Originally Posted by Gunfighter (Post 3676847)

The intercom handsets are accessible in the bunk. Bunks seem wider, but I haven't measured. USB charging and individual temp control IIRC in each bunk. Pilots can enter/exit simultaneously on four pilot ops. Rectangle not tapered at the feet. You can make the bed from a standing/leaning position vs crawling in on your hands and knees.


330-300 has enough headroom to sit up in the bunk and read, but it lacks an actual seat. The changing area outside of the bunk is separated from the FA bunks by a curtain.
330-200 has two chairs, two bunks and more standing room. It's a brutal commute all the way to the aft galley, but glorious once you get there.
330-900 has two bunks, two chairs, standing room of the -200 and is located in the middle of the plane.

Until the recent A350 mattress upgrade the 330 was ahead in that category as well, now they are even.

Originally Posted by Gunfighter (Post 3676847)

The intercom handsets are accessible in the bunk. Bunks seem wider, but I haven't measured. USB charging and individual temp control IIRC in each bunk. Pilots can enter/exit simultaneously on four pilot ops. Rectangle not tapered at the feet. You can make the bed from a standing/leaning position vs crawling in on your hands and knees.


330-300 has enough headroom to sit up in the bunk and read, but it lacks an actual seat. The changing area outside of the bunk is separated from the FA bunks by a curtain.
330-200 has two chairs, two bunks and more standing room. It's a brutal commute all the way to the aft galley, but glorious once you get there.
330-900 has two bunks, two chairs, standing room of the -200 and is located in the middle of the plane.

Until the recent A350 mattress upgrade the 330 was ahead in that category as well, now they are even.

Originally Posted by JamesBond (Post 3676828)

Nope. Align it with EKG requirements.

Originally Posted by Iceberg (Post 3676948)

Thats called wishful thinking. You couldn’t make a huge change in regards to age limits and the associated tie in with cognitive decline without expecting a drastic change in the way pilot medicals are assessed.

Originally Posted by JamesBond (Post 3676952)

There's precedence. Nothing changed when 65 happened with regard to medicals. If you add cognitive testing, there's no precedence to tie it only to 65+. It would be logical in a sense, but what's the logic behind EKGs at 40+?

Originally Posted by JamesBond (Post 3676952)

There's precedence. Nothing changed when 65 happened with regard to medicals. If you add cognitive testing, there's no precedence to tie it only to 65+. It would be logical in a sense, but what's the logic behind EKGs at 40+?

Originally Posted by FangsF15 (Post 3677009)

The logic with EKG at 40+ is based on well established medical statistics and standards of care - well beyond anyone's expertise here. But I can at least say 20 y/o don't tend to have too many Myocardial Infarctions...

Originally Posted by FangsF15 (Post 3677009)

The logic with EKG at 40+ is based on well established medical statistics and standards of care - well beyond anyone's expertise here. But I can at least say 20 y/o don't tend to have too many Myocardial Infarctions...

Originally Posted by Jaww (Post 3677011)

It’s the APC of old!

Originally Posted by Jaww (Post 3677011)

Was this a jab reference? Where’s Drum to discuss the kompany. Or Margaritaville (or some version of that). It’s the APC of old!

Originally Posted by JamesBond (Post 3677017)

Again then, what's the medical precedence for cognitive testing based only on age 65? They're are thousands of 65+ corporate pilots and they have very safe records. The safety argument is a very slippery slope. I would suggest cognitive testing at 50 if you really want to go down that road. That age makes as much sense as any.