A Question for Blue-Aid Drinkers?

[jetblue320]

Ditto

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.

That's ok D8, let them rant and rave about how we have fouled up everything for them. It's kinda like the SW guys who ruined this industry before we came around. These guys are just downright negative people and it scares them to see anybody try to be productive. I mean, afterall, they got theirs right, screw everybody else. This is from guys who wouldn't give up a dime to save their "union" bro's who are coming to JB because they are unemployed. Turnabout is fair play you know.

Geez, and we have been accused of being bitter!

 

[NYRANGERS]

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.

Give me a break. I have many good friends at jetBlue (one in management..GH) and I have been very impressed with your company. This is not the issue, so try not to use silly techniques to argue your point.

I have been furloughed for quite some time....so believe me, it WOULD upset me so see any pilots on the street. Try to be careful of what you are accusing me of.

Take care and fly safe,

NYR

 

[General Lee]

Whether or not NYR wants Jetblue to fail----this whole subject is really that JB pilots want to change a rule that was made to protect pilots from fatigue. You can't get away from looking like giant boobs.


46drvr,

If we were to get a paycut coming up here, I bet the jumpseat thing will be on the table. We can't really negotiate that right now because we are refusing the large 31% paycuts the company is telling us we need to take. Can you see that we have our plates kind of full right now? How about we give up the pay and bring the bar even lower, but in return we get unlimited jumpseats on full airplanes..... We are working on it, but for now we are happy with a jumpseat (or 2 on planes with 2 jumpseats---777, 764, 767ER, MD11).

Bye bye--General Lee

 

[Blue Dude]

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?

And as G4G5 has pointed out, there's already a legal exemption to the flight time limits. But even the vaunted relief pilot scheme isn't a very good fix. Sure you have three pilots, but only two on duty at a time. What's the third pilot do? He languishes on a jumpseat or more likely in a passenger seat. Is he really becoming adequately rested or just marking time? Unknown and unknowable. The regular pilots being relieved are in the same boat. One third of the time they are off flying duty, but that flying duty they are being pulled from consists mainly of monitoring systems and checking in with center. Instead of keeping mildly alert in a comfortable seat, instead they might be able catch a catnap in a less comfortable seat, distracted by all that goes on in the cabin. Heck of a way to "exempt" yourself from flight time limits, isn't it? Seems to me a better way is to limit such exposure to times when you're physiologically alert anyway, and stay occupied with what amounts to light duty. 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.

IMHO, the relief pilot scheme is only an acceptable "exemption" to most pilots and pilot groups because it employs more pilots, not because it's inherently safer that way. Same for other augmented crew schemes, though long haul airlines absolutely depend on them. If you were really serious about ensuring adequate rest (as opposed to merely getting paid to sleep in a bunk or a seat), you'd insist that every long haul flight swap crews halfway at a tech stop. Instead you attack another solution that may well be more sound from a physiological standpoint because it's "Not Invented Here", it'll affect the competitive balance and it may become a talking point in your next negotiations. I'm sorry if I have a hard time mustering much sympathy.

 

[furloughed dude]

I think being able to work 11 hours in one duty period is great. At my last airline, I had many 14 hour days with 6 legs. This at a airline that was supposed to have a pretty decent contract (NWA). To me the biggest factor is duty period, not how much time you fly in a day. Those days where you have multiple 2 hour sits certainly don't make me feel rested. I would rather limit my time away from home. The bottom line is not to screw with the length of duty..

Great job JB guys. I think this is a welcome change.

 

[NYRANGERS]

The bottom line is not to screw with the length of duty..

Great job JB guys. I think this is a welcome change.

And where does that start?.........with an 8 in 24 extention. Maybe not this year or next........but it's a start.

 

[Dizel8]

NY said:
"Here is an indirect way to stop jetBlue's push for unsafe skies............(ie. 8 hour rule extension) yea yea whatever...it's only an exemption for you.....B.S!"

"Push for unsafe skies, ie 8 hr?" What other thing does jetBlue do, that you consider unsafe? I mean, on one hand you say that you have friends here, know people in mgmnt and think its a good company, yet you feel here that are unsafe! I must be missing something.


46Drvr,

Just like Delta was happy with no jumpseats. I doubt the Dear Gen. is pushing the bar for anyone but himself.

 

[NYRANGERS]

NY said:
"Here is an indirect way to stop jetBlue's push for unsafe skies............(ie. 8 hour rule extension) yea yea whatever...it's only an exemption for you.....B.S!"

"Push for unsafe skies, ie 8 hr?" What other thing does jetBlue do, that you consider unsafe? I mean, on one hand you say that you have friends here, know people in mgmnt and think its a good company, yet you feel here that are unsafe! I must be missing something.

In my opinion, increasing the number of hours one can fly in a day is unsafe, that is what I was refering to (if you know of any others feel free to share). What, may I ask does that have to do with me having friends at jetBlue?

Remember, this is not about me. I have nothing to do with the release of personal data or changing the 8 hour rule.

