Kenya Airways Under Fire From Pilots For Flying 787s Too Fast
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 30 พ.ย. 2021
- Last week we reported that Kenya Airways found itself in conflict with its pilots’ union regarding the speed at which it has asked crews to fly the Boeing 787 on a certain route. The measure on the carrier’s Nairobi-Guangzhou route is designed to cut costs. However, the union has asserted that the plan, which also reduces the number of pilots onboard the flights, is illegal.
Article link: simpleflying.com/kenya-airway...
Maps generated by the Great Circle Mapper - copyright © Karl L. Swartz.
Video sources:
Kenya Airways • Kenya Airways - Your S...
Kenya 787 787-8 Kenya Airways • Kenya Airways Dreamlin...
Photo sources:
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
Simple Flying:
Visit our website where we publish 150-200 news stories per week: simpleflying.com/
Listen to our weekly podcast: simpleflying.com/podcast/
Download our iOS & Android app: simpleflying.com/simple-flyin...
Daily email digest sign up: simpleflying.com/daily-digest/
Check out our second TH-cam channel: / @longhaulbysimpleflying
Follow us on social media:
Instagram: / simpleflyingnews
Twitter: / simple_flying
Facebook: / simpleflyingnews
Linkedin: / 33222643
#aviation #flight #avgeek #airlines #flying
You know something's up when you get a ticket for overspeeding in mid-air.
😹😹😹
Hahaa
That took me a couple seconds to get, I will admit
🤣
The boring reply is coming.... in reality it's like they were doing 69 on a 65.
Sometimes legal and smart are two different things. Fatigue is an issue after 8 hours. After 10, you're asking for trouble. And the worst part is the most critical phase of flight (landing) occurs when the crew is most tired. Even worse since they're flying on the back side of the clock.
You are so correct. I used to fly Part 135 on demand charter and the FAA allows for 14 hour duty days and 10 hour flight time. Craziness!
Not to mention there is hours of work that needs to be done before wheels up.
@@nitehawk86 included in our 14 hour duty day was 1 hour for preflight duties, including flight planning, wx, w&b, and 1/2 post flight for paperwork. Don’t miss the long days at all!
They could be fatigued from the days before flying too. It can build up day to day, Like not being well rested, but just never well rested. Should just not fly like that.
@@stevemagnuson7051 pretty standard and any duty below the 12 or 14 hours labour requires a 12 hours rest time minimum
The pilot’s union absolutely has a case. 10.5 hours with only two pilots invites mistakes to be made from a fatigue basis. Cost savings or not, safety should be the airline’s top priority.
Sure, but then they shouldnt have agreed to have that as the maximum.
There will always be a limit where anything near the limit seems too much. There has to be a limit. The union agreed to allow this.
In trucking it is legal and expected to drive 11 hours with only 1 break for 30 minutes. It used to be 10. Either way, the last hour sucked.
The Air Canada special!
10:30 flight time is no negative Safety Factor at all, as long as it is in accordance with Kenya‘s OM-A chapter 7 regulations.
@yo yo If you think operating an airliner is 95% doing nothing, you are sorely mistaken. This is a challenging job that occupies your entire melon.
I flew from Nairobi to Schipol with Kenya Airways in 2005 on my way back home to Ireland and it was a better plane and more comfortable flight than the outbound KLM flight so I have good memories of their long haul service. I hope the pilots union gets their way. Fatigue can cost lives and it'd be a shame for that to happen.
I'm Irish and never been 2 Kenya and prob never will be😆
@@kevindunne6251 I don't see a point in your comment. There are tons of people who don't travel or travel to only a few places.
@@kevindunne6251 I'm Kenyan and never been to Ireland.
@@kevindunne6251 I am from a planet near alpha centuri , I've been to 25 different galaxies but I've never been to Kenya... I would like to tho.. i just might go there today.
@@kevindunne6251 I’m Kenyan and never been to Ireland and prob never will be 🤷🏽♂️ Like why would I even go there?
I don't think the speed is an issue. But the lack of pilots is. They should have at least 3 pilots for that flight.
4, a replacement captain and first officer
@@trevoromondi1663 as long as the third pilot is a captain, then you’re good, as there would always be at least one captain in he cockpit at all times. Reserve seat 1A as crew rest area, and rotate throughout the flight. For example, pilots 1&2 takeoff and fly 3.5 hours, then pilot 3 comes in and relieves pilot 1 for the next 3.5 hours, and then pilot 1 comes back and pilot 2 takes the last 3.5 hours, while pilots 1&3 land.
