Jetblue Will Try Anything

[scot]

My comments get yelled at by the moderators and by all the Jetbluers. But my comments are factual, reality based

[post="261057"][/post]​

No, your commentary line regarding Jetblue at the bottom of your post got you yelled at by the moderators. The comments and subject in the original post, as you were advised by me, were not a problem. Lets not erroneously drag the moderators into the fray on the subject at hand. As long as the posts are "factual and reality based" and not outright abusive or derogatory in nature, there will be no problems.

 

[javaboy]

You're wasting your time Bear96. You're dealing with a group of employees in the honeymoon phase of a rapidly growing, successful company. Most of the people on this forum correlate unity/unionism with economic failure because Airline X is near or in bankruptcy, and ALPA (or insert other union here) is at Airline X, therefore ALPA (or insert other union here) is the root of the airline industry's problems. They have payrates for a 100 seat jet at PATHETICALLY low payscales that all 737/DC-9 operators will soon be matching in a few years because we'll have to in order to stay competitive, and they're about to probably bring about a change in FAR's that will be twisted and turned and abused by just about every airline management team (and the ATA for that matter) in a few years more. I can already hear the ATA in front of the FAA a few years down the road......."But JetBlue does 2 transcon legs in 10 hours of flying and a 16 hour duty day and they're doing OK. How about we just do a "case study" and try for 3 legs? Or 4? It's just one or two more legs and it's safer than doing an all-nighter and those are legal....." Even if the pilot group agreed with my above statements, they are literally powerless to do anything about it anyway for fear of being a squeaky wheel with the end of that 5 year contract just a few months away.......

And that's just starters. Pray to Orville and Wilbur that JetBlue doesn't get a widebody aircraft someday, although it's just a matter of time. What do you think their widebody aircraft rates are going to be? Or workrules? Do you think the bar will be raised as high as it was with the EMB190? I can already hear Neeleman......"You know guys, I realize widebody captain rates just about anywhere are in the high 100's but, you know, we only netted 300M last year and these planes are really expensive so these widebody payrates are going to seem a little low but I'll give you time and a half above 70 hours even though they're about 30% less than industry standard but we have to stay competitve and there's nothing you can do about it anyway so........And you guys don't need a crew rest area on this thing. You're already doing transcon turns back in the US so why don't we just plan on doing Moscow turns? It's only a couple of hours more than you're doing already. Don't worry about changing the FARs, I have my chief pilot working on setting up a case study right now......." Then the collective sigh will be heard throughout the industry again and the spiral will continue. Maybe someday we'll look to this pilot group for industry leadership, but unfortunately that day has not come.

And before you JetBlue drivers see my screenname and say, "well we pay better than UAL does," I say, we're in bankruptcy, and we came DOWN to your payrates and work rules in order to be competitive. You guys had an operating income of 112M and a net of 47.4M for 2004. What's JetBlue's excuse for continuing to set the bar lower?

[post="260918"][/post]​

your first 2 sentences were right on the money. i believe that is a relatively accurate statment. the rest while frustrating is most likely incorrect. SWA the king of the low fare industry started with low wages and is now the highest paid 737 pilots in the world. also how come they dont have wide bodies? or fly "across the pond" they only serve 60 cities not several hundred. Projecting JB will go intl (trans atlantic or pacfic) or widebody aircraft is most likely an incorrect projection into the future. those types of planes/routes does not "fit" with the business model in place at JB nor SWA nor AirTran. In downturn economic times, the low cost competitors always appear to have "it" in hand. of course the economy wont always be down nor will the legacy carriers. then it will be back to whatever i got mine go fly your planes do your thing. JB has what 3% market share at the MOST UAL had at one time 31% now in the mid 20% range. just an observation thats all but since pot shots were taken.......

how's your pension?

 

[luvn737s]

How many other "experiments" does the FAA allow with passengers on board? If JetBlue needs to study something, fire up one of those shiny Airbusses Part 91 and fly it wherever you want and see how the pilots feel. If they do get a waiver it should include a requirement to notify the passengers that they are participating in a fatigue study. Maybe they should print it on their coffee cup sleeve.

