I was tracking a flight from Grand Rapids, MI, to Chicago and another one from Cleveland to Columbus (Ohio). Both under 30 minutes in the air and that included maneuvering around the traffic pattern, which seemed to be about 1/4 of the flight.

Seems that the prep involved, for the pilots, attendants, ground crew, operations, etc. would take longer than the in-air time. I understand planes and crews have to be positioned.

But are these very short flights kind of a pain?
- - - -
Joe, CMH

It’s not really the flights but the turn on the ground in between flights

When I was a regional turboprop pilot a normal day was 9-10 legs per day - flights being as short as 25minutes but as long as a hour.

ICT-SLN-MHK-MCI-GBD-HYS-MCI-MHK-SLN-ICT as an example - a 9 hour duty day.

The turn on the ground was only 10 minutes so we were constantly on the go and so it really wasn’t that bad. We didn’t sit around for an hour between flights where you’d get tired.

there’s the California flying where the legs are about an hour

you end up flying 4-5 one hour legs as an example. LAS-SAN-OAK-SNA-LAS

An hour-1.5hr flight with a 45-55 minute turns ends up being a 10-11 hour duty day.

given the choice beteeen 4-5 legs and 1 or 2 legs most people would rather do the 1-2 legs.

It depends a bit on how you are paid. If you are paid based on block time, then long flights are better because there's proportionally less unpaid time before and after. Assuming you have about the same block hours each month, you'll spend less time working.

On the other hand, short flights can be fun because there's no relatively uneventful cruise segment.

Woodreau wrote:

It’s not really the flights but the turn on the ground in between flights

When I was a regional turboprop pilot a normal day was 9-10 legs per day - flights being as short as 25minutes but as long as a hour.

ICT-SLN-MHK-MCI-GBD-HYS-MCI-MHK-SLN-ICT as an example - a 9 hour duty day.

The turn on the ground was only 10 minutes so we were constantly on the go and so it really wasn’t that bad. We didn’t sit around for an hour between flights where you’d get tired.

there’s the California flying where the legs are about an hour

you end up flying 4-5 one hour legs as an example. LAS-SAN-OAK-SNA-LAS

An hour-1.5hr flight with a 45-55 minute turns ends up being a 10-11 hour duty day.

given the choice beteeen 4-5 legs and 1 or 2 legs most people would rather do the 1-2 legs.

When I flew short haul in the 727 and MD80 it was fine if you kept going without much break between legs, much more fatiguing if you had to swap aircraft (always the longest distance possible between gates) or worse as mentioned having a long sit between flights, that’s when you start feeling really tired and then you have to start all over again


After 10 years of that I was extremely happy to go to one leg a day on the 757 then 767

Starlionblue wrote:

It depends a bit on how you are paid. If you are paid based on block time, then long flights are better because there's proportionally less unpaid time before and after. Assuming you have about the same block hours each month, you'll spend less time working.

On the other hand, short flights can be fun because there's no relatively uneventful cruise segment.

I'll add that once the sectors start creeping into real long-haul, it depends a bit on what you prefer.

I have friends who would rather do 2-3 ultra-long hauls trips a month, with 14+ hour sector times. Sometimes they get these trips back to back with a block of time off after, which is good for commuters. While, yes, you get plenty of rest days off, and don't have to work so many days, it also means a long time away from home. I don't mind long haul but once I get to about 11-12 hour sector time I feel I've reached my limit. Flying over the pole or the Pacific for hour after hour after interminable hour is mind-numbingly boring and I'd rather work a few more days each monthy to avoid it.

Honestly most of the time I'd rather tool around the region for a few days and sleep in my own time zone even if it means more time working. Unless, it's a long haul destination I really love.

The good thing is that different people prefer different things, so we bid on different things.

Max Q wrote:

Woodreau wrote:

It’s not really the flights but the turn on the ground in between flights

When I was a regional turboprop pilot a normal day was 9-10 legs per day - flights being as short as 25minutes but as long as a hour.

ICT-SLN-MHK-MCI-GBD-HYS-MCI-MHK-SLN-ICT as an example - a 9 hour duty day.

The turn on the ground was only 10 minutes so we were constantly on the go and so it really wasn’t that bad. We didn’t sit around for an hour between flights where you’d get tired.

there’s the California flying where the legs are about an hour

you end up flying 4-5 one hour legs as an example. LAS-SAN-OAK-SNA-LAS

An hour-1.5hr flight with a 45-55 minute turns ends up being a 10-11 hour duty day.

given the choice beteeen 4-5 legs and 1 or 2 legs most people would rather do the 1-2 legs.

