Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

A Question for Blue-Aid Drinkers?

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
You FOOLS, FOOLS, FOOLS!

How long will it take managment to abuse this one. And DON'T tell me they won't. If you actually take off your blue colored glasses for a minute and think back to other companies you flew for you'll remember that management always tries to push it just a little further. You might as well kiss goodbye any more career progression. The 1 year captains are gone. Every hour over 8 you fly is one less hour a new hire will be needed to fly. Management tells you it will be good for you, well it will be better for them. Just wait till those shiny new 190's are doing 9 hour turns in and out of JFK all day. Don't cry to those of us who realize that 8 hours of flying, regardless of how many legs, is tiring. I will be proud to say on my PA's that I am away from home 1 more day a month, but at least my selfishness is not jeopardizing my passengers safety.

The regionals are not racing this industry to the bottom, you guys are. They at least try to better their working conditions with every contract they fight for.
 
Be careful what you wish for

As an international pilot, I have done some of the multiple leg high block hour trips which by the FARs are completely legal, and with a relief pilot to boot. I can say in all honesty that I absolutely abhor flying anything more than one leg during a single duty period when it is a long duty period. To think that you won't be fatigued when you are at the end of your second leg at the end of a 12 block hour day is ridiculous. As an example, we fly a leg from Anchorage to Narita (approx 6+30 to 7+30, with around a 10:30am T/O), layover for a little over an hour, and then continue on to Seoul (another 2+30). Everyone I've flown with remarks at how much they hate this pairing, even with the relief pilot. You guys at Jet Blue may think you are getting a great deal out of this, but I imagine after a couple of months of flying it, you may see these lines start to go pretty junior. Of course I may be wrong.
 
JBLU guys your focus here is too narrow. You look at ONE route that you guys have, and the solution seems to be "Give us an exemption! I'd get more days off! I'd rather fly this! If you don't like it, don't bid it!".

Well, anyone here can cherry-pick some ugly sequence and come up with a better way to fly it that suits their needs. But guess what, scheduling doesn't listen to us line pukes who bitch. If it's legal, it gets built. If you give the company this, they will stretch it until you can't even recognize it.

As for "Don't bid it if you don't like it", the never-being junior miracle will also end sometime at JBLU. Just because you want to fly that 11-hour turn that signs in at 6 AM doesn't mean that the poor schmuck sitting reserve wants to fly it. Maybe he likes to stay up late and wake up at 10 AM, but he's too junior to hold a line - sorry, bub, but I WANT my extra day off - suck it up and fly. Are we talking QOL or safety now?

Rather than fix a VERY narrow problem with something that could protect your careers (ie getting a relief pilot and doing the turn), you seek to change a rule that can potentially affect everyone. Just look around - Hawaii turns out of LAX, San Juan out of JFK - this problem is NOT new. Asking to abuse yourselves in the process IS.

What's next? FLL-SEA turns only during Daylight Savings time?

Rather than focusing on changing a very important and hard-won rule to alleviate your problem, maybe you should fix the problem itself: onerous scheduling by your company.
 
Complacency Kills!

If you don't think so take the time to do an on line search. The NTSB list countless accidents and incidents.

Don't trust me do a Google search, just like I did. You will find that when the NTSB recently lists caueses of acidents. Number 4 on the list was:

"complacency or over-reliance on maintenance, dispatch, other crew members, or equipment to perform functions flawlessly "

Sure B6 operates highly automated, latest technology aircraft. Which do reduce the work load but they also take the pilot out of the loop. Once again, I am not concerned about the folks on this board. It's the one pilot that we all have flown with ..............that concerns me. Again, not necessarly at B6, he could be flying at one of the countless other airlines that will adopt this policy.


Granted getting handed off from Cleveland center to Ny center is a low stress function.

But,

How do you explain NAV track errors? They are nothing more then the wrong entry into an FMS.Sounds stupid, they still happen with 3 pilots in the cockpit. In route or on the ground under a no stress condition.