On a side note, I recently saw an indication that the labor harmony at JB may be over: an Airbus with the slogan "Blue in the Face" on the nose. (

 

[WNrforlife]

How many other "experiments" does the FAA allow with passengers on board? If JetBlue needs to study something, fire up one of those shiny Airbusses Part 91 and fly it wherever you want and see how the pilots feel. If they do get a waiver it should include a requirement to notify the passengers that they are participating in a fatigue study. Maybe they should print it on their coffee cup sleeve.

On a side note, I recently saw an indication that the labor harmony at JB may be over: an Airbus with the slogan "Blue in the Face" on the nose. (

[post="261734"][/post]​

No doubt....

 

[Red Tail Bear]

How many other "experiments" does the FAA allow with passengers on board? If JetBlue needs to study something, fire up one of those shiny Airbusses Part 91 and fly it wherever you want and see how the pilots feel. If they do get a waiver it should include a requirement to notify the passengers that they are participating in a fatigue study. Maybe they should print it on their coffee cup sleeve.

On a side note, I recently saw an indication that the labor harmony at JB may be over: an Airbus with the slogan "Blue in the Face" on the nose. (

[post="261734"][/post]​

How about a WN slogan on a 737 "Green with Envy"

 

[luvn737s]

No, if you look closely on the WN jets with the valentine on the side, it says, "We've got a 'heart-on' for JetBlue".

 

[traderjake]

ALPA's president, Capt. Duane Woerth, personally informed the FAA administrator "in the strongest possible terms" that ALPA will vigorously oppose granting this exemption and "all the copycat exemption requests that will surely follow for competitive reasons." He said, "The inadequacy of the current flight and duty time limitations are well known to all, especially as the duty day limit-16 hours-is ridiculous." For nearly 10 years, "the FAA has promised Congress an NPRM to address all of these scientifically proven shortcomings," Capt. Woerth observed. "Yet, as of the end of the first quarter 2005, no NPRM is in sight or even discussed."

Capt. Woerth warned that "allowing JetBlue management or any airline official to cherry-pick the rules by exemption cannot be tolerated."
UNBELIEVABLE...YOU GUYS SHOULD STOP THIS OUTRAGEOUS BULLSHIT! :down: :down: :down: :angry:

[post="260568"][/post]​

[/quote]

______________________________________________________________

If you are going to be on duty for 14 hours would you rather fly two 5 hour legs or five 1 hour legs?

Opposition to changing the 8 hour rule is nothing but union feather bedding by ALPA. If they cared about safety they would eliminate 9+15 hour minimum overnights.

 

[luv2fly]

______________________________________________________________ If they cared about safety they would eliminate 9+15 hour minimum overnights.

[post="262278"][/post]​

[/quote]


What,,.. 8 hours of sleep isn't enough for you?
The FAA is not going to change the 8 hour rule just so JB pilots can do transcon turns. Get over it.

 

[traderjake]

It's 9+15 from block in to block out the next morning.

That means 8 hours off duty. (15 minutes for the passengers to deplane and show up 1 hour prior to departure the next day).

Subtract the time to ride to and from the hotel under the best best conditions & you have 7.5 hours in you hotel room.

Subtract time to unpack, pack, shower and shave and you get 6.5 hours to sleep and no that is not enough.

The 8 hour max flight time rule is featherbedding.

Scheduling a crew for 6.5 hours sleep is unsafe.

I do not work for Jetblue.

 

[luv2fly]

It's 9+15 from block in to block out the next morning.

That means 8 hours off duty. (15 minutes for the passengers to deplane and show up 1 hour prior to departure the next day).

Subtract the time to ride to and from the hotel under the best best conditions & you have 7.5 hours in you hotel room.

Subtract time to unpack, pack, shower and shave and you get 6.5 hours to sleep and no that is not enough.

The 8 hour max flight time rule is featherbedding.

Scheduling a crew for 6.5 hours sleep is unsafe.

I do not work for Jetblue.

