JFK B777 Passenger Base
 

Just curious why there is no Passenger base in JFK? I've heard reasons like radiation (North Pole) or maximizing crew hours but I would think it can't be much different than the YYZ B777 Passenger base.

Couldn't they run trips like JFK-YVR-HKG-JFK or vice versa JFK-HKG-YVR-JFK or JFK-YVR-HKG-YVR-JFK orJFK-YVR-JFK? Surely they could get 84 hours from one of those combinations.

Plus, 2 JFK and 2 HKG based pilots are perfect for reducing fatigue (rest to match body clock). When its noon in NY, JFK pilots are wide awake and HKG pilots are sleepy. Vice Versa at midnight NY time.

Too hard for scheduling to get the crews 84 hours (they struggle with YYZ). So instead of filling the base with a hundred pilots, they remain in HK, on full housing and education allowances, because the ICM Manager can't do his job.

Its the same old case of monthly productivity versus Excess Flying Pay.

The blocks time for JFK-HKG-JFK is 31 hours 45 minutes, so 3 rotations per month would result in 12 hours overtime. It may be possible to roster 1 of those rotations across the end/beginning of a month, but only for a few crew. For the remainder of the crew on a hypothetical JFK base, it would be a case of finding all of them 18 hours of work to do while in HKG.

While in HKG (or working around the region) there are hotel and allowances etc, so the case is not so clear cut as comparing the basic cost of a based pilot versus an expat.

The perfect North American base from a productivity/cost point of view is LAX, where 3 rotations adds up to 84 hours exactly.

Crew Scheduling have enough trouble putting together the perfect 84 hour jigsaw for the crews in Toronto, without adding another 50 pilots to the issue.

YVR based pilots run the schedules you mentioned. Mostly Capt's only for the "triangle" stuff though. FOs get YVR-HKG-YVR or YVR-JFK-YVR.

Watch first bid period of 2011. Also watch Chicago and Miami.

One difference between YYZ and JFK is that JFK also has JFK-YVR r/t in addition to JFK-HKG. This gives some room to maximize the 84 hours.

I imagine its cheaper to put a JFK pilot up in a YVR hotel then it is to put a YVR pilot up in a JFK hotel.

I'll bet a million to one against Miami becoming a base within the next few years...

Was told a while back that the only reason there is a YYZ base to begin with is because the flights used to go through ANC and rosters were easy to handle. When direct flights were started, they didn't want to close the base so they continued.

There was no JFK base before and they want to keep it that way because of the direct flights. Although there is the JFK-YVR sector, the YVR base is over-crewed with Captains and hence that short sector is already fully given to them. No room to send potential JFK based guys on that short sector as well.

That's interesting because I was told there used to be a New York passenger base (on the airbus I think??)

Waterskier

There has never been a NY base on the Airbus. When nonstop NY flights were started in 2004 on the A340-600 the company was reluctant to set up a base there because of radiation concerns with polar flights. Toronto at the time was via Anchorage on the A340-300. With Toronto now also being nonstop on the -300ER that concern may not be as it was in 2004 but it is still there and will be a major consideration in any future decisions as to whether NY becomes a pax base.

It has nothing to do with radiation. It has to do with Chris H. being unable to roster 83.9 hours for JFK based pilots.
There used to be a -400 base in JFK.

4 driver

The -400 never did polar flights. I remember the company having a policy when the direct NY flights on the bus started of only rostering cockpit crew for one NY per month. The reason had nothing to do with rostering and everything to do with radiation concerns. It is the reason NY never got to be a permanent base at the time. That is a fact.

Rostering 20 hours of regional flying per month when the crew are in HK isn’t rocket science even with CH at the helm. After all the company does it all the time with all the other bases. Toronto based guys for example are doing on average 2 HK flights a month and regional flying when they are here in HK to build the magical 84 hours. There is no reason why this couldn’t be done if a NY base was started.

The first polar flight was done by a -400 with ML at the controls for the first flight into CLK. Radiation isn't the heart of the issue it sounds like. I'm sure the ICM manager is not as bad as you think at his job. With as many flights into JFK, and possibly more in the future; I'm sure something will be done to crew this base with 777 pilots.

airplaneridesrfun

That was a one off flight. Just as there was a one off flight in the early 2000’s with the -400. I am referring to and I should have been clearer in my previous post, regular flights like the -300ER and the -600 did before it. Radiation wasn’t a concern for the one off flights because they were just that, one off’s. When the -600 commenced regular (daily) flights in 2004, radiation was a concern of the company as reflected in their rostering policy at the time for these flights. That concern may not be the same now but it will still play a part in any decision the company makes in possibly opening a NY pax base.

WTF
 

Whatever you're on man, cut the dosage!

404.....if radiation was the companies prime concern they would have close YYZ like they did JFK a few years back.
The companies monitoring of our radiation levels is a joke.
They don't even take into account the altitudes we fly at.
There is a significant difference between 320 and 390, as I'm sure your aware, yet according the the CX doc's, this is not factored into the equation.
I stand by my statement that it has to do with rostering not radiation levels. YYZ is a big enough problem for C.H. and he doesn't want to deal with 75 pilots in JFK (even if this would save the company millions in housing).

As long as there is no extra pay for radiation exposure, radiation is hardly a factor in anyone's roster. :ooh:

I wonder if there's more thought to a JFK passenger base now with 4 flights daily in the near future.

Basing Rumours
 

With the 12 hour rule deleted from the CAD371v2, I think a new JFK base and growth on the YYZ base are likely at some point in the near future. CH will soon be able to integrate Middle East patterns into ULH from JFK and YYZ. This will cure the current rostering inefficiencies for YYZ (and a prospective JFK base as well). If ORD service is successful, I would not be surprised to see a 777 base there someday as well.

Rumour has it that the 888/9 service may soon operate to MIA or DFW (both AA hubs) from YVR instead of JFK (since there will be 3 daily nonstops HKG-JFK). This would further support basings in JFK as many YVR CNs operate through JFK now.

Keep in mind that bases will have to open up eventually. Not only do they save the company money when they are rostered efficiently, but the new round of icadets are going to leave in droves once they figure out they cannot live in HKG without housing. The only way to keep them will be through basing opportunities. That is not a problem at present in Oz (for FOs), but NA and Europe have been locked up for a while now.

If the rumours are true, there will be even more F/O slots available in Australia due to multiple resignations!

The Cathay 'package' is just not competitive any more.