What about AA and Cali. The wrong FMS entry on the approach.

Unless you have flown in Europe recently you have not flown in domestic RVSM airspace. It's coming folks. 1000 foot separation. It cuts your reaction time in half. Folks will now be getting FL380 and FL400 and yes some may even enter the wrong altitude.

To think, just because I fly an A320 with 2 FMS's. I am better off then most is absurd. What's worse is it's the type of complancency I was talking about.

What does that make my G4 at FL450 with 3 FMS's? Does that allow me to just fall a sleep.

Someone mentioned commuting. How can commuting from another time zone make this any safer? It can't, especially if the JFK-LGB-Jfk flight is based upon normal times from a different time zone. What happens if they decided to depart at 11 am to make it eaiser and arrive at 11pm (regular hours)? Then talk to me about the commuter who flies in on the red eye from LA just so he can fly the JFK-LGB turn. That get's him an extra day at home.

Or do you gurantee that no commuter pilot will ever try that?

You can't argue Q of L vs safety!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That's my point, take care
 
Last edited:
Heavy Set said:
Jetblue people,

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

I don't know, you tell me? Read on further down to see how professionally your beloved General writes....

"bonehead, brown nosing boobs"

yea, spoken like a real pro! Well, he does belong to the group known industry wide as "The Professionals" right?
 
pilot141 said:
JBLU guys your focus here is too narrow. You look at ONE route that you guys have, and the solution seems to be "Give us an exemption! I'd get more days off! I'd rather fly this! If you don't like it, don't bid it!".

Well, anyone here can cherry-pick some ugly sequence and come up with a better way to fly it that suits their needs. But guess what, scheduling doesn't listen to us line pukes who bitch. If it's legal, it gets built. If you give the company this, they will stretch it until you can't even recognize it.

That may be true at your airline, but at B6, we (the pilots & F/A's) are self tasked to contruct our pairings aided by expensive software. We use a preferential bidding system similar to many others.

As for "Don't bid it if you don't like it", the never-being junior miracle will also end sometime at JBLU. Just because you want to fly that 11-hour turn that signs in at 6 AM doesn't mean that the poor schmuck sitting reserve wants to fly it. Maybe he likes to stay up late and wake up at 10 AM, but he's too junior to hold a line - sorry, bub, but I WANT my extra day off - suck it up and fly. Are we talking QOL or safety now?

We don't schedule our reserve folks to fly at all. In fact, you could call it a true reserve system because the only time a reserve pilot goes out is when someone either calls in sick, requests the day off by an established policy, or if there is some sort of legality issue due to wx, mx, etc. While your "one man's trash is another man's treasure" statement is valid, I fail to see how it has anything to do with either QOL or safety. But, thats my opinion.

Rather than fix a VERY narrow problem with something that could protect your careers (ie getting a relief pilot and doing the turn), you seek to change a rule that can potentially affect everyone. Just look around - Hawaii turns out of LAX, San Juan out of JFK - this problem is NOT new. Asking to abuse yourselves in the process IS.

What's next? FLL-SEA turns only during Daylight Savings time?

Rather than focusing on changing a very important and hard-won rule to alleviate your problem, maybe you should fix the problem itself: onerous scheduling by your company.

Not that it matters, but we already do JFK-SJU turns, and that is perfectly legal, but here's another point: how about the safety issue of that flight if conducted from 9:00 pm through the night arriving back at JFK at 6:00 am the following morning? Legal right? Have you done one of these? I have and it's far from what I consider to be ideal from a safety perspective. But, that's ok right. Man, you are out there over the sea with only a radio check in every 30 minutes or so, see what I mean? And under flag rules, you can exceed 30 hours in 7 days (not to exceed 32) if the final flight in the series was conducted under flag rules. Maybe the other carriers that fly JFK-SJU (or similar flights under flag rules)don't apply this type of scheduling, I don't know. But, ask yourself this, what's the difference between that and doing it over land, in daylight hours, and under radar surveillance?

