Can Low-Cost pilots make it to retirement?

[Mary P.]

This may be a trivial question and we might never really know the answer but I'll ask it anyway:
The reality of the day to day work of an airline pilot has changed tremendously since the introduction of Low-Cost carriers. Lots of sectors, long shifts, being stuck in the same type all your career etc...
Is the human body capable of coping with that til retirement?
If the answer is even remotely no then we've got a huge problem.
Flying for such an airline, all I hear is talk about fatigue.
Mary.

[kick the tires]

having spent 8 years in the charter business and now 5 years in the lo co, I can honestly say I would NOT go back to charter flying unless I ABSOLUTLEY had to!!!

[Flybywyre]

Care to explain why ?.............:confused:

[seacue]

One US lo-co, Southwest, has been around long enough that there must be quite a number of retirees.

Retirees will have flown three generations of the 737: -200, -300 and -700. Whatever the working conditions might be, their pilot's pay is top-dollar in the US airline industry.

[Chimbu chuckles]

Mary if you add up all the whinging pilots you see on this website it would not total a fraction of 1% of the pilots flying for various companies..LCC or not.

One of the drawbacks to the internet is it allows morons who never had a voice an instant audience and credibility beyond their worth. That applies to not just pilots but across the spectrum of society.

[xsbank]

Chimbu, res ipsa loquitur...

[Chimbu chuckles]

Indeed...if someone arrives at retirement in no fit condition, financially or phyically, it is no-ones fault but their own.

It excercises my mind, on rare occassions, as to why people can whinge long and loud about LCC T&Cs when they are generally several or 4 times better than population 'average'.:ugh:

While it is a completely different subject it would be more beneficial, to society, if we, as a society, asked the hard questions of our elected representatives as to just why 'mr and mrs average' have not had a payrise, that came even close to keeping up with real inflation, since 1972.:mad:

[Azure]

The reality of the day to day work of an airline pilot has changed tremendously since the introduction of Low-Cost carriers. Lots of sectors, long shifts, being stuck in the same type all your career etc...
Is the human body capable of coping with that til retirement?
If the answer is even remotely no then we've got a huge problem.
Flying for such an airline, all I hear is talk about fatigue.
Lots of sectors, long shifts.....regulations are regulations, Low-Cost carrier pilots do not fly more hours per day than allowed by those regulations, I do agree that they should be paid more than long haul only because they do more landings and take offs in one day than some of those other pilots do in a whole month.:E
being stuck in the same type all your career....what? You think having to constantly study and learn new aircraft is LESS stressful? :ugh: When your 20, sure go for it...when your 40 and have more to lose if you screw up...:confused:
Flying for such an airline, all I hear is talk about fatigue. .... there is fatigue at all levels of airlines, mainly because the passengers demand to be able to fly where ever they want knowing that they can sleep all the way and have a great time on arrival. Next time you go on vacation and you see those sorry looking crew members pass you by....just remember, your off to party and they are going to sleep.:(
Which could be why kick the tires would never go back to charter.

[Kak Klaxon]

I have just started low cost flying and I am having to learn how to keep up,the cabin crew have commented at how slow I taxi and my take off landing briefs go on too long.Its difficult having spent 15 years doing what I thought was the right thing to get into the rush mindset!
When I get on stand now my next sector pax are all lined up ready to get on,no chance for a pee and cup of tea,its go go go.
Guess I will have to find ways of making time.
I know many pruners have been doing this for years,tell me it gets easier.

[moist]

I've been doing it for a while.
Average 750 hours for the last 3 years, left seat.
Lots of sectors but no night flights!!!!
Pay's reasonable.
Definitely retiring at 60.
Feeling fine!

[nurjio]

Hey xsbank....Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari? :p

Nurj

[TE RANGI]

Interesting question, May P.
Is the human body capable of coping with that til retirement?
I guess so. The human body is quite adaptable.

That it is able to enjoy it till retirement is an altogether different thing!

[MamaPut]

Why shouldn't they make it to retirement? Some stress is necessary for a healthy body and mind. Many helicopter pilots fly 600 - 800 hours a year single pilot, 50 - 150 sectors per day with no aircon and still we make it to 60 and beyond...........

[LegsUpLucy]

Having flown with low cost airlines for sometime,the most common comment from pilots i hear is 'there's no way i can keep doing this until retirement' -
I think deep down people know it is not the healthiest environment of work,but some people can ignore health and quality of life if the price is right!
We all have freedom of choice at the end of the day!!

[rhythm method]

50 - 150 sectors per day

:eek: Tell me that is a typo, please!

