A Question for Blue-Aid Drinkers?

[Boeingman]

BTW, there is no domestic 8 hrs in 24 limit.

Oh no? I beg to differ. If there wasn't we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Some of you people (not you, USNFDX) remind me of the pilots in the 60's who went to war insisting that the then-new two-pilot aircraft carry a third pilot in the jumpseat for "safety reasons."

Apples and Oranges

such abuses as a back-end loaded standup overnight?

How about a contract that prevents such abuses?

This proposal, if enacted properly, won't compromise safety and will improve pilot QOL. Of course, it would also benefit management somewhat. That's the real sticking point for you guys, isn't it? It's only "preserving the profession" if the company doesn't benefit, too.

You guys keep yaking about cardian rythams and such. There is also a factor of fatigue throwing in delays, MX ATC whatever. This is NOT a good idea to give any management carte blanc to start screwing with flimsy regs as they are.

Any benefit to management usually equates to a screwjob for the worker bees. Again you boys are so enamored at JB you just don't see the difference. The novelty will wear off soon, trust me.

I wonder what other brilliant ideas you people are dreaming up.

 

[jbucpt]

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!!!

Bonehead lee and farmboy you two are the biggest hyprocrites on this board!!

as far a changing FAR'S, why havent you guys fought "THE LEGAL TO START LEGAL TO FINISH" regulation. i guess its ok to fly past 8 hours during sh*t wx, but its not ok to fly past 8 hours when the wx is goods. WTF??!!

as far as a relief pilot, lets call a spade a spade, that guy is no more rested than the two already flying.

the only safety issue regarding this exemption is that a pilot is not scheduled for more than 16 hours. you know and i know it.

you two should stop drinking YOUR ALPA KOOL-AID!!

 

[Michael Knight]

Interesting topic. I'd have to agree with Dizel and others like him.

My only experience with flying more than 8 hours in a 24 hour period comes from former military flying. Those that have done military flying have likely flown 12 hours in a day on several occasions (well, maybe not fighter guys).

I really can't see how anyone could say doing 11 flying hours (~13 hours duty time) in 2 legs could possibly be more tiring than 8 hours in 7 legs (what would the duty time on that be? Someone that does this please tell us!).

I do believe some folks from airlines that routinely fly 5+ legs a day voiced there opinions against an exemption like this based on fatigue factors. Give me a break! If your company had a trip worth 11 hours in 2 legs... would you really bid for the trip worth 8 hours in 7 legs. Which duty day would be longer???? Which day would be harder??? C'mon! I've done the multiple leg thing and it is tiring compared to 1 and 2 leg days.

The feds aren't going to consider this for everyone. There will be many rules in place, to include: rest periods, time of day, # of legs, etc....

If this is implemented it would go very very senior. The only way a newer guy would get it would be on IOE or in open time.

Peace

 

[Heavy Set]

Jetblue people,

I think any change of the rules is ridiculous and selfish - you could jeopardize negotiations at other carriers. Changing that rule would definitely lead to unsafe flying in my opinion - it would open a big can of worms and potentially more unsafe changes...

Why can't you people respond professionally on this board without personal insults? Yeah, General Lee and others can be brash and sarcastic, but they don't get that personal. How about responding with LOGIC and professionalism next time.


My $ 0.02

 

[G4G5]

It's absolutly absurd to think that safety can be improved by doing this. All it can do is reduce safety. I ask anyone to tell me how this improves safety. It doesn't

I am not concerned about anyone on this board. The folks who take the time to answer posts or do the the research are not the ones who are going to be the ones who are effected by this.

What concerns me is the LCD (lowest common denominator). The pilot who is flying when his 16 year old dughter didn't come home on time last night, the wife is cheating on him, when he is 59 1/2 and just spent the better part of the last 25 years doing JFK-LGB turns. The rule will not effect 99.9% of the people on this board but it will effect some of the people that you and I fly with.

