I was just on DL409 flying JFK-EDI and found it really odd that we had three pilots given that its only a 6 hr flight. Not only did I see all three in uniform but the Captain announced herself and the two other pilots just before we pushed off from gate at JFK. I thought that the standard for DL/AA/UA on having a relief pilot was <8 hours. Am I wrong? Or do airlines usually have relief pilots on TATL, or did I just happen to get a check pilot or other usual situation?

The return flight is most certainly longer than the eastbound flight. Plus, depending on how early the return flight departs using the crews "body clock" which would still be on Eastern Time in the US, FAR 117 could required 3 pilots.

At United, the pilot contract requires that if the relief pilot is required on one leg (say westbound out of Europe), then a relief pilot is required for the entire trip. Operationally, that third pilot is going to normally travel with the eastbound crew for the eastbound leg. Some airlines may just have that person deadhead, but United....and apparently Delta....have them work both legs.

Tkt96 wrote:

The return flight is most certainly longer than the eastbound flight. Plus, depending on how early the return flight departs using the crews "body clock" which would still be on Eastern Time in the US, FAR 117 could required 3 pilots.

Interesting. The return clocks in around 7hr on average. DL wouldn't do a 13hr turn (same 3 pilots both ways), would they? As I think about it now, the F/As all walked past us in the immigration line but the DL pilots never did.

gon2fly wrote:

At United, the pilot contract requires that if the relief pilot is required on one leg (say westbound out of Europe), then a relief pilot is required for the entire trip. Operationally, that third pilot is going to normally travel with the eastbound crew for the eastbound leg. Some airlines may just have that person deadhead, but United....and apparently Delta....have them work both legs.

At what stage length does the relief pilot become a requirement I'm asking because there are certain domestic flights where at least one leg of the trip is over 7 hours almost the same stage length as EDI-EWR and yet UA only staffs these flights with 2 pilots. Some of those flights are IAH-ANC, and DEN-HNL these routes only require 2 pilots and in a lot of ways especially IAH-ANC-IAH the route mirrors EWR-EDI-EWR where one leg trip time is over 7 hours, and the other leg under 7 hours.

No they wouldnt do a 13 hour Europe turn. The pilots probably already left...chances are they stay at a different hotel than the FA's and took seperate transportation.

N717TW wrote:

Tkt96 wrote:

The return flight is most certainly longer than the eastbound flight. Plus, depending on how early the return flight departs using the crews "body clock" which would still be on Eastern Time in the US, FAR 117 could required 3 pilots.

Interesting. The return clocks in around 7hr on average. DL wouldn't do a 13hr turn (same 3 pilots both ways), would they? As I think about it now, the F/As all walked past us in the immigration line but the DL pilots never did.

I would assume the 3 pilots overnight in EDI and fly the return the following day.

N717TW wrote:

Tkt96 wrote:

The return flight is most certainly longer than the eastbound flight. Plus, depending on how early the return flight departs using the crews "body clock" which would still be on Eastern Time in the US, FAR 117 could required 3 pilots.

Interesting. The return clocks in around 7hr on average. DL wouldn't do a 13hr turn (same 3 pilots both ways), would they? As I think about it now, the F/As all walked past us in the immigration line but the DL pilots never did.

Looks to be around 8 hours, often.
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/DAL ... /EGPH/KJFK

I think it's around 9-10h before they start adding a third crewmember, so I would imagine that the third pilot is a check or safety pilot.

Most UA flights I've taken from EWR to the UK have a relief pilot, I think about a dozen times it's been a training pilot from what I've discussed with the crew. I think they're actually rather important specially towards the end of the flight when the crew might be tired. Sure, 6 hours isn't that long for a long haul, but imagine being in a confined space for 6 hours just going through way points, checking fuel, reading a book etc. I know they get some shut eye, but still.