[Fluke]

Talking of making it to retirement, one element of stress I see in the current generation of airline pilots is the way career progression now works in some companies,countries.
In days gone by you would join as a SO/FO/FE on smaller regional machines, probably in your twenties. Then move up to a more sophisticated perhaps long haul position as you neared thirty. An initial command back on the first type a few years later meant you were mostly local as important life issues such as marriage and kids were happenning. Through your forties you might fly the likes of DC-9's and 727's until only in your's 50's did your seniority cough up a longhaul command on 747's or DC 10's.
These days I know of pilots who joined on the 747 in their 20's in the early 1980's and are still flying them today, twenty years non stop and probably another twenty to go.
I think forty years of constant long haul flying is at least as badly researched as any of the problems associated with LLC's. Whats worse is the possibility both factors may combine in the future if the market demands it.:(

[Noisy Hooligan]

Mary P. It is a very valid question as anyone who has worked for not just a low-cost carrier knows, but any short-haul or charter airline.
The low-cost carriers are in danger of having a rapid turnover of pilots leading to a shortage of training personnel and lower overall experience level.

Life as a short-haul pilot be it scheduled, charter or low-cost is a complex set of compromises if a pilot desires a long-term career together with a 'traditional' family, not to mention 'quality of life' issues. The compromises have to be met with a fairly optimistic outlook on life which is where the company can help if it has good employee relationships.

I have flown for short-haul scheduled, charter and low-cost operations, the last of which made me decide to seek long-haul flying or look for a career outside of aviation as I could not imagine working another 22 years with the work patterns I was working and the impact that had on a 'normal' life. By 'normal' I mean married with 2.1 kids, living in the south of England and wanting to have a meaningful and useful input into the rearing of said children and being one half of a marriage.

This country does not have any pilots that have worked solely for low-cost pilots for a full career yet and so nobody knows what sort of impact working for one will have on the average individual, but I have known people who have moved to low-cost operations for various reasons, beit chasing an early command, avoiding congestion by working a regional airports etc., some with happy stories, some with not.
Only time will tell, I can only suggest that the many tightening of belts squeezing more and more out of the pilot workforce is enough make many people consider new careers, and people who brand pilots who speak of tiredness and fatigue as whingers should try getting up at 0400 day after day to make the 0525 report at Heathrow and then for their working week to fiinish on late duties even though your body is still waking up at 0400, or in the case of the charter pilot who never sees the light of day for many months during the year.
Unfortunately, at pilot recruitment and training conferences, nobody speaks of the realities that pilots have to deal with in their personal lives if they choose to become pilots. Do people at training roadshows get told that some of the employers to which they aspire to work for make the candidate pay for he recruitment process, type rating, accomodation and transport to the rating wherever it may be in the world, and then after all that expense the job is not guaranteed?

On a lighter note, long-haul is also tiring but feels like a different tiredness. I myself have a general 'shallow' tiredness which is preferable to me than the deep troughs of tiredness with short-haul operations. Each to his own.
It will be very interesting to see BALPA stats in a few years' time.

[bear11]

Nicely Put, NS. To introduce another angle, surely it has more to do with the physiological capability of individual pilots? Outside of aviation, it is recognised that a certain percentage of employees have health problems from working different types of shift patterns. Equally, some employees recognise that the shift pattern they are on is not good for them, however they continue on to their detriment for either financial or personal reasons. None of these guys suffer from the complementary debilitating effects of jet lag on top of the shift patterns, which must be an extra physiological stress - for some.

Some will not be able to handle the stresses of short haul loco flying in the medium to longer term - equally, long haul is very destructive physically and mentally for some people. Plus ca change.

[unablereqnavperf]

I've left the low cost industry, after 6 years,around 5 months ago and can honestly say its the best thing I've done in my career. I have now lost weight, my blood pressure has returned to normal and feel alive again. I now have a life other than work and have lost that burnt out feeling that I'd got so used too. I generally feel 10 years younger and am much less of a grumpy old man(according to my kids!) she who must be obeyed has also noticed a pleasant change!

I'm not the type to moan about hard work but I'm sure that if I stayed in the low cost sector I would not have made it to retirement.I would have had health issues or killed myself driving home after a 20 sector block.

I now fly for a corporate operator still do a lot of flying but have more recovery time between shifts which has made a hugh differance.

[Sleeve Wing]

but have more recovery time between shifts which has made a hugh differance.(sic)

That's the nub, isn't it, urnp.
It's not the actual amount of work that's the problem.
It's the constant minimum rest between blocks. Just no time to readjust.