When I flew short haul in the 727 and MD80 it was fine if you kept going without much break between legs, much more fatiguing if you had to swap aircraft (always the longest distance possible between gates) or worse as mentioned having a long sit between flights, that’s when you start feeling really tired and then you have to start all over again


After 10 years of that I was extremely happy to go to one leg a day on the 757 then 767

Long sits are the worst. And even worse is if you have a long sit that is just 10-15 minutes short of the duration which would give you complimentary lounge access from the company.

Very short flights are fun even if it's 4 sectors (flying the A320 it's extremely rare to get 5 or 6 sectors - over 10 years of flying I never had 6 sectors and only a handful of days with 5 sectors, but I heard Ryanair occasionally used to do 6 sectors, don't know if they still do it). The worst ones for me are 4 longish sectors, resulting in a 12 hour duty, these are really tiring...two long (5/6 hours) sectors are also tiring but not as much as four shorter ones. The company that I am just starting to work for now has no 4 sector days, a lot of one sector days (none longer than around 6,5 hours) followed by a 24 hour layover.

From a pilot's perspective: I've done a mix of very short (<1 hour), short (1-3 hours) and medium (3-6 hours) flights and I honestly prefer the shorter segments. For me anything over 2 hours gets mind-numbing pretty fast unless I'm flying with a particularly compatible FO. On shorter segments the monotony is broken up and the part of my job that is actually interesting (takeoff/landing and terminal area) takes up a greater fraction of the total duty time. It is true that a day with many short segments pays less (a 10-hour duty day with a single 8-hour flight pays 8 hours, while a 10-hour duty day with 6 1-hour flights only pays 6 hours), but for me the benefits of less monotony and sleeping in my own time zone (as others have commented) are worth it.

As others have suggested, the worst schedule is one with long sits between flights. It's amazing how hanging out in the crew room doing nothing for 4 hours really takes it out of you!

The highest workload in much of multiple-stage airline operations occurs from the "top of descent" to the "top of [subsequent] climb"

Even the time spent on the gate between flights is taken up with post-flight documentation and preparations for the next flight (fuel determination, flight plan acquisition, weight & balance, taking a pee {!})

Our 767 operation depended on a one-hour turnaround. Sometimes, not even a chance to take a pee!

Starlionblue wrote:

Starlionblue wrote:

It depends a bit on how you are paid. If you are paid based on block time, then long flights are better because there's proportionally less unpaid time before and after. Assuming you have about the same block hours each month, you'll spend less time working.

On the other hand, short flights can be fun because there's no relatively uneventful cruise segment.

I'll add that once the sectors start creeping into real long-haul, it depends a bit on what you prefer.

I have friends who would rather do 2-3 ultra-long hauls trips a month, with 14+ hour sector times. Sometimes they get these trips back to back with a block of time off after, which is good for commuters. While, yes, you get plenty of rest days off, and don't have to work so many days, it also means a long time away from home. I don't mind long haul but once I get to about 11-12 hour sector time I feel I've reached my limit. Flying over the pole or the Pacific for hour after hour after interminable hour is mind-numbingly boring and I'd rather work a few more days each monthy to avoid it.

Honestly most of the time I'd rather tool around the region for a few days and sleep in my own time zone even if it means more time working. Unless, it's a long haul destination I really love.

The good thing is that different people prefer different things, so we bid on different things.

Max Q wrote:

Woodreau wrote:

It’s not really the flights but the turn on the ground in between flights

When I was a regional turboprop pilot a normal day was 9-10 legs per day - flights being as short as 25minutes but as long as a hour.

ICT-SLN-MHK-MCI-GBD-HYS-MCI-MHK-SLN-ICT as an example - a 9 hour duty day.

The turn on the ground was only 10 minutes so we were constantly on the go and so it really wasn’t that bad. We didn’t sit around for an hour between flights where you’d get tired.

there’s the California flying where the legs are about an hour

you end up flying 4-5 one hour legs as an example. LAS-SAN-OAK-SNA-LAS

An hour-1.5hr flight with a 45-55 minute turns ends up being a 10-11 hour duty day.

given the choice beteeen 4-5 legs and 1 or 2 legs most people would rather do the 1-2 legs.

