Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Two-ocean Rule  
User currently offlineDiscoverCSG From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 833 posts, RR: 0
Posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 10618 times:

In a thread about the DL/NW 744 that will be operating ATL-NRT-ATL, I asked whether that 744 would also operate a Europe turn, such as ATL-LHR-ATL, between NRT turns.

In the course of discussion, somebody mentioned the "Two-ocean rule."

What is the two-ocean rule?

44 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineN867DA From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1008 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 10604 times:

The same thread gave an overview. It means that crew members cannot be asked to take a trip that includes an Atlantic ocean crossing and a Pacific ocean crossing.


A nation turns its lonely eyes to you
User currently offlineDiscoverCSG From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 833 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 10469 times:



Quoting N867DA (Reply 1):
The same thread gave an overview. It means that crew members cannot be asked to take a trip that includes an Atlantic ocean crossing and a Pacific ocean crossing.

After reviewing the thread several times, I didn't see where anybody had answered my question there or the same one asked by GTE439u. I'm sorry if I was careless and missed it.

In any event, thanks, N867DA, for answering the question.

To expand ... why is this rule in place? I assume it's to cut down on the severity of let-lag for the comfort/safety of flights. Is there any interesting history to it? Is it just a NW/DL thing?


User currently offlinePhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 10414 times:



Quoting DiscoverCSG (Thread starter):
What is the two-ocean rule?

To be honest, I have never heard of a "two ocean rule". Just from a realistic point of view, there isn't enough of a duty day to allow a crew to go NRT-DTW-LHR. In addition, some other regulatory bodies, have a formula for figuring out takeoffs and landings and applicable reduction in duty day and flight time for each takeoff and landing that is accomplished.

But, to specifically answer your question, there is no such rule in any of the FARs.


User currently offlineLJ From Netherlands, joined Nov 1999, 4435 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 10359 times:



Quoting DiscoverCSG (Thread starter):
In a thread about the DL/NW 744 that will be operating ATL-NRT-ATL, I asked whether that 744 would also operate a Europe turn, such as ATL-LHR-ATL, between NRT turns.

A few years ago NW operated a DTW-AMS-DTW flight between the DTW-NRT-DTW flight with the 747-400. However with different crews.


User currently offlineAzjubilee From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 3941 posts, RR: 28
Reply 5, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 10320 times:

The point is CREW SCHEDULING, not a/c scheduling. Think about it... would YOU want to fly NRT-ATL, spend the night and then fly ATL-LHR? I wouldn't. Good for the pilots in getting this built into their contract.

User currently offlineTimz From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 6837 posts, RR: 7
Reply 6, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 10161 times:

But NRT-ATL followed by ATL-NRT the next day is okay?

User currently offlineThreepoint From Canada, joined Oct 2005, 2147 posts, RR: 9
Reply 7, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 10070 times:



Quoting Azjubilee (Reply 5):
would YOU want to fly NRT-ATL, spend the night and then fly ATL-LHR?

Presumably the layover will be of sufficient length to permit adequate rest, regardless of the subsequent destination.
The only rule I'm aware of in some pilot contracts is that crews do not fly more than one (short) leg immediately following a trans-oceanic crossing. I'm not sure if any carriers currently operate such an itinerary with the same crew.



The nice thing about a mistake is the pleasure it gives others.
User currently offlineAzjubilee From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 3941 posts, RR: 28
Reply 8, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 10004 times:

The point is that the new DL contract has this provision.

User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25514 posts, RR: 50
Reply 9, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 9969 times:

Other carriers also have various hybrids of such rules in their contracts also - whether a restriction on the number of time zones that can be crossed per bid line, or explicity limiting certain regions flying to specific bases.


From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineTranspac787 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 3212 posts, RR: 13
Reply 10, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 9948 times:

Hopefully I can help explain this better.

Quoting DiscoverCSG (Thread starter):
What is the two-ocean rule?