How you feel about me is irrelevant. If you are to accuse me of anything.....make it bad spelling.

Take care Dizel,

NYR

 

[Boeingman]

Folks,

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

And that is supposed to make it safer? So it's a money issue?

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.

You have it backwards. I don't work my ass off. I have made a fortune on the side, thankfully.

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.

You're running off on a tangent here. The problem lies that you're fooling with pandoras box. And yes Blue dude, it does effect everyone. Just because you and your pilots want to blow managment doesn't make it a good deal for those in the industry trying to keep the bar up.

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.

So where are these relief crews going to be? You're telling me JB is going to staff relief crews in case of unforseen problems? That is the dumbest thing I have heard in a long time, and I seriously doubt it would happen from an economics standpoint. Sounds like smoke and mirrors to get you guys to buy off on this productivity bonanza. I mean management productivity bonanza.

Aircraft stops right where it is? LOL, point you're missing is eventually management will get that changed as well.

I have a bridge for sale if any of you blue dudes are interested.

 

[jetblue320]

And that is supposed to make it safer? So it's a money issue?

Aircraft stops right where it is? LOL, point you're missing is eventually management will get that changed as well.

I have a bridge for sale if any of you blue dudes are interested.

Apparently you haven't been reading closely. jetBlue Management is not the one trying to push this thing, it's us, the pilots, and we are not trying to change the rule, just merely get one portion of it (being able to fly a transcon during daylight hours as a turn) permitted. The folks that are doing all of the ground work with the FAA are not upper level management, they are working stiffs.

And to the guy who posted that ALPA should put a stop to this; well, I heard they did file a blocking motion of some sort, don't know the finite details, but their efforts were fruitless. The FAA is still reviewing our request.

Happy trails.

 

[General Lee]

Blue Dude,

On ATL--NRT flights (14 hrs enroute) we do have two Captains and two FOs---and those flights are certainly long enough and full of fatigue. (I haven't flown them myself, but have been told that it is tough to get alert again descending into NRT--especially in typhoon season....) But, if you guys started flying those route, I bet you would change some rules there, too. Give me a break----8 hrs of Southwest flying (15 min breaks between flights) or 8 hrs of Delta flying (2 hrs between flights --so it really equals 14 hrs of duty time)--both suck. Throw in bad wx somewhere in the country, and those Long haul LGB--JFK, or LGB--FLL, or LGB--IAD flights will become tougher, and unless you are a superman, like most of you claim, concentrating fully on descent in your last leg will be tough. Sure, things like Continuous duty overnights are also full of fatigue, but there are limits on those in most contracts too. The most important thing here is that you would be changing a rule that was made to protect the majority of non-superman pilots (probably like me)--who want to be safe and alert. That really can never be gaurunteed----but the rule was made for a reason. Changing it for your benefit will allow others to exploit it too. Failing to see that means you are just full of yourself--not caring about others. But hey, you have great morale at Jetblue----gung ho!!!!

Dizel8,

I am not at the top of our payscale, but I would like to have the chance to make more. We will resolve the jumpseat deal eventually. I wish everyone could make more money----and the bar does rest on us right now--and you know that. Maybe we should all fall down to your level and all move into one huge apartment building in Yonkers. I hope the pizza is good in that area.

Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[Boeingman]

Apparently you haven't been reading closely. jetBlue Management is not the one trying to push this thing, it's us, the pilots, and we are not trying to change the rule, just merely get one portion of it (being able to fly a transcon during daylight hours as a turn) permitted.

No, I have understood it perfectly, and it is even more reprehensible that a group of line pilots would even consider such a thing. What you're missing is the precedent it will set, now and in the future. So define daylight hours. The aircraft has to depart and land during offcial sunrise and sunset times?

Management is like ex wives, give them an inch they will take a mile. Your honeymoon with JB will end and sooner or later, management will exploit your group. Perhaps not this mgmt team but these guys don't stay forever.

[B

The folks that are doing all of the ground work with the FAA are not upper level management, they are working stiffs. [/B]

See above. Stiffs is a very appropriate term I might add.

[B
And to the guy who posted that ALPA should put a stop to this; well, I heard they did file a blocking motion of some sort, don't know the finite details, but their efforts were fruitless. The FAA is still reviewing our request.

Happy trails. [/B]

Can you provide any proof to this?

 

[Dizel8]

Gen. Dude,

There you go about Yonkers again. But hey, perhaps DAL pays to little, see plenty of Double breasted suits there.

 

[NuGuy]

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.

To translate for the rest of us: "ME ME ME BLAH BLAH BLAH ME ME ME ME ME ME BLAH BLAH BLAH ME ME ME ME ME ME BLAH BLAH BLAH ME ME ME ME ME ME BLAH BLAH BLAH ME ME ME"

You can bet if the FAA approves the exemption, every other management will be beating down the doors. If the FAA exempts one airline, they must allow the same exemption for everyone who asks.

The pilot group at JB is rapidly becoming what ALPA calls a "rogue airline".

Lovely...