I'm afraid for the new breed.

Rgds, Sleeve. (18000hrs of it.)

[RAT 5]

To the guys who talk about the stress at work being not too high, compared with other lines of work. Perhaps, but that's not the whole story.

Flying charter, short-haul, I had the opportunity to request every XYZ evening off, or some other regular time period. This gave me the chance to indulge in some team sport. Others could do the same for night classes or joint venture with their family etc. There was life outside work. The same is possible with bidlines in long-haul.

LoCO, no chance. Fixed roster patterns that max'd and min'd everything. Sweat shop labour. There is very little chance to lead a balanced life. Each has their own, and it could be no more than a regular game of darts down the pub with your mates, or rugby/soccer/tennis in a team every xyz. Everytime I asked for a regular slot free I was told that favourable rostering was not available. My productivity would have been exactly the same. The company would have lost nothing, and it is exactly what a computer rostering system is for. In the end numerous pilots quit for a better balanced life style. Work, eat, sleep is not an option for too long.

I am friendly with a few AME's who shared their observation of pilots from a broad spectrum of companies. Their insight into the effect LoCo's life style had on mature experienced piltos, who have been through their hands for years, was very sobering.

Yes you can survive intense work until retirement; just don't start to early in life.

[chimbu]

This topic is ripe for some quantitative academic study.
My experience having just retired after 35 years in a short-haul airline environment and averaging 800 hrs pa is that there is no possibility of reaching retirement in good health.
Assuming excellent physical health, which means not drinking alcohol to excess, not smoking, exercising daily, living in a clean environment and saving every penny, the physical body might make it.
But at what cost mentally.
I retired at 58 and found that the brain dead sameness, day in day out led to zombie like fatigue and loss of vitality and joie de vivre.
A quarter of a century ago flying seemed to be more interesting, each flight an adventure, the characters were larger than life and interesting.
These days flying is mass transit bulk people mover, like trains 100 yrs ago.
Thank goodness my family could see what it was doing to me and begged me to retire.
My sympathies lie with those pilots who have to fly past 60 due to financial or other reasons.

[Mr Ree]

I too could only manage 6 years loco. Interestingly enough, as part of their findings into how less fatiguing working 5 straight early days in a row was etc, there was 1 little graph that clearly showed a noticable drop off in performance after 6 years that couldn't be recovered. However, it didn't get any further discussion.
Leaving easyJet, loco, was the best thing I ever did.
I now have an enjoyable life, like flying again and am way more involved with my family. And I'm no worse off financially.
In hindsight I was so bloody knackered all the time I just couldn't believe that I would be any less so with another outfit; the grass not being greener etc, so getting out of the exhaustion inertia and actually daring to believe I could have a better life was quite difficult.
Next time you're in the crew room take a good look at the faces around. How many are ashen, gray, or sallow? How many with black bags under the eyes? I did after my last leave in a loco and was shocked to see nearly everyone did. I knew I had to get out. I'm very pleased I did.

[XL5]

Balance, as RAT-5 says, is everything. A typical airline day isn't a predicable nine-to-five (with lunch hour) and the relentless game played by every scheduling department to squeeze out the last drops of productivity can and does lead to fatigue. Consistent disruption of sleep patterns along with the inability to pursue an outside interest takes a heavy toll. Most retiring at 60 really need to - the aging process in their middle to late 50s having seemingly accelerated. Carry on until 65? It would be safer and more humane to take those wishing to carry on past 60 round the back of the hanger and shoot them.

Chart/graph attached which makes for not particularly happy reading as the Reaper hones his scythe.

http://i143.photobucket.com/albums/r159/Heavyjet/Retchart1.jpg

[Capt Snooze]

That's an interesting chart XL5.

Could I ask its origin?

Data source and recency would also be of interest.





Snooze

[Guava Tree]

Yes, That is an interesting chart. You can find it here:

http://isggm.calisma.gov.tr/docs/sunumlar/İSG_Onleme_Kulturu_Asbest_Semineri/Paul_Weber.ppt

[Noisy Hooligan]

RAT 5 I suspect you were very lucky to be able to negotiate regular days or evenings free of duty, did you work for a British company with two initials per chance? (If so, the same company still has those initials in capitals unlike all the other muppet airlines who market themselves with lowercase - speaks volumes for the company in terms of a dumbing-down all around)
I think there are very few short-haul carriers who offer such facilities which is a shame because it is exactly that intense sort of flying that would benefit from more control over ones' precious private and social life in order to get whatever type of relaxation/leisure that enables ones' batteries to recharge.
Pilots are really being exploited, just because they have a passion for what they do although not many will admit to it, one has to have passion to jump through all the hoops to get a license. The airlines know this and exploit us to the max. Shame, I would love to have flown for the airlines 30 years ago although I am sure the pilots of the time had different issues - FTLs, a/c reliability/safety etc.