When I flew short haul in the 727 and MD80 it was fine if you kept going without much break between legs, much more fatiguing if you had to swap aircraft (always the longest distance possible between gates) or worse as mentioned having a long sit between flights, that’s when you start feeling really tired and then you have to start all over again


After 10 years of that I was extremely happy to go to one leg a day on the 757 then 767

Long sits are the worst. And even worse is if you have a long sit that is just 10-15 minutes short of the duration which would give you complimentary lounge access from the company.

Yes, always carefully timed to be just short of that


During long sits between flights in IAH I used to jog between terminals in the underground walkway next to the connecting train, it’s quite far from one end to the other and is air conditioned, by the time I’d done that and taken a shower in the crew room it ate up most of that time and I felt better

As you say the sit around is the worst as just when you at you’re lowest energy level you have to go again

joe6273 wrote:

are these very short flights kind of a pain?

Joe, I wanted to approach your questions from a point of view other than either "pay" or "quality of life" but instead from time management and task priority.

The short answer to your question, "are these very short flights kind of a pain?"

Well, for a pilot without experience in short flights, I wouldn't say they are a "pain," but they can be somewhat challenging. For the most part, on a short flight--as per your examples--GRR-CHI or CLE-CMH, and shorter segments as well--you have the same amount of tasks to complete as on a long haul flight but in a much shorter amount of time. The good news is that pilots readily adapt to various situations and you get used to them--short flights--quickly. After that, they tend to be fairly routine. You learn that certain tasks can be accomplished ahead of time; for example, on a short segment, it is normal to obtain the most current destination weather and complete landing data (aircraft dependent) before you even leave the gate at the origin airport. Or, you make the PA announcements regarding destination weather, gate, etc. before departure as well, and only make the required PA inflight, i.e., "Flight Attendants prepare for landing." At some operators, you can even brief the approach ahead of time, I.e., before departure.

In terms of leadership, if a captain perceives that the first officer is struggling to complete all required tasks on a short segment--mostly happens when working as a Training Captain on OE or when flying with a new-hire FO--you can sometimes mitigate the situation by either slowing the aircraft a bit, or requesting extended vectors from ATC when maneuvering for the approach. Say your cruise altitude is 10,000 feet MSL, even though slowing from 320 KIAS to 250 KIAS during the short cruise portion may only add a minute or two to the flight time, sometimes just the perception of flying slower and allowing a moment or two extra to complete tasks is sufficient to build the confidence in the pilot, and allow that pilot to "catch up."

At a previous company, on our "short haul" fleet, in the Initial Qual curriculum in the simulator, we actually had a LOFT (non-evaluative) just prior to the pilots being released to OE which required them to fly a segment between two airports in close proximity. We threw in a few abnormals--nothing major--but it gave the pilots the confidence to complete all required items as they would do on a short flight. I think most of the pilots enjoyed these sessions; it was a good exercise in what they could expect.

As some have mentioned above, I would not want to fly short segments all the time, but occasionally they are an enjoyable tag-on to our longer range (i.e., U.S. coast to coast) operation. We all like a challenge from time to time

e38

Flow2706 wrote:

Very short flights are fun even if it's 4 sectors (flying the A320 it's extremely rare to get 5 or 6 sectors - over 10 years of flying I never had 6 sectors and only a handful of days with 5 sectors, but I heard Ryanair occasionally used to do 6 sectors, don't know if they still do it). The worst ones for me are 4 longish sectors, resulting in a 12 hour duty, these are really tiring...two long (5/6 hours) sectors are also tiring but not as much as four shorter ones. The company that I am just starting to work for now has no 4 sector days, a lot of one sector days (none longer than around 6,5 hours) followed by a 24 hour layover.

It’s common for Ryanair to do 6/8 sectors per day, depending on stage length. 8 is still common considering most of their flights are under 2 hours

8 sectors per day is how many hours per day? I can’t believe 16.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

8 sectors per day is how many hours per day? I can’t believe 16.

Those sectors would have to average less than an hour block time. Our duty limit for an 8-sector day is 9 hours, and I imagine EASA's is similar.

