But in a fit of hypertechnicality, I think that JFK-PVG would require a waiver of the 16hr duty day, since ORD-PVG (in addition to ORD-DEL) also required a waiver.
I knew that ORD-DEL required the waiver but I hadn't realized that ORD-PVG did as well. I know that duty time is greater than block time, but since ORD-PVG (in that direction) is showing a block time of 13:15 according to the October 2007 OAG, is duty time so much more that it will cause the flight to exceed the 16 hour limit? Can anyone shed some light on how much longer duty time is than block time on a typical long-haul international flight? Would it vary significantly by airline and/or aircraft type? Thanks in advance for any answers to these questions because I'd really like to know.
Of course, if JFK-PVG would indeed require a waiver from the pilots, which I agree is unlikely at this point in the absence of a new overall contract, I will have to re-think my prediction of what AA would apply for in the next China route case. I guess it would come down to a choice for AA between LAX-PVG and some less likely options such as JFK-PEK (assuming
that route doesn't require a waiver) or LAX-PEK. While the "conventional wisdom" would suggest that AA will apply for LAX-PVG, I'm not so sure that would be the carrier's choice. AA would be competing against UA's almost certain application (using larger B747s vs. AA's B777s) as well as MU, AA's code-sharing partner that already serves the route. As for JFK-PEK, I still think that AA views JFK as a more competitive and strategic location than LAX. But PEK already has daily East Coast nonstops from JFK (CA), EWR (CO), IAD (UA) and PHL (US in 2009). So I'm going to think WAAAAY "outside the box" and predict (guess?) that AA will apply for LAX-PEK in 2010. Now, before you burst out in uncontrollable laughter, think about it for a minute: (1) it's highly unlikely that any other carrier would apply for the route; (2) it would not compete against one of AA's code-sharing partners; (3) it should be well under the 16-hour duty time limitation for the pilots, thus eliminating the need for a waiver; (4) it would give the DOT an option other than UA for a West Coast-China award (although if the DOT actually moved away from its East Coast-centric China route award philosophy -- after all, almost half of all U.S.-China traffic goes to/from the West Coast -- it might give an award to both AA (LAX-PEK)
and UA (LAX-PVG)); (5) without checking the numbers, LAX-PEK is almost certainly the largest PEK route not having U.S. carrier nonstop service; and (6) it would give AA a broader offering of Pacific services from LAX -- AA metal to NRT and PEK plus code-shares on MU (PVG), CX (HKG), BR (TPE) and QF (SYD, MEL, BNE and AKL).
So AA for LAX-PEK is my "dark horse pick of the week", along with CO (IAH-PVG) and UA (LAX-PVG), for the 2010 route awards. Fire away!