NH.

[xsbank]

Hey Nurj: Vestus Virum Reddit!

[Scottie]

Yes I believe I can make it to retirement.

There are 55 (according to eJ newsletter) low cost airlines operating in Europe. All will schedule differently and have different workloads so to generalise "low cost" is a mistake.

BA LGW shorthaul are now doing 900 hours a year. I suspect many more airlines which are not classified as "Low Cost" have altered their rostering to achieve maximisation.

Longhaul pilots fly their 900 hours a year and have their body clocks screwed.
It's all horses for courses.

To survive till retirement you have to find your niche in aviation.

Low Cost/Regional Base is my niche and suits me, long haul is not. I have the options of applying for a 75% roster or a 50% roster. Maybe that is something I will look at later in life.

The Orange world of 365 days ago is very different to today's :D :D

Perhaps the question should be whether pilots in general can make it too retirement. I work half as hard as my wife (construction professional) for just under double the money :} I don't believe I am knackering myself, just working as hard as any other professional in todays economy.

[Few Cloudy]

Personally I enjoyed the short turn rounds - the adrenaline didn't die away, only to have to be reapplied when the baggage arrived 50 minutes later.

That was the case on the standard airline for which I flew before (probably the same one Fluke flew for) where you hung around on the ground, reading the paper, shopping or dozing and getting out of the swing of flying.

Anyway I did the LC for the last 5 years and retired at 60. As most pilots know, most of the problems occur on the ground - once you get airborne life is much more peaceful.

And by the way, since when was Hey a latin word?

FC.

[Just Browsing]

Indeed, today's easyJet is quite different from the days when everyone was shattered all of the time. I have a fixed patteren allowing me to know with certainty what I shall be doing months in advance. I know i will always enjoy a block of 3 or 4 days off after each working block of 5 days. A week of earlies is no different to any other shift pattern, and it's a damn site more enjoyable than working shifts in a factory, or the police force, or many other shift jobs. More importantly, after my 5th early I can lay in more the next 12 days. Love that.

As someone else said, short turnarounds are preferable to long and lazy ones. The quicker you're airborne, the sooner you're finished. There's nothing worse than hanging around.

I fly a mix of 2 and 4 sector days, some days are long, but there are no night stops, no night flights and no jet lag. The standards are high, the aircraft's the best, and my colleagues - with very few exceptions - are great to spend the day with.

Can I do this until retirements? Probably, it would be the monotony which kills me long before the fatigue. But with part time opportunities available , and if you can afford it, you'd surely consider it whatever job you were doing.

On a final note: what's all this fuss about capital letters in the name? It's not just lo-co companies using lower case, it's widespread in many industries. It's a modern thing, may be that explains it?

JB

[Maude Charlee]

What on earth makes Mary think that lo-co flying is any more tiring/draining/stressful/whatever than having to work in a 'proper' job for a living, like 99% of the rest of the world manage to do perfectly adequately for their working lives?

I'm at a UK lo-co, and personally it's just one long tea break and monumental skive compared to my previous existence. But then again, it all depends what you're used to. I suppose if all you've ever done is fly, then lo-co probably seems like hard work, but frankly I've never had so much free time or so little to do during the working day.

Work for a living? No thanks. Been there, done that, bought (and sold) the t-shirt. :)

[rob-d]

Balance, as RAT-5 says, is everything. A typical airline day isn't a predicable nine-to-five (with lunch hour) and the relentless game played by every scheduling department to squeeze out the last drops of productivity can and does lead to fatigue. Consistent disruption of sleep patterns along with the inability to pursue an outside interest takes a heavy toll. Most retiring at 60 really need to - the aging process in their middle to late 50s having seemingly accelerated. Carry on until 65? It would be safer and more humane to take those wishing to carry on past 60 round the back of the hanger and shoot them.

Chart/graph attached which makes for not particularly happy reading as the Reaper hones his scythe.

http://i143.photobucket.com/albums/r159/Heavyjet/Retchart1.jpg

This Graph isn't specific to aviation careers though. It is referring to retirement age in general vs. age at death. From reading the presentation it takes quite a narrow view of its topic so as to fit to its own argument.