On a flight back in March, we had a balked landing (written by the captain in his report) which led to a go around in which the PM didn't follow the instruction from the PF to get the gear and flaps up. In the report the relief pilot is the one that calls it out as they were losing speed, and the fact that we were on the wrong heading and set to the wrong speed on the A/T. This was his first ride in the 757 during his training.

planecane wrote:

N717TW wrote:

Tkt96 wrote:

The return flight is most certainly longer than the eastbound flight. Plus, depending on how early the return flight departs using the crews "body clock" which would still be on Eastern Time in the US, FAR 117 could required 3 pilots.

Interesting. The return clocks in around 7hr on average. DL wouldn't do a 13hr turn (same 3 pilots both ways), would they? As I think about it now, the F/As all walked past us in the immigration line but the DL pilots never did.

I would assume the 3 pilots overnight in EDI and fly the return the following day.

Can confirm...I took DL’s JFK-EDI two years ago (first month in operation) flew out friday night and back sunday, just over 24 hrs on the ground. Same fight crew+FA’s on both flights, 3 pilots

Usually over 8 hours requires 3 pilots...the problem with these return flights is they leave so early that the on duty period is very restricted due to the crew still being on he N.Y. eastern US time zone. Some of these UK return flights might be under 8 hours but still not be legal for 2 pilots because the on duty time is around 10 hours for the flight. The crews are probably only legal for 9hrs 30 mins of duty because they are not acclimated to the new timezones.

For an international flight, flight crew duty starts 1.5 hours before the flight for flight planning and boarding and ends 30 minutes after the flight for debriefing and deplaning. Therefore a 7hr 50m flight would have a duty time of 9hr 50m.
Because the crew isn't acclimated o the UK time zone and are starting duty very early they are probably limited to 9hrs 30m duty time.

Relief pilots can be added for other reasons than flight duration.
- One reason as mentioned might be biorythm though I doubt that on this one...
- During a disruption a third pilot may be called out of standby to extend flight duty period.
- Or the pilot's duty is longer than JFK-EDI. Perhaps for some (operational) reason this was an ATL/DTW/MSP/etc. crew who started their duty at home base and needed a third pilot to complete this flight.
- Someone might have fallen ill in EDI (and with a third pilot minimum rest maybe enhanced, depending on schedule)

Just some things of the top of my head....

Seems quite silly. In my airline we do 8 hour flights just two pilots. Most short haul pilots have longer working days, easily working up to 12 hours nonstop pretty much, doing multiple legs. I definitely prefer flying long haul to short haul myself.

787Driver wrote:

Seems quite silly. In my airline we do 8 hour flights just two pilots. Most short haul pilots have longer working days, easily working up to 12 hours nonstop pretty much, doing multiple legs. I definitely prefer flying long haul to short haul myself.

But the short haul pilots are acclimated to the time zone and not waking up on the other side of the Atlantic at 1 or 2 am body clock time...it makes a differnce.

I heard that AF (which has powerful unions as everyone knows) has more relief pilots per long haul flight than required. Can anyone confirm?

ro1960 wrote:

I heard that AF (which has powerful unions as everyone knows) has more relief pilots per long haul flight than required. Can anyone confirm?

There are lots of situations that on paper don't require a relief pilot. That doesn't mean it's smart. Honestly is it really a good idea to depart at 10pm for an all night flight to Europe with 2 pilots? It's legal...but not smart. This is where the power of the union can pressure the company for an added layer of safety by requesting a 3rd pilots. Ive done those flights...the 3rd crew makes a huge difference.

UA has some EWR-LHR 767 trips that operate unaugmented because the report time for the return leg is late enough, block time short enough and layover long enough that the legal duty period is sufficient to cover the trip, despite pilots not being acclimated to the time zone.

I know the 4pm LHR-EWR operates in this manner, and believe the 6pm does as well when operated by 767 (757 block time is longer and IIRC the r/t is therefore single-augmented).

These trips tend go the most junior of the 764 TATL flying because it is physically demanding... but it's legal, and in the contract. There is a concern that once 787s come to EWR their higher speed will mean shorter block times, and bring AMS, BRU, CDG within the scope of potential unaugmented TATL operations.

Are the requirements for relief pilots the same for flights which exceed 12 hours? An example would be like Air India's flight from Bombay to Newark.

Have you thought about crew training?

Ig2 wrote:

Have you thought about crew training?

