Are Planes, Pilots Grounded Too Long?

[BoeingBoy]

Are planes, pilots grounded too long?

By Thomas Olson
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Wednesday, May 12, 2004

Many US Airways pilots operate an unusual piece of equipment on the job: Rocking chairs.

The white rockers lining the terminal at US Airways' hub in Charlotte are where pilots often spend hours waiting to fly their next plane. At other destinations, a lounge chair or hotel bed might be the way to kill time.

Article

Jim

 

[rvolkcpa]

As a passenger, I have been puzzled about crew scheduling. I have been on one-stop flights where the crew begins its day with a 1-2 hour flight to a hub city and then the continuing flight is staffed with a new crew. The originating crew seems to move on to another flight. It would seem to make more sense for the crew to stay with the plane for one or two more legs, until the maximum hours for the work day have been attained.

I have also wondered if efficient scheduling could result in fewer nights away from home for the crews and lower hotel costs for US Airways (or other carriers).

 

[BoeingBoy]

rvolkcpa,

The crew changes you refer to have a lot to do with aircraft utilization. With our lower utilization, you see a mix of low block days and high block days and crews getting off one plane to get on another (maybe after a sit of 2-4 hours). With higher utilization (like WN's 12 hours a day), it is easier to schedule crews to stay on one plane for half the day then go to the hotel (or home), being replaced by another crew for the other half the day. That's largely what WN crews do.

On your second question, more flying per day from higher a/c utilization would result in the crews getting their monthly flying in less days, so the individual crews would spend less nights in a hotel. The overall hotel cost is more complex, however. Anytime you have a plane overnighting at a non-hub station, there's at least one crew (usually 2) overnighting there also - the crew that brought it in and usually the crew to take it out in the morning (the FAA required rest periods often prevent the same crew from doing both).

Where you would likely see the difference in overall hotel cost is in the hubs. Now we have PHL crews overnighting in CLT, for example. That might be lessened with higher a/c utilization and more efficient crew scheduling.

Obviously, this all is talking about the non-long haul flying. The most efficient scheduling is probably the European flights - a crew gets on a plane and flys 8-11 hours and gets off. Can't get much more efficient than that.

Jim

 

[MarkMyWords]

I read something recently that the minimum connecting time in CLT was raised and that we were scheduling a bigger gap between banks in PHL for the month of may. My first question would be, doesn't this increase unproductive time and decrease aircraft utilization. They didn't roll PHL (yet), they didn't add connecting banks (making them smaller bt more spread out).

So if we increased CLT minimum connecting time from 40-50 minutes, doesn't that just increase the amount of time the aiplanes have to sit on the ground in CLT. By spaicng out the connecting banks in PHL, don't you have more sit time on the ground in the out stations. How does this increase productivity of airplanes and crews?

If PIT is no longer going to be a hub and now a focus city, would it be in our best interest to roll both PHL and CLT along with the additional service to LGA, DCA and BOS?

 

[ClueByFour]

CLT lacks the O&D to support a true rolling hub. You would shoot your loads in the foot trying to do it.

 

[hp_fa]

Hi. I've seen references to a "rolling hub" and don't understand the term. Can someone give me a brief explanation please?

Thanks.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Clue,

I'm not sure you're correct, but until someone tries it I guess we'll never know for sure.

A true rolling hub maintains connections, although at the price of the average connection being slightly longer. Implementing a true rolling hub (as opposed to just spreading out arrivals and departures) is extremely complex. I read an article in the last couple of days that said the latest software reduces the time to plan and implement a rolling hub to 90 days - a significant decrease over earlier applications.

As I said, just spreading out the traffic flow is not the same as rolling a hub. Aircraft routing, crew routing, gate assignments, connecting flows, etc have to be part of the mix.

Personally, I question whether US has the capability to truly roll a hub, as opposed to merely stretching out the arrival/departure flow.

Jim

 

[FWAAA]

Hi. I've seen references to a "rolling hub" and don't understand the term. Can someone give me a brief explanation please?

Thanks.

It usually means that instead of large groups, or "banks" of flights arriving and departing at the same time (or as close as possible), flights arrive and depart more evenly throughout the day. Of course, this generally means that pax wait longer for their connecting flight, but it keeps the airplanes in the air and minimizes the peaks and valleys for the ground crews, since their workload is more uniform throughout the day.

 

[BoeingBoy]

hp_fa,

FWAAA is correct. If you want a visual picture, here is something that shows the change in departures/arrivals by AMR at DFW, UAL at ORD, and CAL at IAH. Notice particularly AMR at DFW, since they seem to have been the most aggressive in rolling their hubs. (this is a PDF document, Acrobat reader required)

Jim

 

[BoeingBoy]

hp fa,

Shucks, the file didn't upload. Here's the link:

PDF document

Jim

 

[MarkMyWords]

Jim,

Do you think we lack the capability of truly rolling a hub, or are we more afraid that by rolling the hub, we will open the market to additional LCC flights? The only negative comment I have heard in 2+ years of screaming this idea is that by rolling PHL we allow our competition access to more peak time flying.

I just don't see where adjusting min connecting time does much for productivity, except to make things MORE unproductive! Used to be min connecting time was 30 minutes. Now CLT is up to 50 minutes! I understand the customer prospective and why we are having to up the ante on min connecting time, but I just don't think it pushes us in the right direction of increasing utilization rates for employees and airplanes.

 

[BoeingBoy]

MmW,

My "wondering" is totally related to the capability to truly roll a hub. To do it properly is a very complex undertaking, even using the latest software designed for the purpose as I said above. Somehow, I doubt we have the tools needed, data processing wise. What I see is a spreading out of the flights slightly, with a combination of some lost connection opportunities vs some extra aircraft utilization.

As far as opening up the market to additional LCC flights, I suspect they'll be coming anyway. Gate space is probably the biggest determinant there (although delays are certainly a factor), and I doubt that the airport managments will throw many barriers in the way of the LCC's getting gate space. (Saw something the other day that the gate leases in PHL expire in '06 and the airport was looking at "rearranging" things.

Jim

 

[hp_fa]

Thanks for the info folks. I now understand the concept.