Raises some questions for sure.

As far as FLL-SEA during DST, let's not get silly.;)

Anyway, keep it safe Pilot141 and thank you for the professional post
 
Last edited:
jetblue320 said:

Not that it matters, but we already do JFK-SJU turns, and that is perfectly legal, but here's another point: how about the safety issue of that flight if conducted from 9:00 pm through the night arriving back at JFK at 6:00 am the following morning? Legal right? Have you done one of these? I have and it's far from what I consider to be ideal from a safety perspective. But, that's ok right. Man, you are out there over the sea with only a radio check in every 30 minutes or so, see what I mean? And under flag rules, you can exceed 30 hours in 7 days (not to exceed 32) if the final flight in the series was conducted under flag rules. Maybe the other carriers that fly JFK-SJU (or similar flights under flag rules)don't apply this type of scheduling, I don't know. But, ask yourself this, what's the difference between that and doing it over land, in daylight hours, and under radar surveillance?

Raises some questions for sure.



What you guys keep missing (by using examples above) is the fact that it is not a problem with the already flimsy regs, which already allow abuses such as above. The problem is within your company that routinly schedules you to the FAR maximum. Negotiated contracts protect the pilot groups with restrictions over and above the FAR to prevent the above example....which is valid.

And your right, there is no difference but I can assure you that even with an IRO (and a FC seat) doing Int'l daytime flights exceeding 8+ hours can be extremely tiring.



jetblue320 said:

As far as FLL-SEA during DST, let's not get silly.;)


It is a valid point. You guys open pandoras box and it is possible. Not now but you can bet your blue booties that it could be FORCED upon you (or something you haven't even yet thought of).

I'm telling you all don't be so enamored with your management and hide behind a facade of QOL. Don't take this as an attack but when the pendulum swings the other way over there, and I believe it eventually will, you may find yourselves in an advisarial relationship with the present or future management team. It is ludicrus to set a precedent that can and will be exploited.
 
Last edited:
Blue Dude said:


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:
quote:

§ 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.


Poor baby. Did you consider that I was “jumping down your throat” because I said “I beg to differ”? Are we a bit hypersensitive here? Yes, I think so.

If you bother to read the following paragraph, the 8/ 24 hour is a limitation because it is a lookback provision. So in essence it becomes limitation but being the simpleton that you are, I can see how it would confuse you by just quoting the above verbatim. There is a difference in scheduled and actual limits. Obviously you have a partial grasp on this concept evidenced by your rambling to another poster about this.

Like I said before, and you convienently ignored, if there was no 8/24 you blue boys could fly all the transcons your little hearts desired and we wouldn't even be having this discussion.