Crew training on an unaugmented flight is 2 pilots. Check airmen and trainee.
Crew training on an augmented flight would be 4 pilots since the pilot getting training wouldn't be able to be in the cockpit alone with the relief pilot while the check airmen is on break. When the check airmen takes their break the trainee takes a break too. Then the other 2 qualified pilots are up front flying.

I believe Delta’s pilot contract requires a relief pilot on all Trans-Atlantic flights, which is different from United and even some of its JV partners, like Virgin Atlantic.

Each Aviation authority has different requirements on augmented Vs unaugmented flights- for instance, BA may be able to fly LHR-ORD with 2 pilots vs UA who needs 3 pilots because of a difference between FAA and EASA regulations.

Mayday111 wrote:

Are the requirements for relief pilots the same for flights which exceed 12 hours? An example would be like Air India's flight from Bombay to Newark.

Yes, ULHs usually pack four crew members. One captain and three FOs. USA to most of Asia and Oceana

Tkt96 wrote:

ro1960 wrote:

I heard that AF (which has powerful unions as everyone knows) has more relief pilots per long haul flight than required. Can anyone confirm?

There are lots of situations that on paper don't require a relief pilot. That doesn't mean it's smart. Honestly is it really a good idea to depart at 10pm for an all night flight to Europe with 2 pilots? It's legal...but not smart. This is where the power of the union can pressure the company for an added layer of safety by requesting a 3rd pilots. Ive done those flights...the 3rd crew makes a huge difference.

I'm not questioning the utility of a relief pilots. I'm asking if it is true that if legal requirement is 3, AF has 4 for example.

jrkmsp wrote:

I believe Delta’s pilot contract requires a relief pilot on all Trans-Atlantic flights, which is different from United and even some of its JV partners, like Virgin Atlantic.

It does not. At a minimum I know KEF, SNN, and PDL are at least sometimes operated with a two man crew.

Also remember that JFK is very prone to long taxi times. If a flight taxis over an hour in JFK that puts you over seven hours right there....pretty close to the eight mentioned.

Tkt96 wrote:

Usually over 8 hours requires 3 pilots...the problem with these return flights is they leave so early that the on duty period is very restricted due to the crew still being on he N.Y. eastern US time zone. Some of these UK return flights might be under 8 hours but still not be legal for 2 pilots because the on duty time is around 10 hours for the flight. The crews are probably only legal for 9hrs 30 mins of duty because they are not acclimated to the new timezones.

For an international flight, flight crew duty starts 1.5 hours before the flight for flight planning and boarding and ends 30 minutes after the flight for debriefing and deplaning. Therefore a 7hr 50m flight would have a duty time of 9hr 50m.
Because the crew isn't acclimated o the UK time zone and are starting duty very early they are probably limited to 9hrs 30m duty time.

How much time does a crew need to become acclimated?
I'm asking because if we are to use your duty time as a reference then flights like SFO-LHR-SFO or LAX-LHR-SFO would need 2 relief pilots and they only have one, the same as EWR-LHR-EWR. With a block time of just over 11 hours for flights like LHR-SFO if we were to include the duty start time that would put us in the 12plus hour range meaning we would need another relief pilot because the duty day is now over 12 hours.

I'm looking at some reports right now and I'm noticing most UA flight crews who fly U.S. to Europe are scheduled to be on the ground in Europe anywhere from 22 - 30 hours and it varies in some cases pilots flying to EWR have 30 total hours of ground time while on some route pilots flying to SFO only have 22 hours on the ground from scheduled arrival to their next scheduled departure. In some cases it looks like pilots flying from Europe to the West coast have less time to become acclimated than pilots who are flying from Europe to EWR and yet it is still a 3 person flight crew. Which is my reason for the question how much time is needed for crews to become acclimated?

jayunited wrote:

Tkt96 wrote:

Usually over 8 hours requires 3 pilots...the problem with these return flights is they leave so early that the on duty period is very restricted due to the crew still being on he N.Y. eastern US time zone. Some of these UK return flights might be under 8 hours but still not be legal for 2 pilots because the on duty time is around 10 hours for the flight. The crews are probably only legal for 9hrs 30 mins of duty because they are not acclimated to the new timezones.

