ClipperDelta

No, the flight had the usual complement of cockpit crew, i.e., 2 pilots and a relief pilot. That is the norm for all transatlantics, even the shorter ones such as JFK-MAD, JFK-CDG...It was simply that the total crew duty time during a specific timeframe was exceded due to the extra leg (ATL-JFK on July 1) and the delays on July 1.

It was the right decision on DL management's part, especially considering that DL95 was operating with a 100% load factor that day (199 passengers).

SkyTeam777

Yes, I thought they all operate with a 3 person cockpit crew...also, I thought they could continue (in overtime) if the flight has already left the gate (esepcailly in this situation when there was less than an hour of flight time remaining)!?

RobertS975

Most of us are quite familiar with the 8 hours in 24 hours max flying rules problem, but this flights was ruled by a a 32/7 problem. Because this crew actually flew up from ATL to JFK before their flight to BCN and because of other weather-related irregular operations, this crew was going to bust the 32/7 duty rules. That means on duty for 32 hours in a rolling 7 day period.
A 32/7 (scheduled to fly 32 hours in a rolling 7 day period) needs a whole day for the offending period to drop off. And that would mean parking the plane an extra day in BCN, something DL did not wish to do for obvious reasons.

Compared to that, a special 737 flight to get that relief crew to BGR was cheap indeed.

CO FF

With 2 pilots as pax, I presume that at least one of them sat in the cabin, rather than on the jumpseat. if so, did that mean that DL9905 (the "limo" flight) needed to have FAs on board?

I agree with those who support DL: this somewhat circuitous shuffling of pilots (I wonder why nobody asked ASA to send an RJ...) ended up preserving the schedules - and good will - of over 500 DL customers -- the 199 on the original flight, and those who would be impacted by the delayed/cancelled flights the next day.

Just imagine if you were on the cancelled flight, and were given the choice about losing 93 minutes or losing an upgrade? Or flying home via CDG, AMS, MXP or some other SkyTeam hub?

RobertS975

IN BOS, there were "extra" shuttle 737s given a lighter holiday weekend schedule. I am betting that the $$ difference between a 737 and a CRJ isn't as great as we all think... but again, time was of the essence in this situation.

Doubt that FAs were required since this was a repositioning flight without passengers, not a "charter".

tgtg

With PAX on scheduled service, Part 121; with company personnel only - no cargo, no pax- Part 91; for charter, Part 135

Flying 91, I don't believe they require FAs at all.

-=tg=-

RobertS975

FAs are obviously not required for training flights, maintenece flights etc. And they are not required for an aircraft positioning flight or in this case, a crew delivery flight.

javajunkie

Ok, I think that explains how the crew times out, but not the plane?
I'll ask again for others as well... What would happen to DL if this limit were exceeded by the flight crew while in flight (fines, union grievance process, etc.)? Trying to answer my own question... It would seem from the explanation above that the crew would have to sit out the extra day after they arrive (?).

Somebody who knows more, please help... inquiring minds want to know.

indufan

If you are going to break the rules and fly extra hoursone day, why sit out the "extra day". Just break the rules again the next day.

I would assume that potential fines would be in order but probably wouldn't happen unless it became routine. And that's just a guess.

ss278

Yes, Delta could face fines for knowingly flying a crew beyond their legal limits set by the FAA. Moreover the pilots could face disciplinary measures up to the loss of their licences for knowingly breaking the rules. No pilot I know would be willing to risk that.

IAH_FLYER

That's the important point to keep in mind...the pilots would be on the line for violating the Federal Aviation Regulations...just like they would be if they showed up intoxicated for work (a la HP).

indufan

Well, yes, but one would think the penalty would be lower for FWT than for FWI.

jimrpa

Actually, in the case of driving, numerous studies have proven that driving while tired is just as dangerous (if not more dangerous) than driving while intoxicated. I suspect the same would apply to flying.

While under normal circumstances, the gals and guys up front don't have too much to do during a routine flight, I still want them well-rested and alert - just in case.

indufan

It depends upon how tired and how intoxicated. .08% vs. drowsy, maybe. .27% vs. drowsy, never. The real killer is when drivers are .27% and almost asleep.

But a pilot can fly tired...he just can't go over his hours. That next 7 AM flight you are on, your captain might have been the designated driver last night and still didn't crawl into bed until 3 AM.

RobertS975

An illustrative example: a person I know well is a DL 767-300 international captain, lives in a suburb of BOS (many DL pilots live in the BOS area, an former pilots base). His day would begin when he ;eft is home around 1100 AM to catch the 1230 or 1330 DL shuttle to LGA, arriving approx 230PM, cab to JFK where is would take command of a 530PM or 6PM DL departure to mostly SVO, landing over 8 hours later at what is for his biological clock 2AM, sometimes in snowy or foggy weather. His official duty time starts when he arrives at the crew base offices at JFK and does not include the fact that he has what is in reality a 4-5 hour commute from his home outside of BOS.
Now he had to do this only 4 or 5 times a month, but they were certainly long days.

Interesting anecdotes, but many of the DL 767 international captains started their airline careers flying DC3s and Convair 440s around New England for Northeast Airlines.