(b) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, no certificate holder conducting domestic operations may schedule a flight crewmember and no flight crewmember may accept an assignment for flight time during the 24 consecutive hours preceding the scheduled completion of any flight segment without a scheduled rest period during that 24 hours of at least the following:
(1) 9 consecutive hours of rest for less than 8 hours of scheduled flight time.
(2) 10 consecutive hours of rest for 8 or more but less than 9 hours of scheduled flight time.
(3) 11 consecutive hours of rest for 9 or more hours of scheduled flight time.
(c) A certificate holder may schedule a flight crewmember for less than the rest required in paragraph (b) of this section or may reduce a scheduled rest under the following conditions:
(1) A rest required under paragraph (b)(1) of this section may be scheduled for or reduced to a minimum of 8 hours if the flight crewmember is given a rest period of at least 10 hours that must begin no later than 24 hours after the commencement of the reduced rest period.
(2) A rest required under paragraph (b)(2) of this section may be scheduled for or reduced to a minimum of 8 hours if the flight crewmember is given a rest period of at least 11 hours that must begin no later than 24 hours after the commencement of the reduced rest period.
(3) A rest required under paragraph (b)(3) of this section may be scheduled for or reduced to a minimum of 9 hours if the flight crewmember is given a rest period of at least 12 hours that must begin no later than 24 hours after the commencement of the reduced rest period.
(4) No certificate holder may assign, nor may any flight crewmember perform any flight time with the certificate holder unless the flight crewmember has had at least the minimum rest required under this paragraph.
(d) Each certificate holder conducting domestic operations shall relieve each flight crewmember engaged in scheduled air transportation from all further duty for at least 24 consecutive hours during any 7 consecutive days.
(e) No certificate holder conducting domestic operations may assign any flight crewmember and no flight crewmember may accept assignment to any duty with the air carrier during any required rest period.
(f) Time spent in transportation, not local in character, that a certificate holder requires of a flight crewmember and provides to transport the crewmember to an airport at which he is to serve on a flight as a crewmember, or from an airport at which he was relieved from duty to return to his home station, is not considered part of a rest period.
(g) A flight crewmember is not considered to be scheduled for flight time in excess of flight time limitations if the flights to which he is assigned are scheduled and normally terminate within the limitations, but due to circumstances beyond the control of the certificate holder (such as adverse weather conditions), are not at the time of departure expected to reach their destination within the scheduled time.
[Doc. No. 23634, 50 FR 29319, July 18, 1985, as amended by Amdt. 121-253



Blue Dude said:



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.


I’ll let G man pick this one apart, but in its entirety it is simply breathtaking. There is another group of individuals with this type of thinking within the industry. You sound no different that a SCAB with your opportunistic me me me me me me me thought process Really and truly disgusting.
 
Last edited:
Hey I've got an idea. Let's just get rid of duty/flight time limits all together. Rules....we don't need no stinkin' rules.


DUMB
 
Over the years AA, CAL, DAL, EAL, PAL, People Express, TWA, and UAL guys been doing/done nonstop NYC to the West Coast. It goes all the way back to the 707 and DC-8 being the first jets used. In all those years with all those pilot groups, not a single one has ever approached management with the idea that it would be more beneficial to all parities to do transcon turns! The answer is no, because they are/were all wise enough to realize how fatiging and unsafe this practice would be. Honestly, I would think the feds would be looking away from any 'exemptions' to duty rules after the American 80 got sawed in half at Little Rock.

It probably helps that the pilots of the before mentioned airlines are/were actually paid well enough that they didn't need transcon turns to afford a house in the NY area. Something more to think about. Getting to JFK is one of the worst drives from anywhere in the NY area, that's why CAL dominates NY area traffic at EWR. So saying your not a commuter (oh yeah nothing like that crashpad sleep), how early is our JB captain going to have to get up to drive to work to make his check in time and then after that fly 8.4 hours of nearly continuous duty. Don't forget the drive home as well. Sure sounds pretty d*mn fatiging to me.

I hope this is just some random rumor or something 10% of the JB pilot group thinks is a good idea, because if its a majority move then the majority of JB pilots are an embarrassment to this profession. Those who have mentioned it are dead on right, this is a pandora's box you are opening by even suggesting a willingness to do transcon turns.
 
As a pilot for an airline that regularly schedules 13:57 hour days with a 9.0 hour overnight, I dread this when our crew planners figure out what could be done with flight time in excess of 8.0 hours. For most airlines, FAR 121 is not a limitation, it is a goal.

Jet Blue is a new airline with a relatively limited number of flights that does not allow the crew planners the flexibility to extract the maximum "productivity" from their pilots yet. Just wait until you grow a little and have more flights for your schedulers to work with. You'll be sorry! Unfortunately, we will feel it first at the outfits that are flying 7 plus legs a day.

Flying tired is worse than flying drunk accordig to several studies. Why is it that the World has a coniption if a pilot is over the alcohol limit, but could care less if the pilot is a exhausted zombie?
 
Hypersensitive? No. I just dislike being called wrong when the facts are clearly on my side. It was merely an academic point, correcting a common error as a by-the-way thing, but you've decided to make a case of it so here goes.