[JW411]

Now then, I am a very simple person. It has always been my understanding that in order to reach an average figure, 50% of candidates have to be below the line and 50% have to be above the line.
Therefore, to achieve the figure that the average age of those who retire at 65 will die at age 66.8 then does that mean that 50% of pilots who retire at the age of 65 will die within the next 1.8 years?
So far, I am bucking the trend!

[F4F]

Well, listening out to some of the F/Os in our LC outfit just makes me wonder how they will make it to any sort of retirement :rolleyes:
Most of them started like 2 to 3 years ago, are aged somewhere between 27 and 35, and moan the whole day long, what a sad picture.
As for me, having started my piloting carrer quite late in life, I now enjoy every minute of flight. Just recalling the days before (...when I had to really work...) brings the smile to my face, thanks :ok:

[JW411]

Well, I have said this before and I have to say that the youngsters are the problem. I retired at 65 and only missed two flights in 19 years. The youngsters were forever going sick.

My theory is that the young pilots of today have been innoculated against every damned thing on the planet such that their immune system does not exist any more.

Us old pharts who caught measles, Geman measles, chicken pox, mumps, scarlet fever etc etc and got it all out of the way when we were kids are quite likely to last until we are 85.

I hold out no such hopes for Tony Blair's young and well protected kids!

[CSI Oslo]

About that study, what group of professionals retired in their fourties and died 89 years old?

Lo-cost pilots, 1950?

[loc22550]

Not convinced that flying low cost 4 sectors/days is more tiring than long haul flight....
Most of the low cost, you may fly 4 sectors a day, but you are at home every night, no jet lag...
Long haul flight, you may have a lot of long night flight, jet lag...wich i think for me is much more vicious for your health and your body....

[Noisy Hooligan]

Maude Charlee, I worked in The City for five years, usually six days per week and five days of that week were 0700-1900 and later. I was a little younger then but the tiredness was nothing compared to short-haul flying with a regular and a loco operator.Long-haul is better for me. As someone said earlier - horses for courses.
NH

[XL5]

The bumph in the preamble states that a Dr. Ephrem Cheng derived the chart with the study group being retirees of Boeing Aerospace, the data being provided by actual pension payments deposited in the retirees' bank accounts plotted as a function of age.

The impetus for the study - the bumph goes on to state, was that retirement funds with Lucent technologies, AT+T, Lockheed-Martin and others weren't drawing down as expected because retirees weren't living long enough to take out the expected sums.

The study was presented as a lecture in 2002.

[whiskeyflyer]

and there was I worring about my pension fund returns
Cannot retire at 50 (as will not have enough money according to my financial adviser, so making ot to late 80 will result in me living in a box under Waterloo bridge) but if I go on until 65, looks like I'll only need 3-5 years of funds, so my old hips will have to keep up with some hetic parting around the club house.

was it Carnegie who said, good cash flow is spending your last dollar just before you die?????

PS Glad to see some pilots admit it easier inside the cockpit that outside. The newbies always complaining and now I am begining to sound like my grand father (you tell say a medical professional your hours and they'll come back with scary stats on hours worked and these guys are working directly on people...) but from several studies the persons with the most stress in their jobs are those who perceive they have no control over their work/environment.

[Stan Woolley]

There are hundreds of different flying jobs and within the low cost sector in the UK alone the job can vary a great deal.

On top of that you have people at different stages of their career in different personal situations. I do object to pilots who have been in the job five minutes telling me what a skive it is! Funny how it's a long way from that when they are training. I've never seen a perfect flight, have you? Sooner or later they'll have a scare and maybe think again.

My personal experience is such that I have seen lots of stress in very short timescales in some jobs, definitely not sustainable.

[BitMoreRightRudder]

Well, I have said this before and I have to say that the youngsters are the problem. I retired at 65 and only missed two flights in 19 years. The youngsters were forever going sick.


I want to see some sort of chart or graph that clearly provides concrete evidence that such a phenomena exists. Until then I'm denying everything!

What about regular exercise and a healthy diet? Thats the biggest challenge I find in this career. I can't eat the crew food at my loco, it's abysmal and contains all the nutritional value of deep fried cardboard. And all I do is sit on my arse all day. I know full well if I'm going to do another 40 years of this I need to keep up the gym and sort my own diet out, and continue to have the discipline to stick to it.

Having a life outside the cockpit surely helps reduce the stress we are exposed to while at work. I fly with some guys who clearly hate their job. I don't think that helps matters much. I'm still in my first few years of flying but so far I wouldn't swap it for anything. So I hope if I can keep a realistic view of the job and stay healthy and happy outside work who knows maybe I will reach 65. Having said that if I want any sort of pension by 2047 I'll probably need to keep working until I die anyway:{

Now you'll have to excuse me, I need to ring crewing and get out of my horrible 4 sector day, got a sniffle and a major hangover.:}

[Pax Vobiscum]

Actuary (and non-pilot) speaking.

