When is a route too short?
 

From a passenger's point of view it's easy enough to see why the 95nm Galway-Dublin route struggles to compete with travelling by road while jumping the 85nm puddle that is the Severn Estuary between Cardiff and Newquay makes sense.

Given the (sometimes :p ) derogatory attitude shown to regional airlines, when is a route considered "so short as to be hardly worth the effort of taking off" by fully trained professional pilots (assuming hour-builders might actually benefit from cramming as many cycles as possible into their working day) ?

When the road/rail journey exceeds the flight time + check-in + security time it becomes debatable. Look at Cardiff-Newquay by road or rail on a map? Then look at the blue line between Galway and Dublin? QED?

Would you make your way from the city centre to Glasgow airport, check-in 2 hours before departure for a flight from Glasgow to Edinburgh, then travel in to Edinburgh from the airport?

Some of these services operate as feeders into longer flights. Taken in isolation they are rarely profitable.

I stand to be corrected but the Dublin Galway route is a kind of positioning flight to get the aircraft in position for an early departure but tickets are sold.

... well, I'm assuming the pilots actually want to be on the aircraft as opposed to the passengers who mostly just want to be where it's going. As I said, I can easily apply your logic to the ticket payer, but it's the driver's perspective I'm interested in.

The driver would presumably be on the road so his view on when a route is too short should be clear.

I didn't realise, CR, that you did not understand that 'drivers' do what they are rostered to do and generally have little choice.:)

Depends on the mood I am in and the weather.......
 

We have several flights between isolated nearby islands. Sometimes the flight times are less than 15 minutes; lift off to touch down (Boeing 737). Much of the time this is done completely on instruments in icing conditions and continuous turbulence. The older I get the less I enjoy this type of flying because of the increased risks; short runways, compromised braking, wildlife hazards and greatly increased workloads. There is no additional pay for working "harder" or being exposed to more risks.

But it is all part of the job. The passengers collectively pay my salary and benefits. I may not “like” it, nor do I go out of my way to fly these types of trips, but when they show up on my monthly schedule (and I am unable to trade out of them) I end up putting even more effort into these demanding flights. When the weather is nice the scenery is almost unbeatable. The people are among the most pleasant and knowledgeable passengers I have ever come across. Many are licensed pilots and/or operate heavy machinery or fishing vessels in the same demanding environment themselves. They understand the demands and realities of operating in such a harsh environment-they live it and I am just passing throught.

IFR departure, hard IFR enroute, low visibility approach, crosswinds, turbulence, snow & ice, degraded braking on slippery, short and skinny runways, and all the “checklists” and briefing compressed in 15 minutes is a lot of work. 3 of those legs in a 5 leg -9 hour duty day and I am beat up. In fact I traded out of 2 of them this month.

When you go before you are in!!!!

Ahhhh! Subservience. A great Anglo-Norman tradition. What was I saying elsewhere about the French?

It's been a few weeks now that I've been trying to get straight answers to (fairly) straight questions and I'm beginning to think maybe some of you have been up in the clouds too long. :ooh:

I am the one deciding on routes and preparing the rosters so you do have a choice (where 'you' means my potential team of pilots). Northbeach's answer is the kind of information I need because the last thing I want is to have my aircraft flying routes that the crew want to trade out of.

I'm fortunate that I don't have to consider ice-bound island-hopping, but my principal target populations are almost as isolated for other reasons and one of my challenges is to determine whether it's better to base part of my operation on feeder routes, or to somehow construct the schedule around regular but less frequent direct services to these pockets of humanity.

I know what the flying public and management consultants think and really I couldn't give a damn about them - my interest in is the non-flying public and the places the consultants have written off. The economics of it will work out, but before I position even one aircraft on the tarmac, I need to build a route network that you guys want to fly.

So how short is too short? (or alternately, what balance of short-medium-long is perfect) :)

- I observe that I am not the only one who has been up in the clouds too long.

"Sorry boss, I don't fancy that route today after all - can I do the other one?"

I wish you luck with your venture, but in view of the fact that your experience in management is I seriously think you would do better to stay out of aviation. We can manage that on our own, thanks.

I can only speak for myself but I prefer a minimum of an hour in the cruise!

From the time the pilot leaves home until push back he goes through all the same rigmarole for a twenty five minute sector, say SIN-KUL, as he does for a thirteen hour sector, SIN-LHR. The only time I found short sectors fun was in Bahrain operating Bahrain-Dhahran, these were almost always VMC and I think the record, in a B737, was eleven minutes chock to chock, but they only came around about once a month and usually either before or after a more normal duty day, three or four in a row would be a pain in the arse.

The other time when short hops can be fun is island hopping around the Inner Hebrides, in a BN2 Islander, based in Kirkwall, if the weather is reasonable.