@@schumi246 No need for the replacement pilot to be a captain. As long as one of the FO’s has the qualifications to be a captain 1 Capt 2 FO is legal in lots of countries. Most European flag carriers would use 1c 2f on a 10 or 11 hour flight.
@@ATH_Berkshire not sure of their ranks, but on my flight from DEN-LHR (9hrs), there were three pilots, and all three were in the cockpit for landing, and the third one was giving us a commentary on what we were seeing on approach, that was a nice little touch.
@@schumi246 The problem then goes to what position the relief captain is certified and trained to fly. First officers are only certified for the right seating position. And most captains are only certified for the left seating position. As such to only have one relief pilot, they would have to be a captain and certified to operate from both seating positions in order to be a relief pilot for both the captain and first officer.
From a cost savings perspective, I believe that this is move is incredibly shortsighted. Sure, you save on the salaries, accommodation, and allowances of 2 crew members, but you also introduce the medium to long term costs of increased fuel consumption and increased engine wear.
My personal take:
A fair compromise would be to remain at the same flying speed, but instead of 4 pilots, just have 3. The airline would still at least get some level of cost savings without introducing excess fuel consumption as well as engine wear and tear
Establishing a 3 crew window in an already established flight schedule can be absurdly expensive, even more so with union seniority. Consider hiring and training new crew. Rebalancing positions on each type. Giving senior crew type choice and relevant training pay, rebalancing routes and types, Possibly even schedule changes and gate access considerations.
Adding 1 person on 1 segment is not simple when there are many flights in similar or nearly similar circumstances. Your talking a major business plan change almost as extreme as changing a legacy carriers main hub to another continent.
Edit: clarified senior crew training for type change
@@hewhohasnoidentity4377 yeah but arent there rules for such long flights? The pilots probably get to the detination really fatigued
@@hewhohasnoidentity4377 Admittedly I wrote my comment as a hot take without concern for the nuances expected from an actual business operations perspective. Why should I? This is an interet comments section.
But alright, to indulge on my thoughts, my proposed middle ground stood on the assumptions that were available based on the limited data provided by the video. The video (if I recall correctly) mentions that the airline's previous operating parameters have set a 4 person flight crew to operate the aircraft for the original block time. The new parameters limited it to just two crew members. Purely from a surface level analysis (read: *surface level*), I suggested the middleground of 3 crew members as a starting point for compromise. By all metrics with the old operating parameters as a basis, 3 crew members is still cheaper than 4. I probably should have been clearer in saying that what I meant was this should have been considered before going with the 2 crew member solution, but I digress.
Let's now go to all of your analysis. Yes, am familiar with everything that you've mentioned. I understand that *adding* a new crew member is not a simple point and click process. I also know that it goes far beyond the things that you've explained. It is a logistical nightmare of bureaucracy and expense. However, even in the airline's first decision to reduce from 4 crew members to 2, you and I both know that the airline did undergo all that logistical considerations, just in reverse. Removing 2 crew members would also entail the additional resources needed to reschedule crew assignments, distribute severance pay (if applicable, I don't have time to look up how many pilots were laid off by the airline). If the airline and union have had better negotiations, they could have realized this fringe scenario and made special arrangements.
With regard to my initial hot take. Do I still stand by it? Yes, and this is in consideration of all the nuances involved. It will require investment from the airline. As businesses, you are expected to absorb the costs of unexpected circumstances. If you see that one of your operating arrangements is not working, you have to invest in finding a solution for it. "But it's too expensive" is not an excuse to allow something that's potentially unsafe. If you can't pay for fair arrangements for your employees, then you probably shouldn't be in business at all, but that's a discussion for another time.
It's one thing to see pilots as disposable sources of expense for accountants, but it's also another to see them as valuable human assets that require fair investment to ensure that they actually continue to produce good and safe results for your airline.
@@fredmdea785 Yes and unfortunately from a contract perspective, the airline is technically correct in allowing for this kind of operations. They saw the loophole that the union failed to close.
I am not familiar with the specific applicable laws, but I'm gonna presume that the contract does comply with existing laws for it to be ratified by both parties.
The point for discussion here is that was it fair for the airline to force one of their routes to comply with the union contract clause, especially in what is arguably a kinda irresponsible way. The union probably accepted the 10h 30min limit because the airline's current route network only had a few routes that fell exactly within this limit. They probably did not expect the airline to try and force another route to be squeezed at razor thin margins.
@@fredmdea785 you're right though that the pilots are probably very fatigued. Trying to reach the destination within the block time itself is probably another source of stress for them
As a native Mandarin speak, I salute you for your effort to pronounce Guangzhou as correctly as possible. You did a good job!