To think that it's just something that effects JetBlue is absurd. Every airline in the world will be doing it as soon as you guys lower the bar. Do you think for a minute that SW will not be flying ISP/PVD/BAL/ECT-LAX/OAK the very next day? Your competitive advantage will be lost almost as soon as you lower the bar.

What about the other LCC's. Do you B6 folks think that Air Tran or Frontier will just say screw it? Or could you be inviting competition out of JFK. Do you think Lenord(CEO of Air Tran) will stand still and just give up because he can't fly LGA-LAX?

What about the regional of the world. How long before Comair and Eagle are flying the JFK-LAX turn in a new ERJ 170's for even cheaper?

Once you lower the bar you will be playing right into the hands of the majors. What do you think has a better CSM. A full Song 757 doing a JFK-LAX turn or your A320 with it's new reduced seat configuration? This is the perfect thing for the new UAL star fish division to go after, IAD-LAX-IAD.

A competitive advantage is something that you can offer the comapny while operating with in the confines of the FAR's. Quicker turns, help clean the cabin, fly more efficient, whatever.

To go about with the idea that changing the rules we all play by is crazy. I guess all of the pilots who have been flying trans cons for all of the DECADES prior to you must have been lazy.

A relief pilot for all of the other airlines get's a dedicated first class seat or a rest bunk. To think that the relief pilot does not get rest is, once again absurd. If you make me get up at 5am for a 6am show for a 7am flight. You can bet sometime between that 7am take off and that 1930 landing (sometime during the 11 1/2 hours of flying that 5000 mile trip) I will need a nap. And yes that nap and that extra pilot will help to improve safety 100% of the time when compared to the 2 man crew that just did the same flight.

To think that you are getting a competitive advantage is truly off the wall. In no time short everyone will be doing it. To think that it's going to improve safety is absurd.

 

[Heavy Set]

G4G5,

Good post.

 

[General Lee]

JBUCapt,

You're the bonehead. Changing rules that benefit the few but affect the many is selfish. Man alive, you guys think that you are unstoppable, don't you?---riding on top of the world. I think next you will want to change the 1000 hours in 1 year rule----then you can make up for the shortage in salary and get a Dodge Viper. But hey, the company will love it. Brown nosing boobs. Yeah but, in the Military we flew 16 straight hours and then bombed Hanoi---we should be able to fly a bus to LGB.......Get over your BAD selves.....

Bye bye--General Lee

 

[SpeedBird]

Well, this is a very insightful thread. It appears that the "brotherhood" of aviation professionals will gladly kick one another in the nuts at the drop of hat if that sacred "bar" gets move (WTF is this so-called bar anyways).

While I have a vested interest in this as a jetBlue pilot, I have been totally out of the loop on this one as a result of being on mil leave. As such, I have not formed an opinion one way or the other on this apparent hot-button issue.

I for one would like to see this one get debated properly without the verbal insults and petty, childish retorts. There have been some good posts sprinkled about, but mostly this is just a schoolyard pushing match.

G4G5 mentioned safety and fatique being compromised by this proposed exception to the FAR. In principle I agree that this should be the overriding determinant. Some JB pilots have provided their reasons why this would be no more dangerous, and perhaps less so from a scheduling standpoint. I think the discussion on fly time and duty time has not been fully discussed. I'd like someone to explain how sitting in a crew room for two hours between flights has any theraputic or rest enhancing benefits, versus sitting in the cockpit of a fourth-generation EFIS aircraft cruising over the US at FL370.

Also if the brotherhood is going to make an example of jetBlue's rogue pilots for lowering the bar and reducing safety, then why didn't some of you 10,000+ hour posters slay the dragon when flight engineers were removed from the cockpit? This had a far more significant impact to reducing safety than what JB is proposing (reference Swissair), but you all seemed to have passed that "kidney stone" with little trouble. If safety is the real concern then it appears that you all either suffering from selective amnesia, or hypocrisy is still alive and well.

