I think you over state and misrepresent the case. First no airline plans any flight at Vmo. Please produce some evidence for this accusation. Second, FARs do not specify how rest is to be accomplished, only that there is a need for rest on flights of certain duration. How carriers accomplish this is up to the carriers to accomplish. Produce a bit of evidence to support your accusations against Carty.
AA pilots
- Thread starter Duke787
- Start date
If using strict engineering language with cruise charts, yes I overstated the speed by maybe 10 kts. It was several particular flights, one where the two man crew resisted and were pressured into accepting the flight. They flew over 8 hours. The flight in question was planned for FL260, close to .84 Mach. If your previous cockpit avatar was accurate, real world experience would tell you the limitations and lack of turbulence/wind knowledge their generally is at that altitude unless everyone else high up descended for chop. The B767 speed control varied by each aircraft. At that planned speed, I'd guarantee the Vmo clacker would go off at least each hour.
One of our guys filed a whistleblower case with the FAA, available for public viewing on the pilot union site.
I stand corrected for the bunk issue. Bunks are contract.
The Asia B777's came with the bunks as well as a different 1st class seating. Another subset for the Atlantic and Latin America came without bunks. It was on Carty's watch. For whatever reason, the pilot bunks were left out. While I might understand the issue preventing installation if extra revenue seats were involved or major configuration issues, but on the non-Asia birds, the bunk room was still there, the intercom , the carpeting and wallcovering, the fittings for the bunks and maybe the O2 piping (not postive). It was an empty, unsuable hole in the airplane. Even if it was a Carty vs APA and APFA fight, (I heard offhand they were involved somehow with their own bunk issues), basic business sense was questionable since the Asia and Euro/LA birds could not be intermixed. A few years ago, all were fitted with bunks, whether for operational reasons or pilot rest is unknown to me.
Quieter and more private. Middle pilot break is quiet. 1 and 3 generally are like trying to sleep in a Lazy boy chair in a Denny's. Then again, even sleeping in a bunk can be like sleeping in a bedroom behind a kitchen with a 13 year old slamming every cabinet, fridge and oven door for 1 hour straight. I think some FA's worked on their tennis serve muscles in the galley
Quieter and more private. Middle pilot break is quiet. 1 and 3 generally are like trying to sleep in a Lazy boy chair in a Denny's. Then again, even sleeping in a bunk can be like sleeping in a bedroom behind a kitchen with a 13 year old slamming every cabinet, fridge and oven door for 1 hour straight. I think some FA's worked on their tennis serve muscles in the galley
In my experience the 767-300 pilot crew rest seat is the worst in the system if not the industry. How pilots get any rest in that seat is beyond me. The Denny's analogy is right on. The FA crew rest seat is only ok because it has curtains. That middle empty galley seems to be a draw for all of the passengers who can't sleep to meet up and have obnoxiously loud discussions. I've rarely been on a break that people weren't gathered there or where FAs weren't rumbling carts in and out or loudly shooing the loud passengers out.
eolesen
Veteran
- Jul 23, 2003
- 15,988
- 9,428
The decision on the split Pacific/Atlantic fleet was definitely capacity driven -- there was a different J density in addition to the different F product.
What's ironic is AA did almost the same thing on the MD11's. Single config when they were first delivered.... then a split config, and then back to a single config...
I don't recall the bunk area on the 77A's being a void. My recollection is that the Atlantics had 18F, and the Pacifics had 16F. The only other place for a seat pair is where the bunkhouse is.
E,
The pilot bunkroom location was the same for the Asia and Europe birds. It was on the outboard side of the short aisle to the cockpit door. There was no difference in galley or lav location with the pilot bunkroom. The non-bunk Europe birds had the same bunk room door, same carpet floor and sidewalls, lighting and intercom as the Asia birds, but no bunks installed. It was a small empty room. I think the O2 wasn't outfitted, so the FAA said it was verboten to use even with a pilot sleeping on the floor, which is probably why the message came out forbidding it. A few guys tried at least.
The FA configuration may hav been different between aircraft. Their "condo" may not have been iinstalled on the Europe planes. While I don't know the exact issue or the APFA contract, it happened on Carty's watch. I don't know if the APFA contract would allow a Europe plane to do DFW-NRT witout FA bunks if pilot bunks were installed.