It means that during the same trip, a pilot may not cross both the Pacific and the Atlantic. This is in place because of crew rest requirements, how a pilot's sleep cycle would be totally shot to hell if he crossed that many time zones. At DL, this isn't so much a concern since most of their 777 trips are only 3 or 4 days anyway. ATL-NRT-ATL, or ATL-DXB-ATL. NW, on the other hand, builds complex trips lasting anywhere from 6 to 13 days in duration. A hypothetical example:

DTW-NGO-MNL-NRT-LAX-NRT-DTW

Given the "Two Ocean Rule" (I've more commonly just heard of it called the Atlantic/Pacific rule), a NW pilot may not fly DTW-NRT-ATL-LHR-ATL-NRT-DTW. This is not permissible by the current contract in place. However, since GRU is directly south, a trip to South America is permissible.

Quoting DiscoverCSG (Reply 2):
I assume it's to cut down on the severity of let-lag for the comfort/safety of flights.

Exactly. It's so pilots won't be dead-tired during daylight hours, wide-awake during the night, and just overall ridiculously fatigued during the better part of their trip. The contract provision is in place for both quality of life and, of course, the obvious question marks for safety.

Quoting DiscoverCSG (Reply 2):
Is there any interesting history to it? Is it just a NW/DL thing?

It's a NW thing. NW has a lot of instances where crews *could* cross both oceans in the trip, especially on the A330. Ex:

SEA-NRT-PDX-AMS-SEA

That is not allowed. If a pilot starts a trip going to AMS, the remainder of the trip *must* only cross the Atlantic. So a hypothetical trip is SEA-AMS-MEM-AMS-SEA

On the flip side, if a pilot starts a trip going to NRT, they must only fly in the Pacific. A hypothetical trip for that is SEA-NRT-ICN-NRT-PDX-NRT-SEA

Right now this isn't a problem for 744 crews as DTW-AMS was only summer-seasonal, and that was built strictly as a 3-day trip, a simple: DTW-AMS-DTW

With DL in the picture now though, this may pose some tough questions, especially if DL wants to operate the 744 to LHR, FCO, etc.

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 3):
But, to specifically answer your question, there is no such rule in any of the FARs

No, there is no stipulation in the FAR's for it, it is strictly a contractual obligation for NW/DL.

Quoting Timz (Reply 6):
But NRT-ATL followed by ATL-NRT the next day is okay?

Yes. Per the FAR's, if a pilot has no more than 8 hours duty on the flight deck, all that is required is a 12 hour rest period. So, it is completely fine with regard to both the FAR's and the NW/DL contract for a NW 744 pilot to fly NRT-ATL-NRT. If I had to guess, the ATL turns will be paired with the relatively short PVG turns. So my guess the trips will be built like DTW-NRT-PVG-NRT-ATL-NRT-DTW

Or something similar to that, at least.


User currently offlineN867DA From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1008 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 9890 times:



Quoting Transpac787 (Reply 10):

Can pilots break this rule if they want to do it?



A nation turns its lonely eyes to you
User currently offlineThreepoint From Canada, joined Oct 2005, 2147 posts, RR: 9
Reply 12, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 9800 times:



Quoting N867DA (Reply 11):
Can pilots break this rule if they want to do it?

I would say not. Their union wouldn't let them, their peers wouldn't let them, their employer likely wouldn't let them and they'd lose any future negotiating credibility just for trying.

Not even sure why they'd want to.



The nice thing about a mistake is the pleasure it gives others.
User currently offlineGsosbee From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 825 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 9707 times:

Now you have me confused. I guess the defination of "trip" is involved. For example, (forget the no one would bid comments - I am just attempting to clarify this) assume this 744 usage:

ATL/NRT (Day 1); NRT/MNL/NRT (Day 2); NRT/ATL (Day 3); ATL/JFK (Day 4); JFH/LHR (Day 5); LHR/ATL (Day 6)

Would the above work? If not what adjustments would need to be made?


User currently offlineAzjubilee From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 3941 posts, RR: 28
Reply 14, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 9693 times:

NO! YOU CANNOT CROSS MULTIPLE OCEANS IN THE SAME TRIP!!! It's really not that hard. If you started a trip to Asia, you will remain in Asia for the duration of the trip. If you started a trip to Europe (over the Atlantic) you will remain there. In other words parings cannot be built that mix flying that crosses the Atlantic and Pacific. South America doesn't involve major time zone changes and is south, therefore it does not apply.