I had a couple of memorable short flights: 1980 I was flying a Falcon 20 and we flew from EWR to Teterboro to pick up a part for the jet. It's about 10 miles or less and took about 45 min! We essentially had to leave the airspace and come back in. I'm sure ATC was amused. I flew San Jose to OAK in a DC-10 a few times and ATC had it well handled. A turn to the west to the coast fly south past OAK east turn for the LOC. Piece of cake. Not really a short flight but we used to fly FRA-CDG in the MD-11 and we would see how short we could make it. Very cool if you departed 25s in FRA and landed 27s in CDG. Seems we were well under 40 min most times.

CosmicCruiser wrote:

I had a couple of memorable short flights: 1980 I was flying a Falcon 20 and we flew from EWR to Teterboro to pick up a part for the jet. It's about 10 miles or less and took about 45 min! We essentially had to leave the airspace and come back in. I'm sure ATC was amused. I flew San Jose to OAK in a DC-10 a few times and ATC had it well handled. A turn to the west to the coast fly south past OAK east turn for the LOC. Piece of cake. Not really a short flight but we used to fly FRA-CDG in the MD-11 and we would see how short we could make it. Very cool if you departed 25s in FRA and landed 27s in CDG. Seems we were well under 40 min most times.

That’s nothing—UUBW to UUWW, yes just across Moscow via Helsinki. No internal flight permits, you must leave Russia now to go to UUWW

We ferried an empty MD80 non stop from JFK to EWR once, that was fun, at 3 in the morning we went direct, a quick flight

Max Q wrote:

We ferried an empty MD80 non stop from JFK to EWR once, that was fun, at 3 in the morning we went direct, a quick flight

It's all fun and games until you see the oh-god-o'clock report time.

I took a look at my 9 leg normal turboprop day from 20 years ago and under FAR 117 today the pairing surprisingly would still be legal.

ICT-SLN-MHK-MCI-GBD-HYS-MCI-MHK-SLN-ICT

FAR 117 Max flight time 8 hours
FAR 117 Max FDP 9 hours

0430 report time
scheduled block was 7:50.
Scheduled duty off at 1300.


However the difference is any delays would cause me to time out due to FDP restrictions although FDP can be extended by 2 hours to 1530.

Pre-FAR 117 it was legal to start legal to finish so any delays meant we could not be rescheduled and kept going until we reached 16 hours of duty at 2030 before we timed out.

Starlionblue wrote:

Max Q wrote:

We ferried an empty MD80 non stop from JFK to EWR once, that was fun, at 3 in the morning we went direct, a quick flight

It's all fun and games until you see the oh-god-o'clock report time.

It is

We had diverted to JFK on a flight from PBI after shutting an engine down due to loss of oil quantity

There were thunderstorms overhead EWR, we sat on the ground in JFK for a few hours (pax were bussed to Newark) while mx fixed the problem then ferried back

Funniest part was we only had take off numbers for the longest runway at JFK and the controller was rather bewildered we would need 15000’ plus for a 20 mile flight

Max Q wrote:

Starlionblue wrote:

Max Q wrote:

We ferried an empty MD80 non stop from JFK to EWR once, that was fun, at 3 in the morning we went direct, a quick flight

It's all fun and games until you see the oh-god-o'clock report time.

It is

We had diverted to JFK on a flight from PBI after shutting an engine down due to loss of oil quantity

There were thunderstorms overhead EWR, we sat on the ground in JFK for a few hours (pax were bussed to Newark) while mx fixed the problem then ferried back

Funniest part was we only had take off numbers for the longest runway at JFK and the controller was rather bewildered we would need 15000’ plus for a 20 mile flight

That last part is so typical.

"Yes, we know it will work. But we only have the data we have, so legally we have to do things in this somewhat counterintuitive way..."

Max Q wrote:

Funniest part was we only had take off numbers for the longest runway at JFK and the controller was rather bewildered we would need 15000’ plus for a 20 mile flight

Reminds me of a summer several years ago when there was a lot of taxiway construction at ANC. When winds were hard out of the south we had to cross the one usable runway (15) twice when taxiing for departure because the taxiway on the far side does not extend the full length of the runway which made for some very long taxi times. In an effort to partially alleviate this, ATC would typically offer departures from 15 at U (where the taxiway ended) to avoid the need for aircraft to cross the active runway again for a full-length departure.

I was flying a Dash 8-100 at the time. My company, however, did not give us takeoff numbers for 15/U (despite multiple requests by me and others) so it was quite embarassing to sit in a long line of 737s, DC-9s and even the occasional 757 - all of whom were perfectly capable of departing from U - and having to tell the controller "Negative, we need full length."