I am also surprised how he pronounced the Kenyan names in the correct manner. like the name 'njoroge' it was on point
@WilliamRong It's a computer. The voice algorithm is getting better.
F''''''' Mandarin
Kenyans love speed. From marathon, to WRC Safari Rally to Dreamliner neck-breaking speeds, we are amazing people. 🙂
Hakuna matata
Lol. Kinda true
Yes we do love speed.
But we will not be so amazing when we kill people just because of corporate contempt of laws and life.
You haven't seen how vehicles are driven here.
Don’t forget ‘miraa’ pickups. That is some real speed🤣.
A couple of points:
First: Flying west to east is always faster than flying east to west due to winds (at least between N. America and Europe).
Second: Their existing rules would require extra crew on the flight home to Kenya due to the fllght time. The extra crew would need to be dead-headed and accommodated while away from base.
Yeah, not sure how this plan makes sense for the company if they need a second crew anyway. Maybe they get paid less if they're just deadheading?
@@wilsonli5642 yes, they would get less pay for deadheading
For the flight back to Nairobi, they would still need 4 crew in the cockpit, so they're deadheading crew on the flight out, paying their hoteling for days in China, and then flying back? That seems pointless to save them the duty time on the way out. Besides, additional fuel burn > pilot on duty time so none of this makes sense.
If Kenya Airways is in such dire straights financially that they've resorted to this, then they're certainly going under asap.
@@leroi1297 Unfair to blame accountants for no reason and with no proof.
@@leroi1297 I mean this is just ignorance.
First, accountants report on past financial results, they don't make management decisions or operational decisions.
Second, you just completely whiffed at any point of my comment, as if you didn't even read it but just blindly lashed out in anger for some reason.
Third, government owned or not, it can still fail. Don't think so? What happened to Alitalia? Go ahead and try and book a ticket on that government owned airline lmao
KQ has been recording losses since 2011, govt bail outs are the only thing keeping it running..
I can't believe the pilots don't get crew rest
on a 10 and a 1/2 hour flight that's awful.
This would be illegal under US law. We have 3 pilots o 8-12 hours and 4 at over 12 hours.
A recipe for disaster.
This is a classic case of a company's bean counters intruding into the safety aspects of International operations. I should hope the airlines Union consult IATA regarding this unsafe matter.
I think the pilot's union absolutely has a case, what they're doing is asking for trouble and is a recipe for disaster 👌
If they can't afford to fly that route, they should just discontinue flying there 👍
If the aircraft is being operated within it's published speeds this is not a safety issue. Obviously the airline has done its numbers and the increased fuel costs are more than offset buy the extra crew savings. Otherwise, why would they do it?
To sum up, this is a spin article, about a union dispute with the airline. Not a safety issue. If it was a safety issue they could appeal to the Kenyan Air Safety regulator. But there was no mention of this or any detail regarding exceeded speeds or times ect. It's a beat up.
It's Simple Flying, what do you expect! Simple Flying is aviation's fake news.
One of the reasons is that right now China requires 14-day quarantine before a crew can head back. Two pilots’ salary may not be that much, but the quarantine hotel cost and compensation for 14 days is a lot.
Flight crew have always had special rules since the beginning of the pandemic. It's not likely that pilots fly to china, stay for 14 days,then fly another plane back home. They most likely have an exemption.
@@jerrynadler2883 Just about week ago Finnair announced that pilots will not leave airplane anymore in China as because of one member of flight crew was tested positive and whole crew was put to 14 day quarantine without option to return even with otherwise empty airplane. So now they are flying with replacement crew onboard.
@@jerrynadler2883 FedEx moved their pilots and their families from Hong Kong to SFO because Hong Kong would not exempt flight crews . The change was recently made permanent because the government wouldn't say what circumstances would allow normal operations.
@@jerrynadler2883 It may work outside of China, but it definitely does not work in China. That's why most US-China and Europe-China non-Chinese-airline flights have a technical stop in Seoul.
then they should cancel the flight all.together then
I think the Pilot Union does have a case especially if safety concerns are on the line. I do see their point to keep 4 pilots as if a flight is 10 hours one set of crew, a pilot and a first officer could operate the aircraft for something like 5 hours and the other two the next five hours till landing minimizing fatigue and not affecting safety. I believe there should be another set of crew that would operate the return CAN-NBO. IF KQ wants to skip on fuel savings and keep their high speed cruise, just keep 4 pilots. As a passenger if I was flying to CAN and I heard before booking my flight that issue on KQ then I will never fly them, I will choose another airline. In saying that no wonder ET does better then them.