[post="262758"][/post]​

To date the FAA disagrees with you. Many contracts stipulate 8 hours behind the door at the hotel. Many duty times are predicated on some form of duty in, duty out time table. For example, thirty minutes to an hour before and after showtime. Having flown for a commuter where reduced rest was scheduled for the rotation, I believe the 8 hours rule should stand. There is a big difference in doing a two leg 8 hour day and doing 8 hours in two or three turnarounds.
If the FAA were to increase the limit, you would see some regionals doing six and seven legs a day. That's hardly featherbedding, and I don't care who you work for.

 

[Bob Owens]

______________________________________________________________ If they cared about safety they would eliminate 9+15 hour minimum overnights.

[post="262278"][/post]​

What,,.. 8 hours of sleep isn't enough for you?
The FAA is not going to change the 8 hour rule just so JB pilots can do transcon turns. Get over it.

[post="262286"][/post]​

[/quote]


With mechanics the requirement is 2-24 hour periods off per month. Mechanics are regularly scheduled to do short swings where they are only off the clock for as little as 7.5 hours. Thats from punch in to punch out. So figure at least 45 minutes on each end to get to and from work (for most its at least 1 hour each way) and you are down to 5 hours at home, figure another 1 hour between going to bed and getting up and you are down to 4 hours sleep.

Even with just 4 hours sleep the mechanic has met the FAAs rest requirement for mechanics. Mechanics can stay on continuous duty as long as they dont exceed the two 24 hour periods per month. In other words they can legally work as much as 650 hours straight, if their bodies would allow it.

Any pilot that would be in favor of changing duty cycles or retirement is a moron. These limits were put in for safety reasons but have the added side effect of increasing the earning potential and demand for pilots. Because there is no real limit to the hours worked by mechanics the company can hire less mechanics and simply make them work overtime when needed. Instead of fighting for a living wage mechanics work more hours instead. Some mechanics work at two employers and dont meet the required 2 24 hour rest periods as per the FAA but since mechanics hours are not logged like pilots there is no way for the FAA to monitor this. The fact that your hours and career are limited is a unifying force that has helped to elevate pilot pay to where it is. Any changes to either of these limits would in effect increase the supply of pilots and therefore help drive down compensation.

 

[jbu320]

So why is it not a big deal to cross the border and apply international flight time rules and that's ok but this is not ok? Not saying I support this move at all but there seems to be some out of balance arguments for and against. I know in the long haul it is ok to put in much more body bashing hours but it seems unpopular with domestic rulings. What gives with this disparity?

 

[luv2fly]

So why is it not a big deal to cross the border and apply international flight time rules and that's ok but this is not ok? Not saying I support this move at all but there seems to be some out of balance arguments for and against. I know in the long haul it is ok to put in much more body bashing hours but it seems unpopular with domestic rulings. What gives with this disparity?

[post="268324"][/post]​

That is fine if you want to carry the supplemental pilot as well.

 

[jbu320]

That is fine if you want to carry the supplemental pilot as well.

[post="268328"][/post]​

True, but I was never part of a long haul Pacific augmented crew that didn't put in more hours in the seat than domestic trips. Even with the breaks in the bunk, it wasn't like one arrived feeling like a well rested youngster. It just seems a little lopsided but then again there isn't a lot to do on long haul as far as dealing with anything other than performance tracking and position reports. I have mixed feelings about the rulings. B)

 

[Skymess]

What I'm saying is, from a purely quality of life standpoint - and paycheck, as well - I'd take the 1-day transcon turn any day.

Be careful what you wish for. Your quality of life will not improve if they fly you transcon turns. You will feel tired all the time when you are home. Any enjoyment you get out of your job will be gone and you will be dreading making the trip in to work. You will also age more quickly then you would have just taking it easy and not working beyond a healthy limit.

Take it from me. When you work too many flight hours per day, with no/inadequate rest, it takes a toll on you mentally and physically.

I think you people at Jet Blue need to really think this one over because, as everyone else is pointing out, this won't be the end of their experiments. Next thing you know they will decide to take that Airbus further than you expected and you people will somehow be doing LHR turns with a two man crew and a stop in Gander for fuel.

I hope the FAA turns this one down.