It's real simple. Follow along if you can. Here's a sample:

--day one--

1200 show
1300 fly 4 hrs
1800 fly 4 more hours
2215 rest 11 hrs (normal rest)


--day two--

0915 show
1000 fly 3 hrs
etc.

Golly, boeing, it seems that we've just legally flown 11 hrs in 24. Guess there is no 8 in 24 limit after all, just 8 hrs between rest periods. Which is what I've said for the third time now. Got it this time?



Gee, so now I'm a scab, huh? Since when is a pilot group acting in its own best interest acting as scabs? That would make every single MEC loaded with them, by your definition. Heck, it's ALPA policy to have all MEC's act for their own pilot groups, even when they conflict with the interests of another. Guess ALPA leadership is full of scabs too. Give me a break.

Guess what, boeing, I think the jury is still out on whether this proposal is a good idea. There's been a lot of food for thought here and I have more reservations now than I did before, and I was never fully convinced. But I absolute reserve the right for the JetBlue pilots to determine what is best for them, even if it conflicts with your agenda. That opinion won't change for me. Every other pilot group does the same thing, even to the point of conflicting directly with other pilot groups. Even JetBlue. That was my only point.
 
Originally posted by Michael Knight 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!).

Its not. The only thing pilots at carriers without a lot of Association leverage have to protect them are FAR limits. Your proposal would open the door for other airlines to further abuse their pilots.

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.

Yeah, sounds great if you're one of the few guys who can hold those 'cherry trips' and those alone. Not so great if you do one of those followed by a couple of six leg / seven flight hour days while on reserve.

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....

Says who? jetBlue has the 'halo effect' these days. The last time I saw the feds get all creamy over a specific carrier it was ValuJet back in the early '90's. They could do no wrong, a shining example of unrestricted competition. The FAA let VJ get away with freakin' murder maintenance and management - wise, and we all know the result of that. A crash where 110 people died, attributed to slack management and maintenance supervision. In fact, that was the last time I remember a pilot group that so fully bathed in management propaganda in the way you guys do these days. Really, I'm not trying to shlt on the culture you guys have at jetBlue, I would just like you to have a little historical perspective. ValuJet and PeopleExpress (remember them?) used the same populist corporate culture to motivate and control the troops. So far, this form of management religion has a record of 0-1-1. Your airline is still young, and therefore the team is still on the field (sorry for all the baseball metaphors).

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.

Like I said before, or at the end of a long stretch of reserve duty days without their approval or input.

Jeez, you guys really don't get it. Maybe things will always be rosy for the jetBlue guys. Maybe you will never get at odds with your mystical management team. Maybe you will never have to work three of these turns back to back. But don't think for a minute that this won't be jumped on immediately by the unimaginative herd of other US airline managers as a way to legally extract more utility from their pilots. FAA inertia over regulations is massive. ALPA, who you guys seem so quick to bash, was the entity which forced the FAA to properly interpret their own rule regarding duty time limitations. It only took eight f'ing years. No other pilot group in the country would consider rolling back the few limits we have on flight time. If you folks are successful with your efforts, prepare to be the new pariahs in the airline industry.
 
Last edited:
Blue Dude said:
Hypersensitive? No. I just dislike being called wrong when the facts are clearly on my side. It was merely an academic point, correcting a common error as a by-the-way thing, but you've decided to make a case of it so here goes.

It's real simple. Follow along if you can. Here's a sample:

--day one--

1200 show
1300 fly 4 hrs
1800 fly 4 more hours
2215 rest 11 hrs (normal rest)


--day two--

0915 show
1000 fly 3 hrs
etc.

Golly, boeing, it seems that we've just legally flown 11 hrs in 24. Guess there is no 8 in 24 limit after all, just 8 hrs between rest periods. Which is what I've said for the third time now. Got it this time?