If pilots believe there is a safety issue then I would be listening. Unfortunately these issues are commonly resolved after an incident or worse a major air disaster, let’s hope they put safety first.
10 hours is too long to fly with one crew both taking off the aircraft and landing it. Fatigue could cause major problems. We've seen this twice with fatigued pilots bouncing DC-10's for FedEx and one of the crews tragically perished.
Surprising opinion, given your display name and profile picture
@@MrIansmitchell Pilots as a group are an extremely conservative bunch....except when it comes to their mobbed up unions and pay.
This is clearly a breach of safety measure I can imagine working 10.5 hours non - stop. . .. That is unfair even if it is permissible by employers
Technically, I work 12 hour shifts planning and watching flights. 10.5 hours is not stretching it. There’s no breach there.
Medical professionals have joined the chat
@@samuelmatheson9655 cool. What are they saying?
@@samuelmatheson9655 lol as a London Paramedic i laugh in the face of 12 hours, that's a short shift 😄
@@tonyf9076 "As a London Paramed...." **
Anything over 8 hours really needs at least three pilots, as we always had when I was flying international.
Thank you for the updates
One thought I have from East/West flights is what factor do the winds have. I seem to recall that on long journeys it can easily be an hour shorter going on the eastward leg. Does that play a part in the journey times?
Yes. Westbound for such a route is almost always significantly higher because of head winds. It's common on US -Europe to see flight time differences of East vs westbound of 1-1.5 hours.
@@johniii8147 but is this relevant to this route. Admittedly, like most Americans I'd be unable to find the locations on a map. Does this route have jet stream or the equator thunderstorm considerations?
@@hewhohasnoidentity4377 Yes the trend if pretty universal East vs Westbound
@@hewhohasnoidentity4377 These winds are due to the rotation of the earth from west to east. So it is universal.
@@johniii8147 We flew back from Florida to Birmingham and ended up circling the city because we were so early and the runway was shut for overnight work.
Absolutely, the pilots union has a point on safety, 😠
10 hours with only 2 pilots? That’s crazy. Imagine sitting in the same seat without taking any break for the entire time
Dafuq do they do while on cruise control for hours, hours and hours on end?
@@CorePathway lmao monitor the aircraft, do fuel calculations, communicate with the ATC, flirt with flight attendants, play angry birds on their iPads, you name it.
@@CorePathway monitor the plane, speak with air traffic control. Change route headings, altitude, speed.. just because it’s one “cruise control” as you call it lol… doesn’t mean they are done working
@@rayanaltowayan9558 Me personally, I would do the calculations near the beginning of the flight and go to sleep over the ocean, pull up movies on the iPad and have the autopilot to take over. :)
It is natural that they are fast. Kenya produces world class athletes in long distance running.
10 hrs+ flight time with only 2 pilots (1 Captain and 1 First Officer)? That's indeed ILLEGAL. The Airline has decided to do all this for just an HOUR saved? Really?! I think KALPA has a " Slam Dunk" case here.
Shows how important Pilot associations are for the safety of Flight Operations. Operators usually dont care about safety much in favor of profit, Pilots on the other hand do care - they are in the flight risking their lifes along the Passengers and cabin Crew. So - definitely Heads-Up for the Pilots associations Opinion on that.
This is crazy. Reminds me of the airline Flydubai, a budget airline based in Dubai, making its crew work more than 14hours on many of their destinations and calling it safe and legal.
That FlyDubai example is one thing, this is another thing, completely. They’re not equatable, at all.
There was an accident involving a fly Dubai plane in Rostov-on Don due to alleged company policy of discouraging diversion of flights during bad weather. I lost a friend then. These kinds of cost-cutting techniques never end well.
@@mikemontgomery2654 i never said it was the same, i said it reminded me of that
@@MafuraG i know right and they are still getting away with it
Unbelievable. One time a passenger complained that the pilot flew at Mach 0.9 where there's a sign of Mach 0.8 speed limit
How did the passenger observe the Mach number on the airplane ? Did the passenger have access to the flight deck ?
@@theacechip the plane speed is usually displayed on the inflight entertainment screens. So I guess the passenger counter checked with the inflight magazine which has the plane's specs written down
@@RealTBTKenya I doubt very highly that any inflight magazine will ever mention Mach 0.9 as a max cruise speed. AFAIK there is no commercial airliner that does that.