As for the community of JB pilots who are proposing this exemption, they have to make one hell of a good argument as to why this is really a better option to adopt. If I remember correctly one of JB's five pillars is "Safety." If the exemption can't pass this test then it needs to be dumped ASAP. One of my concerns is the issue of unintended, or unexpected consequences from the creation of such exemptions. However, knowing that JB's pilot corp is truly a top-notch group I'm sure this will be carefully reviewed without any hasty motivations.

Lastly, some of you need to really lay off the very rude comments which go on to smear the entire jetBlue pilot community as a bunch of selfish, unschooled, neophytes. Nothing could be further from the truth, and I'm sure that the vast majority of JB pilots would never reciprocate in such general terms with any other airline's pilot community. Let's keep it civil and use this forum to really discuss what is a very important issue like real professionals, not like a bunch of goons.

peace out!

 

[46Driver]

No one said anything about increased safety - what they did say was that safety would not be compromised. 2 flights per day over a long period of time is still nowhere near as fatiguing as 7 or 8 turns on a long day. Perhaps if you are going to extend the rule, then it should be tied to the number of turns in a day (i.e. only 2 or 3).

The other thing is that G4G5 sounds like a pilot who lives at his domicile and thus is home every night. As a commuter, I don't care how the nice the hotel is, its still a hotel. And if something could change to get me more days at home and less days at work, then my quality of life increases.

 

[Blue Dude]

Boeingman,

Again, there is no domestic 8 hr limit in 24 rule. The 8 hr limit is between rest periods, not in a 24 hr period. You can't quote chapter and verse to support your claim, but I can: 14CFR 121.471. It says:

§ 121.471 Flight Time Limitations and Rest Requirements:
All Flight Crewmembers
(a) No certificate holder conducting domestic operations may schedule any flight crewmember and no flight crewmember may accept an assignment for flight time in scheduled air transportation or in other commercial flying if that crewmember’s total flight time in all commercial flying will exceed –
(1) 1,000 hours in any calendar year;
(2) 100 hours in any calendar month;
(3) 30 hours in any 7 consecutive days;
(4) 8 hours between required rest periods.

Which is what I said in my post, if you'd bothered to read it. Honestly, for such a high time airline pilot, I expected a little better comprehension of the rules you supposedly follow every day. Be very sure you know what you're saying before you jump down my throat next time.

G4G5,

Wasn't discussing competitive advantage. I was discussing QOL and safety. I understand that any sort of exemption that provides a significant advantage may have to be matched by other airlines, but I think such an advantage here would be pretty marginal. There aren't all that many flights that would apply to this kind of scheduling with all the restrictions that would be placed on it. For instance, you couldn't stack a lot of shorthauls in there (too many legs) and redeyes wouldn't count (too late). It would help JetBlue a proportionally greater amount than most airlines since so much of our lift is transcon, and our average stage length is long. SWA or AAI for instance would benefit very little since they have a much greater of percentage of shorthauls. It probably wouldn't even be worth pursuing for them.

For other airlines, well, that's what your contracts are for. I don't remember you guys caring much about improving our QOL, so I guess we'll take care of that ourselves. If that affects your next negotiations, then that's frankly your problem. For all the talk about us doing something for the "profession" (a nebulous, poorly defined entity), you never seem to say when the profession will return the favor. In reality, it's every pilot group for itself. There has not been true unity among pilots groups in my lifetime, and it may never have existed. Don't preach to me about holding the line when you sell your own union brothers down the river with many contracts and side letters you sign.

I acknowledge a debt to contracts past for setting an acceptable range of pay rates and work rules. But don't expect slavish devotion to the status quo in every issue simply because it may affect other pilot groups. They're not my problem. This pilot group and improving QOL here is my problem. And if you people were at all honest with yourselves, you'd see that when it matters you already act in the same way.