Cute how you twist the original intent on my post. Like I said, there is a limitation not your original cut and dried post. You have actually answered your own finger pointing. Quite nicely I might add.



Blue Dude said:



Gee, so now I'm a scab, huh? Since when is a pilot group acting in its own best interest acting as scabs? That would make every single MEC loaded with them, by your definition. Heck, it's ALPA policy to have all MEC's act for their own pilot groups, even when they conflict with the interests of another. Guess ALPA leadership is full of scabs too. Give me a break.

Guess what, boeing, I think the jury is still out on whether this proposal is a good idea. There's been a lot of food for thought here and I have more reservations now than I did before, and I was never fully convinced. But I absolute reserve the right for the JetBlue pilots to determine what is best for them, even if it conflicts with your agenda. That opinion won't change for me. Every other pilot group does the same thing, even to the point of conflicting directly with other pilot groups. Even JetBlue. That was my only point.

You really are a dumbass aren't you? Or perhaps it is a simple reading and comprehension problem. I said you sound no different than a scab. Not that you are a scab. But I have no doubt in my mind that given the opportunity, judging my your arrogant screw everyone else attitude you'd scab in a heartbeat. Of course you hide behind this facade of something being in the best interest of your blue brothers. LOL, your thinly veiled agenda is easily seen by those outside your commune. It is nothing more than a lame excuse to do something really stupid, and against all common sense.

My agenda along with every other 121 pilot is not to see regs written in blood, be further abused. What is even more sick about you and your peers is they try to equate it as a QOL issue when it is a safety issue. Who cares listening to those who have done this routinly for years. As long as you can keep blowing your management and getting better days off.

One day my friend things may not be so rosy over there. You're screwing with something that may end really backfiring in the future. Don't think for a second your management team will be there forever or they will act the same if/when things turn south financially. Your attiude and many JB pilots remind me of another airline and their arrogance...Peoples Express. where are they now smart guy?

Pull this off and I guarantee you JB boys and girls will become the bane of the industry. If this is the type of crap going on over there, I wonder what other gems you fools are thinking up?

You failed to answer that one.
 
Last edited:
Jetblue320,

You didn't like my "bonehead, brown nosing boob" remark? Hopefully you guys won't be known as that---I would much rather be known as "the professionals" any day. I know most Jetblue pilots aren't boobs, but it did get my point across---this rule is here to help us. Getting greedy so that 20 of your pilots can get lines that give them more days off, while other airlines might exploit this new rule change or exemption is wrong. Guys who favor less safety for the majority in return for more days off are BOOBS.

Bye Bye--General Lee:cool: :rolleyes:
 
I said you sound no different than a scab. Not that you are a scab. But I have no doubt in my mind that given the opportunity, judging my your arrogant screw everyone else attitude you'd scab in a heartbeat. Of course you hide behind this facade of something being in the best interest of your blue brothers.

Boeingman, you are out of line. Period.

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.

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. You are obviously an experienced pilot; are you indeed a skilled thinker and communicator? You may want to divorce yourself from the debate and rethink your overall objectivity. Food for thought.

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?

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 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.

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.

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?

I have said it before and I'll say it again. I am no Pollyanna. There are warts at JetBlue and we are trying to fix them. The proposal to fly consecutive transcons is rather problematic--we need to look at that one carefully.


We are inventive for sure, opportunist perhaps.

But no one should liken us to scabs.
 
Hypocrits (not everyone),

First off, I'm against this for personal reasons but not for safety reasons. I don't believe the feds are going to let any airline maverick their way into unsafe practices. That is why this "exemption" has not happened yet (a thorough review needs to be done) and heck, I haven't seen anything official about this either, so we really don't know.

njcapt, you would be correct if we routinely flew 6 leg days or even 4 for that matter. Those trips are VERY few and far between. That is why any "exemption" to this rule will be looked at by each company and I highly doubt ANY rule change would occur. The feds aren't stupid, they know their are airline managements that already fly their pilots into exhaustion (Jetblue does not do this).