Nu

 

[jetblue320]

No, I have understood it perfectly, and it is even more reprehensible that a group of line pilots would even consider such a thing. What you're missing is the precedent it will set, now and in the future. So define daylight hours. The aircraft has to depart and land during offcial sunrise and sunset times?

Management is like ex wives, give them an inch they will take a mile. Your honeymoon with JB will end and sooner or later, management will exploit your group. Perhaps not this mgmt team but these guys don't stay forever.

See above. Stiffs is a very appropriate term I might add.

Can you provide any proof to this?

First off, I am not missing anything other than your point, which, for the record, could give a hoot less about. If we are such "stiffs" (which I said and you exploited) then we don't stand a chance in heck of getting it approved and then there is no precedent and you are getting worked up over nada.
And as far as the definition of daylight hours, I would say that sunrise sunset is a good one but I don't know the detals of the proposal. It's not something that we at JB are drooling over, just a project in the works.

Secondly, I think your parallel of management and ex-wives is a good one, for most companies, I mean, I didn't just fall off the turnip truck BTW and have a few past employers that fit that bill (and an ex-wife too although she might not even be alive who knows) so I dig where you are coming from. I appreciate your skeptasism in my bosses but they are just that, mine, and I will worry about that. But thanks for your warnings.

Not nice calling us stiffs, it was just a slang that I used, but I can take it. I am quite alive and well.

And as far as proof with the ALPA thing, I have none. Maybe I could have been more clear. I thought I said "I had heard (meaning through the grapevine) but don't know the details" but you maybe read more into it??? It doesn't really matter what ALPA thinks or does anyway, at least, not to us.

Have a good 'un (or try to anyway).

 

[USNFDX]

Reality

OK, Sure most people will agree that certain types of duty like a 6-7 leg 7+50 SWA day which is legal, is tougher than a 2 leg west coast out back. Everyone will probaly concede that. So you guys get your "modification" and let's say the FAA approves you for 10 hours. Now every other airline's mangement put's in for their "modification" and all of sudden the SWA guys are pulling 8-9 leg 9+50 days. Sure SWAPA wouldn't allow it to happen, but what would they give up to keep their quality of life. Especially when management is crying about the competion.

Fedex tried somthing similar about a year and half ago. They wanted an 8 in 24 exemption if a crew was delayed in the field. That way they could schedule us to 7+59 without fear of the delays that occur all the time. As a new guy, I didn't see what the big deal was all about. Now after flying the line for a couple years I understand. The Union and Pilot group were adamently opposed. They didn't want to lower the bar any further.

DON'T LOWER THE BAR -- STOP THE RACE TO THE BOTTOM!

 

[Dizel8]

Nuguy,

Did you mean to say rouge or did you mean rogue

 

[Maj]

"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."

I asked those questions about 300 posts ago. I'm still wondering why everybody cares what 'our little airline' is doing while your own management are still reeling from their staggering strategic miscalculations. And they're taking it out on you and your paychecks while lining their own pockets. And you say it's our fault?

If this thing is even approved, and if/when you enter new contract negotiations where it could even be an issue for your miserable little bubbles, I hope all of your ALPA Kool-Aid and dues proceeds protect you from the jetBlue pilots' attempts to ruin the profession, lower the bar, and any other negative 'outside the box' ideology that we and our touchy-feely, granola-eatin', sandal-wearin', cumbaya (sp?) singin' management can scheme.

The last paragraph is mostly sarcasm.

 

[General Lee]

Dizel8,

What? The Double breasted uniforms get a lot of compliments---especially from "the ladies.." (Don't tell my wife---although she is one of the "ladies....") Our uniforms are a lot nicer than your blue ones with blue epilets (sp?)---or did you change those? Maybe you did, but they weren't very stylish. And check this out---our Song (or Thong) flight attendants will be wearing "Kate Spade" uniforms----which will probably be super trendy--I guess???? So, how is Yonkers anyways? Do most of your people based in JFK live there or another borough? Queens? Brooklyn? The Bronx with J-Lo? I am just curious.

Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[Blue Dude]

USNFDX, your concern is duly noted re: hours creep, but my understanding is that any flight limit exemption would be leg limited, i.e. no 6 leg 10-hr days. Remember: equivalent level of safety. Nobody in the FAA or at JetBlue would sign off on something that might cause a safety compromise down the road.

BTW, there is no domestic 8 hrs in 24 limit. There is only an 8 hour limit between rest periods, which is quite a different thing. It is theoretically possible to fly as much as 15 hrs in 24, which is one area where the current rules fall far short. And the current 8 hr limit doesn't apply if you stick to your originally scheduled flying and unforeseen delays occur. "Legal to start, legal to finish." So I suspect that Fedex's flap with management was about something else.

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." Thin, barely plausible reasoning mostly inspired by job protection, not safety. This issue is similar. The rest rules as currently written aren't very good, but since your contracts are based on them, you'll fight to the death any proposal that changes the status quo. Which is better: a longer, circadian-rhythm-friendly, leg-limited flight time limit or such abuses as a back-end loaded standup overnight?

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.

 

[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.