The mortality table makes little sense to me. The use of the vague term "average" suggests that it wasn't produced by a professional statistician. If anyone can find the original on the web, please send me a link and I'll try to take a look at it in context (I've looked at the Turkish PPT doc from which the image was taken, but that doesn't provide any more info).

It's even worse than JW411 suggests - for every person in the study who retired at 65 and lived to age 70, around 6 must have died before 66.8 to keep the average (arithmetic mean) at that value. That would be a rather poor survival rate even for a group that had been diagnosed with a fatal medical condition!

[slide blower]

forgive me for saying but what about the crew down the back.as c/c nobody has any idea either!.

[pontifex]

I have been fortunate enough to fly a wide range of roles both in the RAF and as a civil airline pilot. In the civil world, which I started in at age 53, the role I found most stimulating and least fatiguing was the one most akin to loco operations. That was with Air Europe flying the F100. Regular 4 sector days with 45 minute turn-rounds (Paris/Brussels?Dusseldorf), frequently home and finished by midday, virtually no night flying - fabulous. I thought I had gone to heaven and felt I could have done even more. Then, of course, the firm went bust and I ended up on charter work (bucket and spade version). I found the constantly changing shift patterns with long boring night flights with stressfull turn-rounds, very hard to cope with. Long haul appeared a stroll in the park by comparison, although the constant jet lag (which I understand one never adapts to) must be a significant factor. I can only conclude that the problem is not in the actual hours worked in loco, but in the lack of self esteem that the changing status of the airline pilot engenders. It is this, and the lack of regard in which employers in the loco industry hold their employees that, I suspect, is at the root of the moans that fill the threads of PPrune.

[ScarletHarlot]

Another non-pilot and partially fledged actuary here, regarding that retirement age vs. life expectancy chart. The blurb at the bottom of the chart dangerously suggests a cause and effect of work more year, lose two from your lifespan. Consider the population that retires at age 50. They are likely to be higher income, better educated, and probably in better health. Conversely, those still working at 65 are likely still working because they have to, not because they want to, and are a less-advantaged population, overall. This could be more of an explanation than work itself causing reduced lifespan.

In any case, on average, someone who retires at 65 living only to 66.8? As the (fully-fledged) actuary above said, that makes no sense.

[B4MJ]

Red Flag for Jet Lag
In Study, Simulated Flights Result in Deaths of Older Mice

By Del Quentin Wilber
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, December 26, 2006; Page D01

It's the caged-mouse syndrome of air travel -- you feel crammed into your seat on a long-distance flight with little to munch on except a bag of pretzels.

But you better hope you beat jet lag better than a mouse.

A study at the University of Virginia released during the height of Thanksgiving and Christmas travel seasons showed that a majority of elderly mice died while being subjected to the equivalent of a Washington-to-Paris flight once a week for eight weeks. More intense forms of jet lag sped up the death rate in the elderly rodents, the study found.

For decades, flyers have stoically battled the modern-age problem of jet lag, viewing its accompanying grogginess, burning eyes, headaches, insomnia and fatigue as more of a nuisance than a potential health issue.

The study has focused new attention on the problem and raised questions about whether severe jet lag can be harmful to health. It also has drawn attention to work by other researchers looking into ways to help vacationing families and business travelers avoid jet lag. The study is one of the first hard scientific looks into the health effects of jet lag, experts said.

The condition has become such a common scourge of the jet age that an entire industry has emerged on the Internet, offering such solutions as acupressure kits, homeopathic pills and light-enhancing visors. Many travelers have invented their own treatments: slurping down gallons of coffee, dunking heads in ice-cold water, taking naps, jogging and popping sleeping pills and homeopathic remedies. But researchers say few of those remedies are backed by science.

In the study, younger mice seemed to rebound more quickly and were not immediately harmed by the jet lag. Simulated jet lag conditions were created by advancing and delaying the rodent's exposure to light.

Researchers aren't sure what conclusions to draw from the results.

Gene Block, the report's co-author, said older mice might be more susceptible to sudden light changes than younger mice. Or, he said, jet lag might be a health problem that builds up in younger subjects, causing future maladies.

To further explore the issue, his researchers have launched another set of tests to determine whether jet lag causes long-term health consequences in younger and middle-age rodents, Block said minutes before boarding a 14-hour flight to Japan from Washington.

