FAA to require longer pilot layovers on ultralonghaul routes

[FWAAA]

While pilots will cheer these new rules, it's possible that regulation could eventually make ultralonghaul routes uneconomical.

Bucking opposition from U.S. airlines, federal regulators have issued rules aimed at reducing the hazards of pilot fatigue during the longest international flights.

After 18 months of debate between some airline officials and the Federal Aviation Administration, the agency intends to impose tougher crew-rest requirements and other safety measures on flights operated by AMR Corp.'s American Airlines and Continental Airlines Inc. between the U.S. and India. Over time, the rules are designed to apply to all U.S. carriers flying so-called ultra-long-range flights, which can last 16 hours or longer.

The new rules mandate that pilots on the longest routes get at least 40 to 48 hours of rest after arriving, for example, in India from the East Coast of the U.S. Rules now require shorter rests.

Continental and American resisted mandating the longer rest periods. The carriers also objected to other special restrictions involving the training and qualifications of the pilots on board.

Rest of article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1226719088...=googlenews_wsj

 

[Skymess]

While pilots will cheer these new rules, it's possible that regulation could eventually make ultralonghaul routes uneconomical.



Rest of article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1226719088...=googlenews_wsj

No pilots I know are going to cheer having to stay 50 hours in India, or anywhere for that matter.
Who'd want to fly a whole month of that if they have a family or life at home?

 

[L1011Ret]

You are suggesting no pilot will fly the routes. When I flew Around the World on TWA the Eastbound route took 10 days. The Westbound route took 12 days. The Westbound route was much more senior, right off the top of the seniority list. We flew 18 day trips from the West coast to Vietnam. Those trips went very senior. We flew trips that based us in CDG, BRU, VIE and ATH for 30 days and longer. We flew 3 week trips into Cairo staying at the Ginza House at the base of the great pyramids during the Yom kipper war. They went senior too. If there is a deal, pilots will bid to fly it.

 

[ozcobber]

Absolutely correct Bill. For we F/A's also. The 3-day layovers in CAI, TLV and BOM....were ultra senior. The BOM trip was 10 days, and if we were lucky, we back-to-backed them from one month to the next and spent whole weeks at home before and after....really cut down on the commuting.

 

[PHL]

Also consider the senior people flying those routes probably are empty nesters, with many also possibly not married. So, they might not mind such a trip....

 

[Skymess]

You are suggesting no pilot will fly the routes. When I flew Around the World on TWA the Eastbound route took 10 days. The Westbound route took 12 days. The Westbound route was much more senior, right off the top of the seniority list. We flew 18 day trips from the West coast to Vietnam. Those trips went very senior. We flew trips that based us in CDG, BRU, VIE and ATH for 30 days and longer. We flew 3 week trips into Cairo staying at the Ginza House at the base of the great pyramids during the Yom kipper war. They went senior too. If there is a deal, pilots will bid to fly it.

I'm just going by what I know at AA. Most people don't mind one long layover but don't really want to do a whole month of them. If you have nothing going on at home and don't mind being gone, it's a different story. It's also a different story if you are laying over in a place where the U.S. dollar is strong vs. weak. Even so, I know very few people who want to be on endlessly long layovers, regardless of where they are.

 

[IORFA]

Skymess is more likely correct. People like 1 or 2 long trips, not a whole month of them. People talk about their time and whatever airline they currently work for or previously worked for. AA is totally different from most stories. Remember here, at AA, the "rockets" go the most senior. Which is the complete opposite of what previous people on this thread talked about. AA people are "time whores". Most people want the most time in the least amount of days. The occasional multi-day layover is OK, as long as it is not every trip. Way too many commuters here at AA. I know every airline has a lot of commuters. Problem here is that AA culture is that most people want to show up, work as many hours as possible and go home as fast as possible. Nobody is saying pilots won't work the trip, that is just ignorant. The trip will just not go as senior. People have lives and want to participate in them as much as possible.

 

[fliboi78]

I'm wondering if this is why airlines used to only hire unmarried people who had, "nothing going on", in the past.

 

[upsilon]

My understanding is that the proposed rule would apply only to flight crew. On daily flights the FA layover on turns would be the same. Only pilots would skip a turn or whatever required to meet a 40-48 hour minimum.

 

[FWAAA]

No pilots I know are going to cheer having to stay 50 hours in India, or anywhere for that matter.
Who'd want to fly a whole month of that if they have a family or life at home?

Good point. The pilots union and its leaders probably cheers the new rules (as it leads to a greater number of pilots required to fly these ultralonghaul routes) but individual pilots may not like sitting for 40-50 hours in their DEL hotel - not to be confused with the Hotel DEL in SAN.

The impact of these rules will fall much more heavily on DAL than AA, since DAL has the 777LR (and more of them on the way). AA is unlikely to start very many more potential 16 hour+ flights, at least not until the 787s arrive.

 

[CubsFanJohn]

Could this mean the end of ORD-DEL possibly? But I think AA will fight this thru and bite the bullet.

 

[FWAAA]

As expected, AA and CO have sued the FAA over these new crew rest rules:

http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Stor...p;siteid=yhoof2

 

[youbetcha]

This new rule does apply to FAs as well.

 

[The Goose]

The flying public will see this and read into it "Airline management doesn't want crew rest periods on long haul flights". I'm sure the fools will gets a bonus for their stupidity.

Regardless of what's said as an excuse later, the perception is there now. The management has proven once again they're no brighter than a box of burned out light bulbs.

Why we spend time worrying about union representation any more is beyond me - when the management seems to have a corporate death wish any efforts to improve the workers' lot are negated.

Would the company really have preferred to file bankruptcy in 2003? They seem to be making up for lost time now.

 

[FWAAA]

New article from the WSJ about the new pilot rules and the lawsuit:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1231115410...=googlenews_wsj