Personally, short haul, multi sector days in IFR are for the birds!

I do a variety of lengths of flight, which I enjoy. I wouldn't say any are "not worth the bother". Yes when you have done a week's worth of Canaries then you get a LGW-INN it wakes you up a bit, but short flights can be fun for a change. I think my shortest was probably STN 23 (as it was then) to LTN 26 as a positioning flight. That was pretty short!! But fun because it was different. I wouldn't say it "wasn't worth the bother".

Thanks, parabellum and Airbus Girl.

First rule of safety: when someone says to you they don't fancy/can't cope/feel unable to do their assigned task, you've got a Priority No.1 Safety Issue and you don't resolve it by saying "Toughen up, Sheila" (even in an Australian accent). See also GHIPUB's plea : http://www.pprune.org/flight-ground-...ona-hotel.html

But, hey! You're prepared to "engage" with me - want to be my Chief Pilot? At least then the other pilots can blame you when they've got to work sectors I rejected as too stressful. :E

a) You say your system is designed to encourage this
b) You now have an aeroplane (hopefully) full of eager pax and no crew.

Let me get you right:

You wish to operate 21 sectors a day on a scheduled timetable but as charter flights or is it 21 sectors a day on a charter timetable but as scheduled flights?

You wish to let your pilots select which routes you operate on and the passengers do not matter so I guess you would just cancel that flight?

You are fully capable of (and probably experienced in) mass murder and infliction of injury?

Hmm.

This puts all our previous 'would-be' airline executive plans into a new league. I trust you will let us know the company name when you start?

Come again.

I quite often "don't fancy" going to work, regardless of sector length. However, I do so as I am a professional and I'm getting paid to do it. So yes I "toughen up Sheila". Am I unsafe?

If I can't cope or I'm unable to do my job then I shouldn't be there in the first place. 5 minutes or 5 hours doesn't matter.

If you're giving me the choice I'd choose the least amount of work possible, the shortest sector possible and get home as early as possible.

I hope, for your sake, that you can find pilots with the opposite attitude to mine or you ain't going to have much of an airline.:}

Minutes, icing, preparation, briefing - who cares? What really matters is having enough bums on seats at the right price to make you a few pence. There is no real minimum sector length but when offering (very) short sectors, you have to come up with with at least one USP (Unique Selling Proposition). I used to operate Maastricht/Amsterdam and also Eindhoven/Amsterdam. These passengers avoided a three/four drive, gained cheaper parking, drove less distance from where they lived to the airport and had to walk a much shorter distance on arrival. The flight time varied between 11 to 45 minutes depending on route and traffic. We stopped these routes because they didn't pay as much as doing something else.

On very short sectors, especially point to point, you have to realise you may be competing with post, telephone, Skype, video conferencing or just economics let alone the ferry, car, rail or god forbid, a bloody bicycle!

PM

PM, Our principal USP is (to be) "go further, faster" - my potential passengers are already travelling but frustrated by being restricted to grindingly slow terrestrial means. Those that have relatively easy access to an airport are generally limited to seasonal services to destinations in the UK (+/- connections to the rest of Europe via Southampton or Edinburgh :rolleyes: ).

These potential short/feeder routes would be intended to offer the advantages that you list, but only if the whole equation can be balanced. If including them regularly elicits a reaction along the lines of "I've got that f:mad:g feeder route to do today" then it's not worth any amount of money. I'll sponsor a bike rack instead.

BOAC: 21 sectors/day operated by three a/c on a scheduled timetable (still subject to modification). Forget the charter tag, it seems to upset some people ... even if the majority of passengers would be "charter" type groups.:cool:

I have spent the last twenty years working as chief safety officer, and misc management roles and ultimate can-carrier. I have a zero-incident record in respect of significant injuries to my personnel and above-average client satisfaction for my sector. At least some of that I attribute to getting down off my "management" pedastal and doing the work of my personnel in the real-life, real-time conditions. That gives me first-hand experience of the aspects of their working environment or routine that might make a dangerous situation worse and we sit down and figure out a way to change it, permanently. :8

In the context of this project, I don't have the freedom or skills required to get that first-hand perspective, so I'm doing the next best thing - asking those who do. So yes, I am asking "my" pilots to choose the routes (and schedules) they work, or at least have a large input into the equation. Sure, that's not the way it's done ... but then my name's not Walsh or O'Leary either. :}

Actually in some of the big operations that is exactly how it is done, they have a seniority based bid system. Probably totally inappropriate for what you are planning though. Outside the bid system pilots, generally, are happy if they get a fair share of everything that is going and will be the first to express their displeasure if they think they are getting more than their share of the rough stuff whilst others lead a charmed life!

Well a long route is more enjoyable than a short route but you gotta just make sure its a bloody good route despite its endurance!

(Down under a route is something else entirely):hmm: