flying can be more fatiguing than 12. Address that, why don't you?

I agree. There's nothing magic about any of the flight time or duty limitations, so we should just get rid of 'em all. Instead of FARs, we should just all agree that when an individual pilot gets too tired to fly, he should say so. Crew scheduling will then be obligated to find a replacement for him on the spot. Oh, and the Company should then find a luxury hotel room for the fatigued pilot, wherever he may be, so that he can rest for the next duty period, whenever that may be. And since only the pilot can determine when he's rested (nothing magic about rest rules either), he'll call Crew Scheduling when he's ready to go again. (Can you imagine how many pilots would suffer chronic fatigue in Florida?!?!)

If you disagree, then don't bid those lines. I don't bid redeyes because I don't tolerate them very well (I'm usually too tired to enjoy my day off after flying them), but some pilots love them.

Seniority bidding (umm, wait, you don't have that, do you?) is always a good way to protect the senior pilots and leave the unsafe stuff for the junior pilots. After all, the junior pilots DESERVE to die, since they're junior, right?