JetBlue and fuel stops

[Blue Dude]

I don't think anyone is trying to minimize the effect of fatigue on transcon turns. If there's one good argument against it, that's it. But dragging out the dreaded VOR 13L into JFK as an argument against is pretty weak. That approach is practically a visual, into a flat terrain airport with beaucoup visual aids. I'd be far more scared of a straight-in ILS to minimums.

I don't think we'll ever see transcon turns. It's just possible to get away with it under the best of circumstances, but I think it would be too unreliable for any kind of consistency. 11 to 12 hrs of flight time? I don't think so.

What I do see happening are pairings that are something like FL to JFK/BOS, to the west coast. Overnight and return the same way. That's maybe 16 to 20 hours of flying in two days, four legs, right side of the clock. And there are lots of possible combinations that would work. Max of say, 10 hrs of flying per day, two legs a day, no redeyes. This is close to what you could do under JAR rules. It also has the attraction that if something goes wrong with the schedule (bad wx, mx, etc.), you're in or near a base in the middle of the day instead of at the outstation with no alternatives. This seems far more tolerant of normal disruptions than transcon turns.

 

[SUNDOWN]

It is important to note that a good percentage of the pilots at B6 due not support trans con turns. I hate to say it but we have a hard time building decent pairings now. If our management was that concerned about our Sleep Habits we wouldn't have most the pairings we do ( double red-eyes, midnight carib, etc). Dont get me wrong, I really like this place, I just think our management likes to tell us what is good for us rather than ask.

 

[elag777]

It is important to note that a good percentage of the pilots at B6 due not support trans con turns. I hate to say it but we have a hard time building decent pairings now. If our management was that concerned about our Sleep Habits we wouldn't have most the pairings we do ( double red-eyes, midnight carib, etc). Dont get me wrong, I really like this place, I just think our management likes to tell us what is good for us rather than ask.

Are you required to bid these pairings, or do you have a choice?

 

[elag777]

That's great...maybe we'll get another pen or snow globe. Or maybe even a small balsa windmill or weathervane commemorating the "Great Blowjob of 2006". Listen, I'm all for helping out the team when I can, and I'm sure it was a win-win situation for most of these folks. However, I think that we, as a pilot group, are continually shooting ourselves in the proverbial feet regarding having any say in improving our pay/benefits/ workrules/yaddayaddayadda in the future.

On another note, I'm against the transcon turns and I don't want to work beyond 60.

Oh yeah, I could do the VOR 13L/R in my sleep (which I likely would be doing if I had just done a transcon turn after commuting in and tech-stopping in DEN due to high winds).

Carry one of those snappy ALPA credit cards?

 

[SUNDOWN]

Are you required to bid these pairings, or do you have a choice?

I guess that is all based on your seniority.

 

[General Lee]

Really?

I wish I were Chuck Yeager like IB6 UB9!!! He could probably do a handflown VOR 13L app blindfolded, in a huge crosswind, behind a BA 744, after a transcon turn that flew over 10 hours, including a fuel stop in DEN and T-storms avoidance near CLE!


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[oldxfr8dog]

I don't think anyone is trying to minimize the effect of fatigue on transcon turns. If there's one good argument against it, that's it. But dragging out the dreaded VOR 13L into JFK as an argument against is pretty weak. That approach is practically a visual, into a flat terrain airport with beaucoup visual aids. I'd be far more scared of a straight-in ILS to minimums.

I don't think we'll ever see transcon turns. It's just possible to get away with it under the best of circumstances, but I think it would be too unreliable for any kind of consistency. 11 to 12 hrs of flight time? I don't think so.

What I do see happening are pairings that are something like FL to JFK/BOS, to the west coast. Overnight and return the same way. That's maybe 16 to 20 hours of flying in two days, four legs, right side of the clock. And there are lots of possible combinations that would work. Max of say, 10 hrs of flying per day, two legs a day, no redeyes. This is close to what you could do under JAR rules. It also has the attraction that if something goes wrong with the schedule (bad wx, mx, etc.), you're in or near a base in the middle of the day instead of at the outstation with no alternatives. This seems far more tolerant of normal disruptions than transcon turns.

The original premise was it was better to do a T-Con turn and end up in your domicile time-zone, thereby maintaining circadian rhythms and getting better rest. Doing an L-shaped pairing such as FL to JFK/BOS and then west coast would increase flight time with no better rest than if you just went one leg east to west.
The intent wasn't longer flight days, it was improved rest.

 

[SUNDOWN]

I think if utilized properly the Sleep AMP project could benefit everyone in the industry. I don't believe trans con turns are the answer. I do believe as someone pointed out earlier that a FLL-JFK-LGB be a good start if the tools were in place to prevent excessive duty days, all night flying, etc. Remember we must consider all pilots at our company, from the new reserve to the senior captain. I do not think the head honchos are the problem or have any bad intent. I believe the problem would arise from scheduling durring one of our IROPS. If they were given the lattitude to start building pairings on the fly with a new set of rules, this thing would go south in a hurry.

 

[JB Bus Drvr]

It's really funny how many folks jump on the get JB bandwagon. Generally, the people who comment in the absurd are either afraid of what we are doing or have no idea what they're talking about.

And GL, what happened to you. You used to make sense in articulate, reasonable posts. Whether I agreed or disagreed, you sounded like you put some intelligent thought into your writings. Now you've relegated yourself to the levels of UC, Siegel, and 32. WTF over.

 

[oldxfr8dog]

I think if utilized properly the Sleep AMP project could benefit everyone in the industry. I don't believe trans con turns are the answer. I do believe as someone pointed out earlier that a FLL-JFK-LGB be a good start if the tools were in place to prevent excessive duty days, all night flying, etc. Remember we must consider all pilots at our company, from the new reserve to the senior captain. I do not think the head honchos are the problem or have any bad intent. I believe the problem would arise from scheduling durring one of our IROPS. If they were given the lattitude to start building pairings on the fly with a new set of rules, this thing would go south in a hurry.

I agree that science supports T-Con turns with the appropriate iron-clad rules. Unfortunately, between Crew Services's "creativity" with rules, oops, I mean "Guidelines" and the "combat-mission/profit-sharing" mentality of some of our pilots, things could get ugly fast.
I still don't think FLL-JFK-LGB is a candidate. That would improve that days productivity, but wouldn't improve fatigue management in the least.