A Question for Blue-Aid Drinkers?

[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.

 

[Dizel8]

I must apologize, I may have contributed to the confusion. Daylight hours are not exactly correct, more like regular hours, as in between perhaps 7 am to 9 pm. Again, have not seen the entire proposal

 

[Blue Dude]

G4G5,

Just read your post. Thanks for at least addressing the only real issue here: safety. I'll take it under advisement. More importantly, so will the FAA before they ever issue such an exemption. If this ever happens, it would have a number of restrictions on it. Even weather restrictions? Who knows? If equivalent safety can't be demonstrated and guaranteed, it's a non-starter.

 

[Maj]

Wow, I guess I'm a slow typer...

BM,

Some valid points. However, I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree. Personally, I don't feel like I'm bending over for the company. Nor do I feel like I am contributing to the demise of the aviation industry. I truly feel like this waiver could benefit me and others in our (JB) pilot ranks. And if it's good for the company...even better.

I'm not implying tough titties when I say I feel for you (or really the bottom dwellers of your company's seniority list). I feel for the all of the folks who are being furloughed, taking pay cuts, etc. at other companies. I have many friends in that very predicament. I've also flown with many guys and gals here at JB that have come from a major airline. Believe me, they don't have too many nice things to say about their former employers or their unions.

If your contract is so great, and your union (I'm assuming that you're union) is so great, and your union grievance procedures are so tried and true, what do you and the other naysayers have to worry about? After all, isn't that where all your dues go? I'm sure nobody is getting insanely rich off of them at your expense.

It'd be great if we could all gather at the bar, drink many beers, and solve the world's problems. It would also be great if we could all make $300/hr and have 20 days off/month. But the reality is that times, well, they are a changin'. Your comments and opinions are welcome, but you're pointing your fingers at the wrong group.

 

[JayDub]

Folks,

There is one element you are missing here; time and a half for over time.

1. That's why guys don't mind flying 12 days instead of 10. They already have their part-time gig, they don't need to be working their___ off like Boeing Man.

2. If your contract is already affected by mine, why aren't you getting time and a half for over time? I do, and if it's as trickle down as you say, you should be getting time and a half for everything over guarantee.

Lastly, there are limitations.. from what I understand, if there are delays, a relief crew will be provided at the out station. Also, if the plan deviates at all, the aircraft stops right where it is. Then again, this is all in the planning stages. If we were privy to every idea your companys' were planning, maybe we could judge you, too.

Respectfully,

JayDub

 

[G4G5]

Tell me that some commuter is never going to try and do a 11.5 hour, JFK-LGB-JFK. The next day, fly a JFK-FL-JFK turn. Then get up and do another JFK-LGB-JFK turn.

That's under 30 in 7. Not smart but legal. Do you want to be a passenger on that last leg home, when our well rested pilot has to shoot a min approach?

What's next an exemption to the 30 in 7 rule?

Or tell me that some poor reserve pilot could not get stuck flying the above mentioned sequence. That's two West coast turns in 3 days!

Or will mgt give you a gurantee that you will only fly one of these a week? Then why even bother?

You know they will want you flying more then one of these turns in a week.

I can't believe the pilot group is actually for this..............

You can BS yourself all you want about, "normal hours". If it's not day light then one end of the trip is going to be at night. 10am then land at 10 pm. Or will it be noon to midnight, because you are a West coast commuter (who by the way just commuted in that morning) Is that normal for you? And we as pilots all have normal hours. Everyone of us lives on the same clock.

Relief crew for a delay? Can you say airport stby for the jr puke on reserve?

How many ways do you guys want to lower the bar.

Just do like everyone else does and either say NO or Demand a relief pilot.

This, we are smarter then all of the pilots before us. Is really a bit hard to swallow

 

[General Lee]

You JB guys are awesome. I am glad that we have "supermen" flying around like you guys. If you guys can do it-----go for it. Hopefully you guys will change some other rules:

1. 30 flying hours in 7 days
2. Age 60 retirement
3. Age 21 for drinking
4. Age 17 for rated R movies (also PG-13)
5. Age 16 for driving (age 14 in Kansas)
6. Being an American born for President of the United States(Here
comes Pres. Arnie)

Any others I have forgotten? Thanks a lot. You guys are really special.

Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[G4G5]

G4G5,

Just read your post. Thanks for at least addressing the only real issue here: safety. I'll take it under advisement. More importantly, so will the FAA before they ever issue such an exemption. If this ever happens, it would have a number of restrictions on it. Even weather restrictions? Who knows? If equivalent safety can't be demonstrated and guaranteed, it's a non-starter.

Thanks.

I know that someone else will call it JetBlue bashing but it's not. My attitude would be the same if it was CAL or Comair.

I understand that you guys have a great relationship with your mgt and you want to help. I only wish we had the same at AA.

But
We as pilots need to stop doing these types of things to ourselves. It's just not a positive thing for the profession.

 

[yaks]

Ding Ding Ding! We have a winner for worlds stupidest pilot group: Thats right, it's JB!

 

[Maj]

Make it Stop!

Uncle!

 

[Maj]

Speaking of Stupidity

Dude, according to Webster, "stupidest" isn't a word.

 

[NYRANGERS]

Maybe this will make it stop.......I doubt it though..



U.S. should prosecute JetBlue, privacy group says
September 22, 2003 4:04:00 PM ET



By Andy Sullivan

WASHINGTON, Sept 22 (Reuters) - A privacy-rights group asked U.S. regulators on Monday to prosecute JetBlue Airways Corp.(JBLU) for secretly giving the names of more than a million of its passengers to an anti-terrorism screening program.

JetBlue violated a promise to maintain customer privacy when it gave passenger information to a military contractor last year, the Electronic Privacy Information Center said in a complaint filed with the Federal Trade Commission.

JetBlue apologized last week for handing over passenger names, addresses and phone numbers in an effort to help the U.S. Defense Department identify possible terrorist threats.

According to documents posted on the watchdog site www.dontspyon.us, defense contractor Torch Concepts Inc. crossed passenger lists with additional personal information such as Social Security numbers and income levels in a data-mining program to determine whether passengers could be assessed for a security risk.

Data aggregator Acxiom Corp (ACXM)., which provided the additional information, was also named in the EPIC complaint.

Both companies misled consumers through statements on their Web sites that said they would not share personal information with third parties or give consumers some say in how that information is shared, EPIC said.

"Such action violated the publicly posted privacy policies of both companies and misled consumers in a very unfair and deceptive manner," EPIC staff counsel Marcia Hoffman told reporters in a conference call.

EPIC also asked the Federal Aviation Administration, the Army and the Transportation Security Administration for further information about the program.

An FTC spokesperson declined to comment.

Such use of passenger information is common in the travel industry, according to author and privacy activist Edward Hasbrouck. Reservation firms have provided airline and hotel records on several occasions to government contractors looking to test their screening systems, he said, and much customer data is poorly protected against computer hacking.

"The abuse of privacy by JetBlue was not unusual," said Hasbrouck, who called on Congress to investigate industry practices. "What was unusual is JetBlue actually having a privacy policy."

A JetBlue spokesman did not return a call seeking comment.

An Acxiom spokesman was not immediately available for comment. REUTERS

© 2003 Reuters

 

[jetblue320]

Ding Ding Ding! We have a winner for worlds stupidest pilot group: Thats right, it's JB!

And you fly for who?

 

[General Lee]

That's right, Jetblue only hires geniuses. Come on, everyone knows that the 8 hour rule was made to protect pilots from fatigue. I guess you also want to change other rules, like the Whitlow (sp?) agreement--limiting the number of hours reserves can be on duty. What next?

Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[46Driver]

This isn't any different than the fight over scope clauses or the age 60 rule. Those that are doing well want to maintain the status quo - and those that want to improve their position want change.

Also, General remember that:
The age 60 retirement, the drinking age of 21, and the driving age of 16 haven't always been so - they were changed to their current limits due to political pressure - and no reason why they can't be changed again.

Finally, when are the majors going to quit "lowering the bar" and have unlimited jumpseaters like the regionals?

 

[Dizel8]

NY, such a nice guy. Hoping jetBlue gets in deep dodo, so we can have more pilots out on the street. jetBlue failing would surely elevate everyones else wages and QOL, who knows, perhaps everyone would get recalled.

Sorry NY, but hoping that jetBlue fails because of this is just plain sad and worse, it goes to show what kind of person you are.