For an international flight, flight crew duty starts 1.5 hours before the flight for flight planning and boarding and ends 30 minutes after the flight for debriefing and deplaning. Therefore a 7hr 50m flight would have a duty time of 9hr 50m.
Because the crew isn't acclimated o the UK time zone and are starting duty very early they are probably limited to 9hrs 30m duty time.

How much time does a crew need to become acclimated?
I'm asking because if we are to use your duty time as a reference then flights like SFO-LHR-SFO or LAX-LHR-SFO would need 2 relief pilots and they only have one, the same as EWR-LHR-EWR. With a block time of just over 11 hours for flights like LHR-SFO if we were to include the duty start time that would put us in the 12plus hour range meaning we would need another relief pilot because the duty day is now over 12 hours.

I'm looking at some reports right now and I'm noticing most UA flight crews who fly U.S. to Europe are scheduled to be on the ground in Europe anywhere from 22 - 30 hours and it varies in some cases pilots flying to EWR have 30 total hours of ground time while on some route pilots flying to SFO only have 22 hours on the ground from scheduled arrival to their next scheduled departure. In some cases it looks like pilots flying from Europe to the West coast have less time to become acclimated than pilots who are flying from Europe to EWR and yet it is still a 3 person flight crew. Which is my reason for the question how much time is needed for crews to become acclimated?

Those duty time limits I listed are for unaugmented 2 pilot operations...when you add a 3rd pilot that all changes. Those 2 pilot limits are why some of these "shorter" flights have 3 pilots...thus changing the limits.

I know AA have 3 pilots on PHL-MAN. That's 6:50 according to AA's website, but the return flight is showing as 7:45, which of course is very close to that 8 hour cutoff. It's probably worth scheduling 3 pilots on the route so that they don't get caught out if something goes wrong causing a delay on the return sector, which could cause the pilots to time out.

Tkt96 wrote:

Ig2 wrote:

Have you thought about crew training?

Crew training on an unaugmented flight is 2 pilots. Check airmen and trainee.
Crew training on an augmented flight would be 4 pilots since the pilot getting training wouldn't be able to be in the cockpit alone with the relief pilot while the check airmen is on break. When the check airmen takes their break the trainee takes a break too. Then the other 2 qualified pilots are up front flying.

What ever happened to 'Line checks' where the evaluator is sitting in the jump seat and gives the crew a line check..usually only one leg. Is that a rare occasion nowdays?

RetiredWeasel wrote:

Tkt96 wrote:

Ig2 wrote:

Have you thought about crew training?

Crew training on an unaugmented flight is 2 pilots. Check airmen and trainee.
Crew training on an augmented flight would be 4 pilots since the pilot getting training wouldn't be able to be in the cockpit alone with the relief pilot while the check airmen is on break. When the check airmen takes their break the trainee takes a break too. Then the other 2 qualified pilots are up front flying.

What ever happened to 'Line checks' where the evaluator is sitting in the jump seat and gives the crew a line check..usually only one leg. Is that a rare occasion nowdays?

Like everyone else at my airline, the legal requirement is that I get a line check every year. For an FO or a Captain that would involve the check captain sitting in the other seat for two sectors.

jayunited wrote:

How much time does a crew need to become acclimated?

It's pretty complicated... It depends on the time away from local time zone, and how many time zones away you've been during your duty period.

gwrudolph wrote:

Mayday111 wrote:

Are the requirements for relief pilots the same for flights which exceed 12 hours? An example would be like Air India's flight from Bombay to Newark.

Yes, ULHs usually pack four crew members. One captain and three FOs. USA to most of Asia and Oceana

At some airlines, ULH involves 1 captain, 2 first officers and 1 second officer (cruise pilot). On some of the "shorter" four crew sectors you might even see 1 captain, 1 first officer and 2 second officers, while on the same sector other airlines might crew with 1 captain and 2 first officers.

Oops.

.
.

Starlionblue wrote:

Oops.

.
.

