Iah-syd
09-07-2017, 07:42 AM
#11
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2010
Position: EWR 777 Captain
Posts: 1,715
I have zero facts, but I suppose it could end up being a 6 day out of SFO with a dead-head on either end. That would be one heck of a great trip for someone that lives in IAH. I figure it might be a 37-38 hour six day which a local IAH pilot could turn into a 37 hour 4 day. Now THAT is a trip!
09-07-2017, 07:44 AM
#12
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: 756 left
Posts: 771
The left and the right hand aren't talking.
09-07-2017, 07:45 AM
#13
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2012
Position: 787
Posts: 3,202
What's the logic behind the requirement of actually having a "category" at a certain domicile? Does it drive certain staffing needs that incur additional overhead costs? If so, why? If for instance the 787 has 1 trip from DEN, 1 from IAH, 4 from LAX, etc, can't it all be managed by a centralized "base"? I guess what I'm getting at is the virtual base concept or something close to it. I'm assuming the company doesn't really want to reopen a 787 category in IAH, and if that's the case I assume it has to do with a cost associated with it. So my question is why does it have to cost anything? As far as command and control "overhead" goes, I see it as similar to how the military has "detachments" instead of an actual squadron for places with minimal footprints.
- 50 hours of rest in base at the end of the trip.
- Minimum of 36 hours of rest after arrival (this is why SIN is a 5 day
trip).
-SIN only has about 1.5hrs of time before the crew times out.
So reserves are absolutely necessary to cover delays.
This trip would not be allowed to operate as a W because of these 2 FRMS rules, it wouldn't even be able to operate as a DH trip. So IAH has to be a base. Manpower should be embarrassed, but it is great for the pilot group!
Last edited by MasterOfPuppets; 09-07-2017 at 07:56 AM.
09-07-2017, 08:03 AM
#15
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,253
I don't think this is necessarily manpower's fault. Just this week network planning switched next month's 10X week SFO-AKL 787 to 6X week 777-300. One of multiple examples of these people tinkering with WB routes way after manpower has been told to accommodate previous plan. This is by far the most egregious amount of buffoonery.
09-07-2017, 08:04 AM
#16
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: 756 left
Posts: 771
09-07-2017, 08:05 AM
#17
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2012
Position: 787
Posts: 3,202
09-07-2017, 08:12 AM
#18
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2013
Posts: 953
They will re-open IAH 787. Prob move one 787-8 flight back to IAH (from a 767) and add DEN-NRT.
IAD 787 will not grow at all from its current size for 18 months.
When the 787-10s show up, IAH and IAD will end up getting those as 777 replacements.
Inefficiencies for all!!!
IAD 787 will not grow at all from its current size for 18 months.
When the 787-10s show up, IAH and IAD will end up getting those as 777 replacements.
Inefficiencies for all!!!
09-07-2017, 08:13 AM
#19
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: 756 left
Posts: 771
I read your post. And didn't dispute it. Jan is a long way from now. The route isn't approved yet. The NPDM process isn't complete. The bid packages haven't been put together yet.
09-07-2017, 08:16 AM
#20
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2012
Position: 787
Posts: 3,202
They will re-open IAH 787. Prob move one 787-8 flight back to IAH (from a 767) and add DEN-NRT.
IAD 787 will not grow at all from its current size for 18 months.
When the 787-10s show up, IAH and IAD will end up getting those as 777 replacements.
Inefficiencies for all!!!
IAD 787 will not grow at all from its current size for 18 months.
When the 787-10s show up, IAH and IAD will end up getting those as 777 replacements.
Inefficiencies for all!!!
-10s would not be a great aircraft for IAH because of its range. I would expect the -10 to be in IAD and ORD.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