"I feel like a subject in the experiment," said the 58-year-old, who recently returned from a conference in Italy. "Like many people, I am finding it more difficult to cope with jet lag as I get older. . . . I would like to know whether it's a phenomenon of old age or whether it is something I really have to worry about."

Block's study also hinted at what flyers have been saying for years: It is more difficult to adjust to time zone changes when flying east. The researchers found that 53 percent of elderly mice died when they were subjected to a simulated weekly flight from Washington to Paris over the eight-week study. The death rate dropped to 32 percent of elderly mice on a simulated Paris-to-Washington route, according to the study, which was published last month in the journal Current Biology. Seventeen percent of the mice in a control group died in the eight-week study.

Research has identified links between night-shift work and chronic health problems. And doctors and aviation experts have worked hard to help pilots and flight attendants mitigate the effects of jet lag to ensure they can function properly in the air.

Jet lag is caused when people fly across time zones. Many factors, including daylight, sleep cycles, hormones and other natural rhythms, play a role in how humans' complicated internal clocks handle it.

Researchers say the only way to truly avoid jet lag is for travelers to gradually prepare before leaving on their trips.

Charmane I. Eastman, a professor and director of the Biological Rhythms Research Lab at Rush University Medical Center in Chicago, believes that flyers can more easily cope with jet lag by adjusting their sleep schedules before traveling.

If headed east from the Washington area, for example, travelers should go to bed an hour earlier each night and wake up an hour earlier each morning for several days before leaving town.

When travelers wake up, they should get sunlight or use a "light box" to help trigger changes in their biological clocks. Travelers should also consider taking small amounts of melatonin, a hormone, five hours before going to sleep to help them adjust to their future time zone, Eastman said.

The only other way to avoid jet lag on overseas trips: "Take a boat," she said.

There are also ways to mitigate jet lag once you land. If heading to Europe from Washington, most people should wear dark sunglasses after landing until about 11 a.m. Exposure to too much light too early can delay adjustment to new time zones, Eastman said.

After 11 a.m., travelers should try to get as much sunlight as possible to help kick-start the body's clock, she said.

Several veteran travelers said they would have a difficult time switching schedules under Eastman's plan and said booking a cruise was an inefficient option.

They have found their own ways to cope.

Steve Solomon, 30, a consultant who lives in Gaithersburg, sets his watch to his destination's time zone before he takes off "to get your mind into the right mind-set." He also avoids alcohol and drinks a lot of water.

"I view it as more of a hassle than anything else," he said. "You have to run with the punches."

Carol Lane, a 42-year-old free-lance advertising and marketing writer, says she relies on homeopathic pills she buys at a health food store.

Even with the pills, though, she said she hadn't been able to adjust to jet lag as well as she did a few years ago.

"When you are in a particularly bad bout, you are just so walloped," she said. "I'm an old mouse, I guess."

[sonoma]

I read an interesting post from Mary about low cost carrier pilots making it to retirement. Many good posts including people remarking on their work hours and rosters.
I captain a B777 for a large carrier based in Dubai and, like many of my colleagues, block near 900 hours per 12 month period. If I could have a regular wake up time over a reasonable period it would make a great improvement to my quality of health. I am rostered for trips in succession which pay no regard to sleep patterns.
I am severely jet lagged with no proper time to recover. Some people can rest well in the bunk and I can occassionally do so, but if you're not successful then you suffer. It is stressful showing up for work tired, but sitting in the seat, watching the sun rise with a low workload perpetuates the tiredness. Activity can energize you (I have flown commuter, shorthaul, medium and now long haul so I can compare) but sitting in the seat for hours on end is itself tiring.
Interestingly, I and some of my colleagues are applying (some have left already) to short haul-low cost carriers.
By the way, I have flown Boeing and Airbus - a new joiner I met left a secure, well paid Captain position on a B737 because he didn't want to fly that type for the rest of his career. The difference between a B737NG and a B777, a little higher of the ground, takes more to taxi, FMS has differences but like most things in life you get over it.

[Mary P.]

Has the question become: "Can any airline pilot make it to retirement?"
What has changed that has people complaining about boredom and fatigue now when they didn't say 30 years ago?
Mary.

[TheGorrilla]

Sonoma,

Like you I have recently come from the short-haul world of nights in bed, early starts (Yuk!) and multi-sector days (knackered!). I traded this for the fatigue, boredom, and sheer exhileration?? that long-haul flying claims to offer.

I'm not sure if this has a negative or positive effect on my health. Dispite spending longer at higher (more cosmic radiation) levels, and longer periods awake, I still don't know if this is a "healthier" way of life, if compared to "rushing" around with your "A$$ on fire". I suspect not.