I'm ancient, but when I flew, the line check airman would sit the jump and both the CPT and FO got a check, even though it was usually only the CPT that required it. If it was a long flight, he wouldn't sit there the whole time, but take a break somewhere. Rarely would a line check airman bump the FO off the trip just to sit in a window seat for one leg.

I have trouble with dupes when trying to edit too.

codc10 wrote:

UA has some EWR-LHR 767 trips that operate unaugmented because the report time for the return leg is late enough, block time short enough and layover long enough that the legal duty period is sufficient to cover the trip, despite pilots not being acclimated to the time zone.

I know the 4pm LHR-EWR operates in this manner, and believe the 6pm does as well when operated by 767 (757 block time is longer and IIRC the r/t is therefore single-augmented).

These trips tend go the most junior of the 764 TATL flying because it is physically demanding... but it's legal, and in the contract. There is a concern that once 787s come to EWR their higher speed will mean shorter block times, and bring AMS, BRU, CDG within the scope of potential unaugmented TATL operations.

Couldn't have explained it better. I also have been hearing the same regarding the EWR 787's

RetiredWeasel wrote:

Tkt96 wrote:

Ig2 wrote:

Have you thought about crew training?

Crew training on an unaugmented flight is 2 pilots. Check airmen and trainee.
Crew training on an augmented flight would be 4 pilots since the pilot getting training wouldn't be able to be in the cockpit alone with the relief pilot while the check airmen is on break. When the check airmen takes their break the trainee takes a break too. Then the other 2 qualified pilots are up front flying.

What ever happened to 'Line checks' where the evaluator is sitting in the jump seat and gives the crew a line check..usually only one leg. Is that a rare occasion nowdays?

Yeah a line check could make sense...hadn't thought of that. Where I work only captains get scheduled for line checks. I've lucked out and havent gotten a line check in a few years.

Tkt96 wrote:

787Driver wrote:

Seems quite silly. In my airline we do 8 hour flights just two pilots. Most short haul pilots have longer working days, easily working up to 12 hours nonstop pretty much, doing multiple legs. I definitely prefer flying long haul to short haul myself.

But the short haul pilots are acclimated to the time zone and not waking up on the other side of the Atlantic at 1 or 2 am body clock time...it makes a differnce.

Yes, but on the flipside, you have the short haul pilots who can do 12-hour shifts from one day to the next and the next, not the case when flying long haul where you typically have between 1-3 days at your destination and for the longer flights, you are three or more pilots and can rest during the flight, which - also - makes a difference

(and I still remember the feeling of being fatigued and tired/feeling numb in the body after a 12 hour shift flying short haul.. and then having to do it all over the next day)

Tkt96 wrote:

ro1960 wrote:

I heard that AF (which has powerful unions as everyone knows) has more relief pilots per long haul flight than required. Can anyone confirm?

There are lots of situations that on paper don't require a relief pilot. That doesn't mean it's smart. Honestly is it really a good idea to depart at 10pm for an all night flight to Europe with 2 pilots? It's legal...but not smart. This is where the power of the union can pressure the company for an added layer of safety by requesting a 3rd pilots. Ive done those flights...the 3rd crew makes a huge difference.

Although every single red-eye I've taken with the exception of a few 742s on TWA from the west coast to the Northeast (and I'm probably flown well over 100 east-bround red-eyes at this point) had just 2 pilots and most leave Cali between 10 and midnight. I realize its a 5 1/2-6 hr flight vs 6 to 6 1/2.

ro1960 wrote:

I'm not questioning the utility of a relief pilots. I'm asking if it is true that if legal requirement is 3, AF has 4 for example.

Forgive me if I'm re-covering a point you've already grasped, but these things will always be decided by whichever set rules have the higher requirements - regulations applying to the carrier, the carrier's operational policy, and the carrier's contractual agreement with it's crew. AF must operate at a minimum to the rules set by French law, and will need to go beyond them if their standards or labour contracts require it, while a US-based carrier operating the exact same route at the exact same time with the exact same equipment must follow FAA regulations and their own work rules.

