I am sure one of the great pilots that post on here will answer shortly, but wanted to mention an air traffic controller that posts really good info on social media. He is PropHatCat on Tiktok, no idea if he is on other channels.
I have learned so much from his many short, informative posts and there is a lot of interaction with pilots on there as well, discussing various intricacies of enroute ATC.

No affiliation with him, but worth a listen for a bit of a geek out on ATC.

Depends on the fleet. On the Airbus the T/O config button is part of the First Officer’s flow.

Yes, either pilot, sometimes, sometimes.

The routing that we are filed is rarely a direct line from departure to destination. We are filed on airways which produce a routing that is longer than the straight-line distance. If traffic allows, ATC can approve more direct routings in the air. Sometimes, particularly when planned around weather systems, the filed course can be significantly longer. If the weather has moved or dissipated, a shortcut can cut a good deal of time off the flight.

The Thales system was never designed to handle the number of connections, and amount of traffic, an aircraft's wifi and internet system typical gets today. On the ViaSat airplanes, we have an iPad app which lets us see the status of the airplane's network. I often see over 100 devices connected to the ViaSat system on the 737. The Thales systems can't be replaced fast enough for me.

Had a TPAC flight recently where the pilots did not make any announcements until the seatbelt sign came on for the last time, and even then it was just a quick FAs prepare the cabin for arrival, expected arrival gate, and a thank you for flying United. I can never recall a UA flight where I didn't hear any flight deck announcements until that late in the flight. Sometimes I'll see it on foreign airlines but I was surprised by it on a US airline. On the other hand, almost all of my domestic flights recently have had the captain come out of the flight deck before the flight and give a lot of details on the flight from the aisle. The number of times I've seen it recently has either been a flukey streak of captains willing to do that or a policy change of some sorts on the domestic side of operations.

It got me curious, what's the policy on announcements from the flight deck and does it differ on domestic flights and international ones (obviously it's kind of impossible to address the whole plane from the front aisle of a 787 :D)?

Augmented Pilots
 

(Asking for a friend who stumped me on this one) -- Asking about the augmented pilot requirement. Understand if over 8 hours a trip, then an extra augmented pilot and even longer can require two. A friend pointed out missing 1A and 3A on 789 flights EWR-DEL are missing (for pilot rest?? even though there is a separate rest area), but I am aware that is not true for SFO-SIN or SFO-Australia. Having never taken the UA DEL flight, I was surprised to see this.

Is extra crew needed for India or the mountains create a problem or ?????


https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.fly...4435252b41.png

there are held seats on both legs of the route, but its still selling all 48 seats. Not quite sure what it would be for, you do have your 4 pilots on duty.

Seatmap for today's and tomorrow shows all 48 seats, but waitlist claims just 46
Seatmap for Friday and later shows 46 seats.

I don't see this behavior for SFO-SIN or SFO-SYD -- all 48 seats, all the time

Wierd? Sort like the behavior of 752s

I don't know how they work the seat maps but it is very much aircraft dependent because the requirements change based on the classifications of the rest facilities. It gets complicated. The requirements are from 14 CFR 117. There is also an Advisory Circular that detail the requirements for the different classes of rest facilities.

Hard blocks will release at T-60 (midnight Chicago) if not needed for the specific route, and inventory will always be based on planned load (i.e. sell to 48 if they won't need the blocks).

However, for a general map to exist on the 789 with two hard blocks, it would imply that some route in the UA network requires them, which puzzles me. LAX-MEL and LAX-SIN used to operate with no blocks...

Could there be contingency planning issues with all the closed or potentially closed airspace in Eastern Europe and the Middle East?

We may be overthinking things here.

The crew makeup 2CA/2FO or 1CA/3FO and rest seat/bunk requirements are spelled out by the FAA for specific ultra long “FRMS” routes. So for a typical 4 pilot flight, 2 Polaris seats will be blocked.

The 787 does not have a true rest seat upstairs, the seat is really a small straight back chair that quite frankly we only use to place clean or dirty linens on, it’s not really practical. 777-300 has bunks and full size chairs upstairs so there is no requirement to block any Polaris seats.

There’s no contingency planning going on, just compliance with the established FRMS requirements.

Have the requirements changed since last decade? I seem to recall things like LAX-MEL operating with zero blocked seats on the 789.

I’m EWR based and don’t really touch the west coast.

LAX-MEL has specific FRMS requirements, never flown it, sorry.

If I remember, I’ll look it up for you later.

I see 48 seats LAX-MEL @ 30 hours RT but 46 seats for EWR-DEL @ 31 hours RT (block time)
(DEL-EWR is 16:20, while SFO-MEL is 15:10)

Oh, this actually tickles a memory - these things can be negotiated by route? Would explain discrepancies that aren't simply by distance.

FRMS is a Fatigue Risk Management System and is used on some routes because those routes present unique fatigue-related challenges that generic flight and duty time regulations may not fully address. These routes often involve long-haul or ultra-long-haul flights, crossing multiple time zones, irregular schedules, or operational complexities that increase the risk of crew fatigue.FRMS provides a data-driven, flexible, and scientifically based approach that allows airlines to tailor fatigue management strategies specifically to their operational environment, such as route length, time zone changes, and crew scheduling practices. This customization enables airlines to better predict, monitor, and mitigate fatigue risks while potentially improving crew alertness, safety outcomes, roster flexibility, and operational efficiency.

By implementing FRMS on such routes, airlines can optimize crew rest and duty patterns beyond standard regulatory limits, supported by fatigue modeling and real-time data. Regulators approve these FRMS-based operations only if airlines demonstrate that fatigue risk is managed to an equivalent or higher safety level compared to prescriptive regulations. This approach often leads to benefits such as reduced fatigue-related incidents, enhanced crew wellbeing, and improved overall safety and efficiency on demanding routes.