That said, my average blood pressure reading is much lower than it has been on SH.

Good luck sir.

[Dan Winterland]

I went the other way, from Long Haul to short haul.

At first on long haul, I was flying mostly ultra long haul with rosters of three flights a month with good periods off in between. Also with three or four pilots, rest periods during flight eased the fatigue. This lifestyle was managebale. I then went onto shorter patterns flying to five or six East Coast USA destinationd from London each month. This was horrid. A trip and a rest period took about 5 days. On each 5 day pattern I lost one night's sleep as the USA departure was invariably at midnight body clock time. Doing that six times a month was completely knackering.

After that, I changed to long haul freight. This involved patterns of up to 12 days with a minimum of 6 days off. Generally freight doesn't care about OTP and the lifestyle is very disrupted with frequent roster changes which make it very hard to manage your rest. When I was driving to work still feelin tired after 6 days off, I knew I had to stop.

So when I had a chance to swap to short haul, I took it. Now, I fly more hours a year - but it feels like less. I have acure fatigue to contend with as I did with long haul. But the big difference is that it there is no underlying chronic fatigue. As a result of stopping long haul I feel 5 years younger and a lot healthier. I've only had two days off sick in two years, whereas on long haul I was ill all the time - I had a cold which lasted three months!

I often see my mates from the freighter for a beer or two and I'm shocked how bad they look. I must have looked like that but I just didn't realise. And my wife thinks I'm easier to live with! As I got older, I found my circadian rythems got stronger which is why I think I found long haul harder to cope with. But one thing I'm certain of, I never wan't to go back to long haul!

[Joe le Taxi]

I now do ultra long haul only, and its great - Always 5+ hours bunk time available in which I can nearly always get a few hours sleep, potter around and have a meal; Sleep when I'm tired downroute and a goodly block of time off when I get home. I think regularly forcing yourself to go out down-town when feeling a bit knackered on arrival can greatly increase the general tiredness though.
Short haul is too much like hard work in comparison, although with only one landing a month, I do miss the hands on flying.

[Rainboe]

Joe I agree with you. A hard shorthaul roster is worse for me than a longhaul one. When I flew concentrated SH, I hated it, seemed to be working long hours every day, and my BP went up horribly. Going back to LH was like a breath of fresh air. Instead off flying taking over 80% of my life, it took 60%. Now I'm doing a mix and enjoying it. But I think a pilot is either a natural SH or LH type and it depends on the individual.

[sonoma]

Downroute I Met A Virgin Long Haul Pilot. He Told Me That They Are Contracted To Fly Maximum Of 750 Hours Per Year. As I Mentioned Earlier, Most Of My Colleagues Are Flying Close To 900 Hours A Year. Check Out Some Of The Contracts Available For Long Hual Captains And You'll See The Expectation Of A Near 900 Hour Flying 12 Month Period With Few Days Off At Home. The Impression I'm Left With Is That The Days Of More Reasonable Schedules Are Fading Away. The Companies Want To Maximize Their Utility Of Labor And In This Competitive Environment They Cannot Be Sympathetic To Our Life Expectancy Or Need For Rest. Lip Service Is Paid To Rest Requirements But Crew Hotels Are Changed For Price Now And Not Because Crew Couldn't Get A Quiet Room (this Is A Regular Practice Downroute At My Company). Schedules Are Most Definitely Not Created With Rest In Mind - I Can Attest To That This Month. If You Fly With Bunks All The Time And The Bunks Are Of Good Quality Then You May Be Able To Establish A Good Work/rest Pattern. Keep In Mind That Not All Airlines Get Bunks (you May Find Yourself In An Uncomfortable Seat) Or The Bunks They Get Are Price Related And Not To Optimize Crew Rest Or Access To The Flight Deck (my Company's Bunks Are Situated Where The Pilots Are The Furthest Away From The Cockpit And Shared With The Cabin Crew - Doesn't Happen For Those Of You Thinking It).
I Workout On Days Off, Get As Much Sleep As Possible And I Am A 'healthy' Drinker - Consume Equal To Or Less Than Recommended Units - I Have Aged Way Beyond My Years Since Starting Long Haul (with Some Short Haul Mixed In). The First Few Years Were Ok But In The Last Few The Accumulation Of Fatigue And Jetlag Is Kicking My Behind. Hard Work Never Killed Anyone But Jetlag Will. B777 Captain, Middle East Airline, Flown Commuter Through Long Haul During My Career.