A recent example is EK's trimming of pilot numbers on certain routes - the pilots raised a stink about it, but at the end of the day UAE law permitted the reduced crew levels even though authorities in a number of the destination countries wouldn't allow their own carriers to do it.

Thus in addition to knowing the relevant rules you can only really judge whether or not the number of crew used is "excessive" if you also know the unique circumstances that may or may not affect the carrier.

gwrudolph wrote:

Mayday111 wrote:

Are the requirements for relief pilots the same for flights which exceed 12 hours? An example would be like Air India's flight from Bombay to Newark.

Yes, ULHs usually pack four crew members. One captain and three FOs. USA to most of Asia and Oceana

At UAL, the FRMS flights have 2 CAP and 2 FOs, which in practice means SIN, BOM and IAH-SYD. The rest of the ULH flying is staffed with 1 CAP and 3 FO. These operate with special exceptions (Fatigue Risk Management System) to FAR 117 because they would otherwise be unworkable/unreliable if held to the letter of 117.

One thing to remember is that crew legalities are different from one country to the next. Also, the regulators for one airline can give that airline a different interpretation than other regulators at another airline. In the US, FAR 117 governs passenger airline pilot duty and rest requirements.

I see a lot of posts here talking about flight and block times for flights. A pilots duty day is more than just the time the plane is scheduled to be moving. There are legal limits on both how long a pilot can fly and how long a pilot can be on duty. Duty periods usually start when the crew signs in for their first assignment that day or when they start their reserve availability if on reserve. This can be 1.5-2 hours before departure time and it ends after the post flight duties are over. Thus for a 7-8 hour flights, 9-10 hours of duty is scheduled.

On flights that cross several time zones, under FAR 117 the maximum duty period lengths are determined by if pilots are acclimated to the time zone and the time they are starting their duty day. Depending on those variables, a third crew member might be legally required. If the duty periods and flight times are especially close to the limits, a third crew member might be logical from an operational point of view as even slight delays can cause the two man crew to go illegal if it is close to the limits.

ULH flights under FAR 117 are often operated under FAA exemptions as they would be either illegal or unworkable under the current regulations.

Pilot union contracts can also dictate the minimum staffing levels for a flight as was previously mentioned.

Slightly off topic but British Airways' longest two pilot flight is LHR-ORD that is often a tad over 8 hours Westbound.

XAM2175 wrote:

ro1960 wrote:

I'm not questioning the utility of a relief pilots. I'm asking if it is true that if legal requirement is 3, AF has 4 for example.

Forgive me if I'm re-covering a point you've already grasped, but these things will always be decided by whichever set rules have the higher requirements - regulations applying to the carrier, the carrier's operational policy, and the carrier's contractual agreement with it's crew. AF must operate at a minimum to the rules set by French law, and will need to go beyond them if their standards or labour contracts require it, while a US-based carrier operating the exact same route at the exact same time with the exact same equipment must follow FAA regulations and their own work rules.

A recent example is EK's trimming of pilot numbers on certain routes - the pilots raised a stink about it, but at the end of the day UAE law permitted the reduced crew levels even though authorities in a number of the destination countries wouldn't allow their own carriers to do it.

Thus in addition to knowing the relevant rules you can only really judge whether or not the number of crew used is "excessive" if you also know the unique circumstances that may or may not affect the carrier.

Thanks for the details which I am aware of. Yet no answer to my question as to the specifics at AF. It is said that the extra pilot staffing is one of the reasons AF is not competitive on many markets.

This is all very fascinating discussion. Thanks everyone for your contributions. I am learning a lot!

ro1960 wrote:

Thanks for the details which I am aware of. Yet no answer to my question as to the specifics at AF.

You're welcome. Regrettably it seems that the people who actually do know both French law and AF's work rules are either holding out on your or haven't yet seen your question.

Redwood839 wrote:

Most UA flights I've taken from EWR to the UK have a relief pilot, I think about a dozen times it's been a training pilot from what I've discussed with the crew. I think they're actually rather important specially towards the end of the flight when the crew might be tired. Sure, 6 hours isn't that long for a long haul, but imagine being in a confined space for 6 hours just going through way points, checking fuel, reading a book etc. I know they get some shut eye, but still.