I mean really, do you really think the FAA would allow Southwest to do this without limiting their number of legs or any other company that routinely has their pilots fly an excessive number of legs (an VERY unsafe practice in my opinion).

So, why isn't there a limit to the number of legs per day. We all know that the most stress and fatigue comes from the terminal phases of flight. If you don't, I have a few book recommendations for you.

Peace :)
 
Last edited:
Jet Blue Pilot Meeting:

Wow...more than 8 hours in 24...yea...that's reeely cool man...

...you pack another bowl and I'll go see if the other dudes dig it...

It's called a precedent and it will be used by every airline in this country to erode the regulation.
 
WOW

100+ Posts in one day!

Jet Blue guys, should take note of this. There are several strong reasons why this is not a good idea. Sure in your microcosm it probably make sense to you now. In the long run it would certainly be extremly bad for the industry as whole and Jet Blue in the future.

This is NOT JET BLUE BASHING!

Although many have used this as opportunity to do so, and there have been many uncalled for personal attacks on bothsides. It is in YOUR best interest to take heed to what an alarmingly strong negative reaction to a potential 8 in 24 "modification"
 
USNFDX, that would be good advice if the 100+ posts were well thought out, concerned opinions which offered some solution. Unfortunately many of these posts reveal a pre-existing animosity which is spewed out with emotion and insults. Idiot, Scab, Blue KoolAide Drinker, etc, etc, etc. Thanks for all the input guys, but I think we've lost any chance at discussion here. Continue your rants, I'll move on.
 
Boeing man,

You really think doing a JFK-SJU turn is unsafe? I am surprised, since it is two legs with a duty time of around 10hrs and actual flightime of around 7:15 with an one hour or slighly more turn in SJU.

Just curious?
 
Boeingman said:
Cute how you twist the original intent on my post. Like I said, there is a limitation not your original cut and dried post. You have actually answered your own finger pointing. Quite nicely I might add.

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.


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.

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."

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. Take the beam out of your own eye before trying to remove the mote from mine. A wise man said that once.

Yeah, I'm done too. I think we've mined all we can here. Til next topic.
 
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
 
Michael Knight said:
Hypocrits,

I'm not sure what was hypocritical about my position on the issue. I have fought the pushing of pilots, with or without the pilots' approval, all through my 12 year airline career.

njcapt, you would be correct if we routinely flew 6 leg days or even 4 for that matter. Those trips are VERY few and far between. That is why any "exemption" to this rule will be looked at by each company and I highly doubt ANY rule change would occur. The feds aren't stupid, they know their are airline managements that already fly their pilots into exhaustion (Jetblue does not do this).

I want all the forum members with more than one airline's worth of experience to chew on that statement for a couple of seconds...

Just wait until the honeymoon is over, Chief. You WILL be doing four to six leg days. You WILL be forced into maximum utilization at some point. If Song (ATA, AirTran, etc.) really gets under your airline's proverbial skin your contract won't be worth the paper it's written on. Oh... wait a minute. You don't have a contract. Just the sunny good will of a management that hasn't had its back to the wall yet. Your airline hasn't had its fourth birthday yet. In the airline life cycle you guys are still filling up diapers. How do you know where you and your airline will be another four years from now? Should you guys get bent from abusive practices by your management, you'll be left twisting in the breeze by your lack of formal organization... to the detriment of you and the industry as a whole.

This whole thing would really be amusing if the welfare of the rest of the industry wasn't riding on your pilot group's lack of perspective.


I mean really, do you really think the FAA would allow Southwest to do this without limiting their number of legs or any other company that routinely has their pilots fly an excessive number of legs (an VERY unsafe practice in my opinion).

Unlike the jetBlue pilots, the Southwest pilots have SWAPA, a very unified and powerful UNION, with an equitable contract, that stands between them and pushing by management.