Starlionblue wrote:

Max Q wrote:

Starlionblue wrote:

It's all fun and games until you see the oh-god-o'clock report time.

It is

We had diverted to JFK on a flight from PBI after shutting an engine down due to loss of oil quantity

There were thunderstorms overhead EWR, we sat on the ground in JFK for a few hours (pax were bussed to Newark) while mx fixed the problem then ferried back

Funniest part was we only had take off numbers for the longest runway at JFK and the controller was rather bewildered we would need 15000’ plus for a 20 mile flight

That last part is so typical.

"Yes, we know it will work. But we only have the data we have, so legally we have to do things in this somewhat counterintuitive way..."

Yes

It was a funny conversation with that controller, I think our take off roll was about 10 seconds

Did not need much of that 15000’ runway

On a simpler time, the engineer would open the load manual, determine another, more reasonable runway was possible, fill out and toss the pilots a new data card. Even in the electronic age, I could pull out the APG runway analysis, change runways after all the keystroking.

I used to fly 747-100s, -200s, and -400s for a cargo carrier, and we used to reposition our jets from EWR to JFK (and vice-versa) for repositioning flights. The workload spiked tremendously as we flew through some of the world's busiest airspace at really low altitudes, sometimes at 4000', as I recall. It was fun, but challenging!

I used to fly 747 100s, -200s and -400s for a cargo carrier, and we frequently flew our jets from EWR to JFK (and vice-versa) for repositioning. The workload spiked as we flew through some of the world's busiest airspace at really low altitudes, often at a max of 4000', as I recall.

The analog nature of the "Classics" required lengthy checklists, so I always briefed my Flight Engineers to essentially run the "After Takeoff" through "Descent" checklists as one continuous checklist to ensure that the aircraft was properly configured. We also briefed the arrival and approach in the chocks to avoid briefing at low altitude.

seven47 wrote:

I used to fly 747 100s, -200s and -400s for a cargo carrier, and we frequently flew our jets from EWR to JFK (and vice-versa) for repositioning. The workload spiked as we flew through some of the world's busiest airspace at really low altitudes, often at a max of 4000', as I recall.

The analog nature of the "Classics" required lengthy checklists, so I always briefed my Flight Engineers to essentially run the "After Takeoff" through "Descent" checklists as one continuous checklist to ensure that the aircraft was properly configured. We also briefed the arrival and approach in the chocks to avoid briefing at low altitude.

You ever just run those VFR?

N1120A wrote:

seven47 wrote:

I used to fly 747 100s, -200s and -400s for a cargo carrier, and we frequently flew our jets from EWR to JFK (and vice-versa) for repositioning. The workload spiked as we flew through some of the world's busiest airspace at really low altitudes, often at a max of 4000', as I recall.

The analog nature of the "Classics" required lengthy checklists, so I always briefed my Flight Engineers to essentially run the "After Takeoff" through "Descent" checklists as one continuous checklist to ensure that the aircraft was properly configured. We also briefed the arrival and approach in the chocks to avoid briefing at low altitude.

You ever just run those VFR?

At the carrier I was at I don't remember ever flying a VFR route with the exception of departing an uncontrolled field VFR and getting the IFR clearance after airborne.

I agree with Cosmic Cruiser. I don't recall ever flying those positioning flights VFR. We were always filed IFR as a Part 91 flight.

seven47 wrote:

I agree with Cosmic Cruiser. I don't recall ever flying those positioning flights VFR. We were always filed IFR as a Part 91 flight.

Interesting. These guys did a VFR flight JFK-LGA

https://youtu.be/baAC49s-Wyw

We had a flight that was blocked on the schedule for 25 minutes (outstation 1 to outstation 2) - we would routinely fly it in less than 10 minutes...

it would be a HUB - outstation 1 - outstation 2 - HUB

approaching outstation 1 - we would get a cruise clearance to outstation 2 through outstation 1

land at outstation 1 - deplane, board and take off from outstation 1

check back in with center.

As soon as we checked in with center - we had the outstation 2 in sight and cancelled IFR

landed at outstation 2, deplaned, board, and take off again and pick up our IFR back to the hub.

time from receiving to cruise clearance approaching outstation 1 to picking up IFR after taking off from outstation 2 (landing twice , deplaning and boarding twice ) was 30 minutes - including the 10 minute flight from outstation 1 to outstation 2.

.