On a flight back in March, we had a balked landing (written by the captain in his report) which led to a go around in which the PM didn't follow the instruction from the PF to get the gear and flaps up. In the report the relief pilot is the one that calls it out as they were losing speed, and the fact that we were on the wrong heading and set to the wrong speed on the A/T. This was his first ride in the 757 during his training.

I’m a little confused by your post


How do you know all these details, and how
did you see the ‘report’ ?

ro1960 wrote:

XAM2175 wrote:

ro1960 wrote:

I'm not questioning the utility of a relief pilots. I'm asking if it is true that if legal requirement is 3, AF has 4 for example.

Forgive me if I'm re-covering a point you've already grasped, but these things will always be decided by whichever set rules have the higher requirements - regulations applying to the carrier, the carrier's operational policy, and the carrier's contractual agreement with it's crew. AF must operate at a minimum to the rules set by French law, and will need to go beyond them if their standards or labour contracts require it, while a US-based carrier operating the exact same route at the exact same time with the exact same equipment must follow FAA regulations and their own work rules.

A recent example is EK's trimming of pilot numbers on certain routes - the pilots raised a stink about it, but at the end of the day UAE law permitted the reduced crew levels even though authorities in a number of the destination countries wouldn't allow their own carriers to do it.

Thus in addition to knowing the relevant rules you can only really judge whether or not the number of crew used is "excessive" if you also know the unique circumstances that may or may not affect the carrier.

Thanks for the details which I am aware of. Yet no answer to my question as to the specifics at AF. It is said that the extra pilot staffing is one of the reasons AF is not competitive on many markets.

"It is said"... By whom?

A statement about extra pilot staffing making AF not competitive sounds exactly like the kind of thing management brings up when they want concessions from unions. Not saying there isn't some truth there, but one extra pilot per sector seems unlikely to, by itself, make or break the economic viability of a route.

Starlionblue wrote:

ro1960 wrote:

Thanks for the details which I am aware of. Yet no answer to my question as to the specifics at AF. It is said that the extra pilot staffing is one of the reasons AF is not competitive on many markets.

"It is said"... By whom?

A statement about extra pilot staffing making AF not competitive sounds exactly like the kind of thing management brings up when they want concessions from unions. Not saying there isn't some truth there, but one extra pilot per sector seems unlikely to, by itself, make or break the economic viability of a route.

Whom is several flight attendants I have spoken with. AF pilots salaries are amongst the highest in Europe. If you add one pilot per long haul flight, I don't see how this has no impact on cost. Simple math.

Again, I am asking if this is true and founded. A simple question. Not a statement.

XAM2175 wrote:

ro1960 wrote:

Thanks for the details which I am aware of. Yet no answer to my question as to the specifics at AF.

You're welcome. Regrettably it seems that the people who actually do know both French law and AF's work rules are either holding out on your or haven't yet seen your question.

I know, people on here are rather experts in AF bashing.

ro1960 wrote:

Starlionblue wrote:

ro1960 wrote:

Thanks for the details which I am aware of. Yet no answer to my question as to the specifics at AF. It is said that the extra pilot staffing is one of the reasons AF is not competitive on many markets.

"It is said"... By whom?

A statement about extra pilot staffing making AF not competitive sounds exactly like the kind of thing management brings up when they want concessions from unions. Not saying there isn't some truth there, but one extra pilot per sector seems unlikely to, by itself, make or break the economic viability of a route.

Whom is several flight attendants I have spoken with. AF pilots salaries are amongst the highest in Europe. If you add one pilot per long haul flight, I don't see how this has no impact on cost. Simple math.

Again, I am asking if this is true and founded. A simple question. Not a statement.

I didn't say it had no impact on cost. I said I didn't think one extra pilot would make or break a route. Margins need to be a bit higher than that.

If AF pilot salaries are relatively high on average, this would be an overall cost issue, affecting every flight and thus the total. It seems to me that the "extra" relief pilots on LH and ULH ops won't sink the ship all by themselves, so to speak.