Longhaul Cargo vs. Pax Ops - Jetlag
 

Just wondering. I've been flying now B747-400 cargo for many years and seem to have lately increased troubles with jetlag and general sleeping patterns.

Generally, we tend to have lay-overs of two or more days at destinations of different time zones, so that there is just about enough time to get the acclimatized in one time-zone, before heading off to the next one. This way, the body-clock is always behind.

Once getting back to base after several days, one has to get acclimatized yet again, sometimes just barely enough, before heading out again, with very little quality time in between.

In the old days, we used to get 2 weeks/month off, which allowed for some reasonable quality time at home. Now 4-6 days between trips is the norm.

Just wondering, if there are any pax-drivers out there, who have normally short layovers (24hrs), allowing them to stay on home time and have the same troubles with jet-lag.

Maybe there is a need to regulate Cargo flights differently than pax, in terms of rest periods after long trips (more than say 48 hrs away from base).

Any thoughts on this ???

Avius

we are a pax operation with similar 2 day(nights) of layover, with the demise of the union we're typically doing under 3 days at home before being scheduled for another 10 to 15 day trip including long haul sectors and upto 11 time zone changes.

there's a move to shorten the layovers thereby giving us more time at home - do you think this is a move in the right direction ?

the point that caught me in your post was the one about moving on when the body has just about adjusted.

sorry to pose another q instead of an a.

I found the -400F a more user friendly operation with the longest sector being about nine hours but with many of seven.

On the pax -400 eleven to fourteen is the 'norm' thus crossing even more time zones.

Just my 2d.

A few months ago read that (I think) the CEO of Emirates said that they would look into 4 hours on 4 hours off schedules for ultra long haul crew. The crew would have proper rest area's for the 4 hours off and would operate out AND back.

On the one hand it changes the nice lay overs but on the other hand it would allow the crew to stay in their base time zone.

Any comments on this?

Thanks for the posts.

My point was more towards the one about constantly moving on when the body has just about adjusted, never getting rest for a reasonable time at home-base, just like CAPTINSAN correcly mentioned.

I don't have any issues flying 12-14hrs w/heavy crew. Usually, one gets plenty of rest (5-6 hours). I think that the regulations are sufficent in that respect (just my opinion)

As far as shortening Layovers...some of my colleagues like the longer layovers for shopping/activities, etc. which is fine. Mostly they are the ones, who flew pax for years, with little layover time. So it could be a "novelty thing". Let's see how they feel in a few years.

I personally would prefer short layovers, with maximum time at home, to get more quality time w/family & friends. It used to be much easier years ago.

Thru the competitiveness, it seems that airlines are "optimizing" their cost-base in exchange for health of their crew. It may be just my impression, that why I posted this, to see if others feel similarly.

Avius

i echo your sentiments exactly

though i've been a pax driver all along, we previously had enough of the layover thing to max out the credit card. but life changes and i don't look forward to the long stays away, this coinciding with my return to the long haul.

is there anyone out there who has been doing asia/ europe/usa (or vice versa but not quite - you know what i mean) and back with just one night at each station. might it be better to return inside of one week and get more time at home? our conventional thinking ('traditional' FDTL) does not support this, so far such trips have taken 8 to 14 days.

some tech background on the origin of the 2 night layover after longhaul and 2 nights similarly after further timezone changes might be in order.......anyone know?

Looking at the question form a slightly different angle, having flown both pax and freight in the last few years on longhaul 744s, I'd say that freight is far and away preferable to pax operation especially if in the LHS. I would say that about 40% of the potential stress of operating comes from passenger or cabin crew related factors. Long or short layover, I'd always go for freight if offered the choice.

I went from a 747 pax operation to a freight one.

The pax job was a lot of USA East Coast trips - up to six a month! That was a 3 on 2 off cycle and it was completly kn@ackering. Every cycle, you missed a night's sleep and while doing that I never felt rested.

The freight job involves trips of aboput 10 days with usually 8 days off. Legs no longer than 8 hrs and plenty of rest in the schedule.

I feel much better now! And no passengers:ok:

Well, looks like -once again- there are two sides to every coin. Whether pax or freight, too short or too long layovers, we all just fly too much these days and have way too little time to rest at home.

I hear that Cargolux has apparently lost quite an unusual number of (relatively young) pilots due to medical reasons in the last few months. I don't know the details, though.

Happy landings

Avius