User currently offlineBrenintw From Taiwan, joined Jul 2006, 1654 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 9608 times:



Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 13):
Now you have me confused. I guess the definition of "trip" is involved

I think it's the definition of "trip" that's confusing you.

In this case, a "trip" is from the beginning of a duty to the end of the duty -- no matter how many flights/layovers are involved in the duty. (Essentially, it's from leaving your home base to returning to that same base).

I have a friend who works for MH (so the "two ocean rule" does NOT apply) who does KUL - JNB - CPT - EZE - CPT - JNB - KUL as a single duty. It takes two weeks to finish that routing. However, it is still a single "trip" for him.



I'm tired of the A vs. B sniping. Neither make planes that shed wings randomly!
User currently offlineWorldTraveler From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 9588 times:

remember that part of the answer to this question may be answered by where DL establishes crew bases. If DL adds a 744 pilot crew base at ATL or any other point where one aircraft type will cross both oceans, the issue is moot. From an aircraft efficiency standpoint and the way NW's NRT hub is structured (defined by slots), it makes sense to add a transatlantic of S. American flight to increase connectivity and aircraft utilization - although S. America schedules typically include an all day sit in S. America by the aircraft.

It has been said several places that NW FAs will likely be based in ATL and SLC using satellite base language and that many would prefer to be based there to minimize their commute time. The deadheading costs are much lower if only the cockpit crew is deadheaded - assuming that no 744 or 330 base is established in ATL, a city that is likely to see a fair amount of action by both types. Conversely, there will likely be 767s in DTW and MSP and DL probably won't be able to move fast enough to get pilot bases opened up there.

I suspect alot of DL and NW crew lines will be 5 day plus trips by the summer.


User currently offlineGsosbee From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 825 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 9521 times:



Quoting Brenintw (Reply 15):

Thanks. Seems to be an artificial union issue that has to be worked around (i.e less efficient so DL's expenses are increased.) As long as everyone involved understands the issues so be it.


User currently offlineBrenintw From Taiwan, joined Jul 2006, 1654 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 9480 times:



Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 17):
Thanks. Seems to be an artificial union issue that has to be worked around (i.e less efficient so DL's expenses are increased.) As long as everyone involved understands the issues so be it.

I don't think it's artificial at all. I know what it feels like when I do a trip home (6-hour time difference). My sleep patterns are really messed up!

Now imagine a pilot flying EWR - HKG - EWR - LHR - EWR (do-able on CO I think). He's going +12 hours, 0 hours, -4 hours, 0 hours in the space of a few days. Do YOU want to be on the last LHR - EWR flight where he's so exhausted that he can barely see the screens in front of him because he hasn't got a decent sleep in a week?

I really do think it's a very valid safety concern.



I'm tired of the A vs. B sniping. Neither make planes that shed wings randomly!
User currently offlineTranspac787 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 3212 posts, RR: 13
Reply 19, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 9333 times:



Quoting N867DA (Reply 11):
Can pilots break this rule if they want to do it?

No.

The company and crew schedulers "build" the trips. The pilots don't arbitrarily select which flights they want to do. So, when the monthly bid packets are released, the pilots just bid on what trips they want, layovers, days on, days off, etc. "Building" a Tpac with a Tatl is impossibly simply because no such trips exist, given company policy and contract.

Quoting Threepoint (Reply 12):
Their union wouldn't let them, their peers wouldn't let them, their employer likely wouldn't let them and they'd lose any future negotiating credibility just for trying.

Correct.

Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 17):
(i.e less efficient so DL's expenses are increased.)

no, No, NO!!!! This is not some B-S part of the contract to try to "stick it to the man". It is a genuine concern for safety. It has worked completely fine in the past, and it will continue to work completely fine long into the future of NW/DL.

Quoting Brenintw (Reply 18):
I really do think it's a very valid safety concern.

Yes, it is. Short international layovers (18 hrs or less) are almost pushing the limits anyway, much less throwing in +/- 10 or 11 hour time zone changes.


User currently offlineGsosbee From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 825 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 8864 times:

Sorry guys but I cannot buy the safety argument as the whole issue is tied to the definition of a trip. According to your explaination of my example, the trip could be spread out over 3 weeks (i.e. no safety issue there) but still not be legal due to the definition.

A safety rule would be written so many hours on duty followed by so many hours off duty plus so many hours off for time zones crossed. The "trip" would not have anything to do with it. This type of safety rule could be applied across the organization and avoid the issue discussed above where South America flights longer than JFK/LHR would be permitted.

The rule appears to have been written to preserve as many crew positions as possible (which is what Unions are all about). As all of you have said, under my example, two sets of crews would be necessary irregrdless of the actual hours on and off duty.


User currently offlineBrenintw From Taiwan, joined Jul 2006, 1654 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 8700 times:



Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 20):
Sorry guys but I cannot buy the safety argument as the whole issue is tied to the definition of a trip. According to your explaination of my example, the trip could be spread out over 3 weeks (i.e. no safety issue there) but still not be legal due to the definition.

But it's not spread over three weeks. In the CO example I gave you (which is not really valid in the argument for a couple of reasons), it could look something like this:

Day 1 -- EWR - HKG
Day 2 -- Rest
Day 3 -- HKG - EWR
Day 4 -- Rest
Day 5 -- EWR - LHR
Day 6 -- Rest
Day 7 -- LHR - EWR

It might make 8 or 9 days depending on the rest requirements (longest flight there is 18 hours, so it fits in one 24-hour period).

Even at 10 days, there's a serious safety concern with that many time changes in such a short time.

The example I gave is spread out over two weeks due to the non-daily nature of the MH flights (I think it's twice weekly).



I'm tired of the A vs. B sniping. Neither make planes that shed wings randomly!
User currently offlineTranspac787 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 3212 posts, RR: 13
Reply 22, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 8516 times:



Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 20):
the trip could be spread out over 3 weeks (i.e. no safety issue there) but still not be legal due to the definition.

But a trip would NOT be spread out over 3 weeks. It would be cheaper for the company to burn cash to heat their airports than to schedule pilots on 3 week trips.

Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 20):
above where South America flights longer than JFK/LHR would be permitted.

Which is completely fine!!! Your "body clock", circadian rhythm, or whatever you choose to call it, is not as badly messed up then!! Same wakeup call, same bedtime, same relative hours of daylight. That is why South America does not apply.

Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 20):
The rule appears to have been written to preserve as many crew positions as possible

Completely wrong.

Don't try to somehow twist your opinion to represent that of fact. Use semantics, circular reasoning, and your unconditional negative opinion on ALPA all you like, you still aren't going to be able to come up with an argument with a shred of legitimacy.

You are going to need 1 crew to fly ATL-LHR-ATL, and you are going to need one crew to fly ATL-NRT-ATL. Are you actually trying to convince us that it is more efficient and better to route the crews as such:

LHR-ATL-NRT
NRT-ATL-LHR

Instead of LHR-ATL-LHR, and NRT-ATL-NRT?? It's the same exact number of pilots flying the same flights. Your argument is completely out-of-touch with the reality of how these things *actually* work.

Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 20):
(which is what Unions are all about).

Ah yes, what a typical statement. This doesn't even deserve to be dignified with a response.

Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 20):
As all of you have said, under my example, two sets of crews would be necessary irregrdless of the actual hours on and off duty.

"Regardless" is the word you were looking for, there. Do you not realize that you just totally contradicted your own argument there?? No matter, we all know it was your intention to just take a shameless swipe at ALPA.

Swing & miss, but good try anyway.


User currently offlineThreepoint From Canada, joined Oct 2005, 2147 posts, RR: 9
Reply 23, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 8516 times:



Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 20):
Sorry guys but I cannot buy the safety argument as the whole issue is tied to the definition of a trip. According to your explaination of my example, the trip could be spread out over 3 weeks (i.e. no safety issue there) but still not be legal due to the definition.

Theoretically, an airline could extend the flight crew's trip lengths to any number of days or weeks so as to permit long mid-trip layovers to counteract time zone changes - thus allowing an almost endless number of consecutive pairing possibilities. But imagine the effect on crew costs, productivity and efficiency penalties that would entail, notwithstanding the personal sacrifices made when staff spend so long on the road.



The nice thing about a mistake is the pleasure it gives others.
User currently offlineUAL747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 8400 times:

Well, technically, this is a two ocean route all together, the only one I really know of...


MIA-SCL

UAL


25 Threepoint : Is that the sound of countless maritime cartographers and geography professors all rolling over in their graves I hear? Hop-scotching the Caribbean a
26 Malaysia : Speaking of trips, my best friend who is a senior F/A at BA he does trips set with same cabin crew including the pilots such as LHR-YYZ-LHR-PHL-LHR or
27 USAFDO : Student "experts" I'm amazed at how many experts are in here whose professional jobs are listed as "students" between 16-20 and 20-25 are not working
28 Post contains images Transpac787 : Actually I have been for the last 2.5 years. Strike 1. Considering how I answered all of your questions, what does that make you?? Strike 2. I'm not
29 Post contains links and images Jacobin777 : This bad boy did it on a test flight.. While it wasn't a regular-scheduled flight, it did have some pax on board. "Instead of paying passengers, the p
30 KingAir200 : Playin' the age card. Classy. There are some of us in the dreaded 16-20 and 21-25 age groups who are, actually, employed by airlines, and/or also hav
31 777law : Not to put too fine a point on it, but it seems one of the side effects "Two Ocean Rule" would be to prohibit NW / DL and other US airlines from flyi
32 WorldTraveler : I don't think you need to worry about DL's ability to fly nonstop from the US to SIN if they choose to do so with the LR. In your example, SQ does not
33 Transpac787 : Haha, I don't think you could be further off from the actual definition of the rule. No, no, and no. The rule is in place for multiple leg trips. Wha
34 777law : Really? If you go back and look at the posts I quoted, I don't think I'm that far off. As had been said, the rule doesn't allow pairings that cross t
35 BlueFlyer : Having done two-ocean trips as a passenger and being totally exhausted towards the end each time (especially on a brutal three-continent, five-cities,
36 Ocracoke : They (doctors and stuff) say that it takes 1 day for the body to recover from 1 time zone change. I suppose a pilot could fly on a 10 hr time zone di
37 Jacobin777 : None from management were at the controls though one of PK's senior pilots was in control for a little while. Boeing had tons more stuff than it does
38 PhilSquares : You are not quite correct. The normal routing is across the Pacific in order to take advantage of the prevaling winds. If the winds are not favorable
39 Transpac787 : So even though it was me who explained how the rule works and how it applies, you are now going to re-explain it to me.... using my definition?? Nice
40 Transpac787 : Correct, I'm just loose with my choice of words. By "rule" I do mean contractual obligation, there is no FAR in part 121 or 135 concerning this at al
41 Burnsie28 : It has a lot to do with the time zones, try doing it just as a regular passenger what a crew would do, and it would really, really screw with your bo
42 777law : I'm sorry, your sophomoric reply to my original post was completely lacking in substance, thought or analysis. You flatter yourself if you consider y
43 Transpac787 : And please remind the myself and the group what a ULH route by SQ has to do with the trips done by NW/DL?? Your hypothetical route has absolutely zer
44 Scbriml : In view of the fact that the OP's original question has been answered, there's no point in allowing this thread to degenerate any further.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
GPT Spotters Two Delta M88's Inbound posted Sun Nov 30 2008 13:59:09 by DLCnxgptjax
General Motors To Return Two Leased Jets. posted Fri Nov 21 2008 11:29:57 by FXramper
Two New FR Routes To LGW posted Wed Nov 12 2008 04:28:32 by Pe@rson
Two AirTran 737's Heading For AMM posted Wed Nov 5 2008 06:57:45 by LN-MOW
Two Female Pilots On This B737 . Unusual? posted Mon Oct 27 2008 18:00:51 by Mortyman
Northwest Strands Two Plane Loads At PIT posted Sat Oct 25 2008 22:47:13 by TaxPilot
Copyright Rule Reminder For Posting posted Sat Oct 18 2008 16:16:31 by Moderators
ZRH Viewing Terrace To Close For Two Years posted Fri Oct 3 2008 04:36:19 by ZRH
Can Anyone Think Of A Two-jet Top-winged Plane? posted Thu Oct 2 2008 12:12:04 by Triebwerk
Two Letter Codes posted Mon Sep 8 2008 19:37:38 by Atlturbine