Southwest has been doing their thing for more than 30 years, and they haven't felt the need to get an OPS SPEC waiver of the safety related regs. You guys are so hopped up with your own glee that you are considering undermining the collective safety net of the whole industry. No shlt, the minute you guys get this through the feds, our (ATA) management will be busting our balls for relief on the west coast - Hawaii and EWR - SFO flying, and it WILL cost us in our next set of negotiations. Just so a handful of your pilots can slop at the gravy train.

So, why isn't there a limit to the number of legs per day. We all know that the most stress and fatigue comes from the terminal phases of flight. If you don't, I have a few book recommendations for you.

Hey, Don Quixote. Anything else in the industry that annoys you? Please, tell us what we should do. The more mature, organized, airline pilot groups have safety organizations that actually have an impact on national airline safety. What do the jetBlue pilots bring to the table? Sounds like you guys want all the bennies, but don't want to perform the heavy lifting required to change things in a positive manner.

Maybe with your lack of perspective, you fail to realize that ALPA (oh, dear, that dreaded word again) attempted to get modifications made to the current regs a few years ago. Opening the discussion up caused the ATA (the trade group that your f'ing airline is a member of) to use all their power to attempt to RELAX the current flight and duty time limitations. So, your statement that we (I guess that means ALPA) should try to get limits on the number of allowed daily legs is ludicrous. Especially when you say that just so a few members of your pilot group can more easily pick up open time and have more days off. Sounds pretty selfish and short-sighted, doesn't it.
 
If anyone cares to read another post, at my airline we have a 12.5 hour duty day and as previously stated the pilot side of this industry has been fighting just to get a 16 hour day to mean exactly that. So JB pilots, please don't preach to us that we haven't tried to do anything to enhance safety. The problem is every time some genius is able to come up with a new way to exploit what is already there or worse change what already exists, it creates another issue which takes many years to fix. But I guess Jet Blue doesn't really care about their passengers unless it means giving them some mindless drivel to stare at in the seatbacks. I will tell everyone I know as much.
 
For the record ALPA DID try to reduce the max flying day based on the number of legs. The holdout? SWA. They argued that they felt MORE refreshed after a 5 leg day than a 1 leg day of equal hours.... They also handfly Cat III's. Do you think they will utilize their much more powerful lobbying efforts to get the multileg extention? Maybe if the wx is forcast to be good? (I filed into Gander with a VFR forcast just last week only to arive to 1/8 mile vis). In a competative enviroment, every other airline MUST match you. It's about a 10 hour flight from ORD-FRA. One leg. Couldn't I rationally argue that I personally sleep in so the 1430 departure time is actually shortly after I wake up? so wouldn't it be "safe". Well you just cost 1/3 of the jobs flying that route. I guess that'll be more pilots on the street willing to work for less than you at Virgin America (and I'll bet branson will hire better looking F/A's..). You can rationalize exemptions to ALL limitations. Why should i be stable at 500 feet? I used to push it in the military to 100 feet. I was "safe". Why not change it. Any limitation you can find will have circumstances that a "just as safe" or even SAFER situation can be found beyond the limitation given an idea set of circumstances, the problem is once the Camel gets his nose under the tent...
 
Unstabilized at 100 feet? Is that considered "safe"?

Let's look at this from another viewpoint. Would anyone "push" an approach that was not stabilized down to 100 feet during an annual checkride? I think not.

I think the same might hold true for this out and back issue. Would you want a Fed to jump on in OAK during one of these turns and administer a check? I dunno....this will certainly be interesting to watch....

-#1W
 
That last leg flying back into JFK (at a busy bank by the way---4-5pm) both of you will be useless. You will have had maybe 1 hour to stretch your legs in LGB, load up on 3 more latte's, and those comfortable A320 seats would have been calling you for a little nap. Then you will be dangerous when the rest of us fly into the NYC area. Thanks a lot! But, you can sleep it off over the next 6 straight days off. You guys just don't get it, do you?

Bye Bye--General Lee:confused:
 

Latest resources

Back
Top Bottom