I don't know the exact issue preventing the bunk installation. I do know a Chief Pilot implied to me and a couple other pilots after we asked why they just didn't put the D#$< bunks in, his response was
"you have to consider the needs of the FA's regarding the issue" We all said "WTF" at the same time. The thinking was that was a negotitating issue for APFA, we weren't going to pay for another unions "me too clause" if that was the problem.
The pilot bunkroom location was the same for the Asia and Europe birds. It was on the outboard side of the short aisle to the cockpit door. There was no difference in galley or lav location with the pilot bunkroom. The non-bunk Europe birds had the same bunk room door, same carpet floor and sidewalls, lighting and intercom as the Asia birds, but no bunks installed. It was a small empty room. I think the O2 wasn't outfitted, so the FAA said it was verboten to use even with a pilot sleeping on the floor, which is probably why the message came out forbidding it. A few guys tried at least.
The FA configuration may hav been different between aircraft. Their "condo" may not have been iinstalled on the Europe planes. While I don't know the exact issue or the APFA contract, it happened on Carty's watch. I don't know if the APFA contract would allow a Europe plane to do DFW-NRT witout FA bunks if pilot bunks were installed.
I don't know the exact issue preventing the bunk installation. I do know a Chief Pilot implied to me and a couple other pilots after we asked why they just didn't put the D#$< bunks in, his response was
"you have to consider the needs of the FA's regarding the issue" We all said "WTF" at the same time. The thinking was that was a negotitating issue for APFA, we weren't going to pay for another unions "me too clause" if that was the problem.
I would much rather have a pilot taking a FAA aproved nap during flight when it is less criticle then have him/her feeling sleepy while performing the difficult task of landing.
lpbrian
Veteran
- Mar 7, 2004
- 687
- 105
lpbrian
Veteran
- Mar 7, 2004
- 687
- 105
There was a void in the now bunk area. It served as an oversized closet back then. There was also 60C in Atlantic ( and no main deck crew rest) vs. 42C (with MDCR). The Pacific birds also had Japanese signage in the cabin. I wonder if Carty was involved. AA ordered 777's in early 1997, Crandall was still in office? I could hardly think the CEO would involve himself in such trivial matters.
All 777s were the "Asia" configuration from March 1999 until about June, 2000, when AA began taking delivery of "Atlantic" configured planes, which featured the Flagship Suites in F, 14 fewer J seats, no FA rest condo and, apparently, no bunks in the nearly-finished bunk space forward of 1L. On the surface, I can see the appeal, since Atlantic and S America (where the Atlantic planes were to fly) were all shorter than 12 hours.
But what a stupid, tightwad decision for the obvious fleet complexity reasons. Atlantic planes couldn't be used to NRT and passengers were PO'd when their LHR flights featured the non-Flagship Suite Pacific versions. And FAs were not happy that they had no real decent crew rest facility on LAX-LHR or DFW-LGW, both fairly long flights.
Sorry but the CO pilots take the cake. On the 757 and 767, if BF is full of revenue pax, they get a row in coach, no curtain either. FA's have better crew rest than that.They can thank their negotiators(mostly 737 guys) for that SAFETY SELLOUT.
Embarrasing too.
I've never heard pilot commuters carp about commuting. To a degree it's their choice, but with the amount of displacements and chaos in the system now, many junior people are getting pushed out of base and out of equipment. For a junior guy, this crappy and unstable company isn't worth investing money in moving your family to some dunghole like NY or Miami. Heck, the company has made it pretty plain that they want to get rid of at least 1500 pilots by beating workrule concessions out of the APA on this next contract.
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
While you're technically correct, check out Advisory Circular 121-31 for what should or must be considered when providing a pilot rest facility for flights over 12 hours.
Jim
I have a hard time seeing a future in the American aviation industry where productivity is not the name of the game. If APA wants to preserve the majority of its members' jobs it is going to have to give some on work rule issues.
Getting rid of 1500 pilots for productivity saves maybe, $225 Million a year even at the low ball rates we're working for now. That isn't going to save AA.
Perhaps you can expound on what AA pilots can do to fly more? Maybe then you will realize that AMR has never optimized the airline for minimum pilots. Other priorities have always come first which results in a less productive pilot group.
Perhaps you can expound on what AA pilots can do to fly more? Maybe then you will realize that AMR has never optimized the airline for minimum pilots. Other priorities have always come first which results in a less productive pilot group.