@@theacechip I have a copy of inflight magazine with me. There is a place highlighted: 'Typical cruising speed at 35,000ft, mach 0.84'
So I am assuming the passenger referred there. However, mine is just a hypothesis, I could be wrong.
@@RealTBTKenya No, you are right, some airlines do mention Mach numbers and cruising heights etc. But there is no commercial airliner that cruises at M 0.9. It could reach that number during a test flight or a dive -in fact commercial airplanes are tested to check their max speed for structural integrity or the "flutter test". But in normal conditions, a B747 or A380 does not go beyond M 0.86, other jets are slower.
Any Kenyans in here? 🇰🇪🇰🇪
👇
We are here onboard, actually second row from the cockpit 😂
I've always wondered whether planes overspeed in the air so it's true they do wow!
its frequent for planes in the jetstream to hit mach 1 IAS
@@bigdave6331 i think you meant Mach 1 ground speed
Scary! 10+ consecutive hours of flying time is too much. This move is clearly meant to pad the airline’s coffers at the expense of the employees and of passenger safety.
10 hours is too much? Based on what? Your extensive knowledge of pilot fatigue? The airline has done their homework. Crashing planes costs far more than this, so they’re not silly enough to risk their bottom line.
@@Lozzie74 So it’s worth it to gamble with lives because at the end it would be less costly than crashing a plane? I don’t think we have to be Subject Matter Experts on pilot fatigue to see the obvious. Corporations care more about money and “returning value to shareholders” than lives. There is much evidence to support that view. Ask Boeing.
So what speeds were the flying at?
When you were once a matatu driver then u become a pilot
Wacha kuchoma Sana Bana
Strange, given the wind direction, from west to east, the flight from NBO to CAN is faster than back. So a 3rd pilot has to be taken on the way back. So why not on the way there?
How do they get enough crew to fly from Guangzhao back to Nairobi?
How many times have we seen fatal mistakes made by fatigued pilots? This should be stopped asap.
Its rare
Thanks for the information, not gonna use Kenya Airways for a while now.
Does that mean we'll never go supersonic airtravel again in the future if theres a speed limit in the air
REALLY INTERESTING CONTENT!! 😉👍✌️
Thanks for the feedback! - TB
Top speed limit is up to manufacturer, not union.
Thank you
Yeah, there are a few things in the video that are confusing. Is the new duration over the limit for one crew or not? If it's over the limit, that's a problem. If it's not, then what's the problem? Are they making up the rules on the fly?
*Do you have any idea how fast you were going?*
The thumbnail though 😂😂
Would've appreciated some information on the actual speeds. One would imagine that's s given in a video like this.
Same here, in km/h, knots and mach number. :)
Typically, the 787 cruises at Mach 0.83 - that’s about 880 kmph. A Cost Index of 300 would bump that up to Mach 0.87 or 0.88 - or about 940 kmph. Caveat: these are very rough estimates as the speed varies with the aircraft’s weight as well as the winds. So, even with a constant Cost Index of 300, the actual speed itself could be quite different.
Hope this helps…
In any case, it's a long flight for just 2 pilots. Especially the time prepping before flight.
It's not possible to be always well rested before work.
It would be interesting to know what the manufacturer had to say about the added speed. Speed = vibration = faster fatigue and more frequent need for maintenance.
It does not work that way, Robert. More speed is higher fuel burn, not extra wear on the airframe.
Airframe is affected by landings and take off cycles. Not by speed. The plane has a maximum speed anyway and you cant do mach 1 when the jet can only achieve mach 0.8. The only thing youll be doing by flying close the max speed is burn fuel with reckless abandon.
What's the airspeed?
The pilot's union most certainly has a case. No breaks for crew, more chances of fatigue causing landing accidents. Fuel costs will be higher as will engine wear. No savings really and could ruin the airline.
Absolutely! The airline union definitely has a case.That flight is almost 11 hours long and the landing is taking place when the crew is most fatigued and most likely to make an error.
There have been dire emergencies when having extra flight crew aboard to share workload, innovate and devise workarounds have saved lives. A weary crew of two may have insufficient personal resource to cope with a major failure due to overwhelming task-saturation. Had there been extra crewmembers in the flight cabins of the fated 737-MAX8 aircraft, the third pair of hands might have been the needed extra strength to pull the stiff trim wheels around.
Kenya Airways 🇰🇪 Can Always welcome to Seriously consider starting Flights from Kenya Capital Nairobi to Singapore 🇸🇬 directly or Transit Flights via Bangkok or Guangzhou.
Good idea
Normally, the savings in fuel cost makes up for the extra flight crew. Fuel and maintenance is their biggest expense
But how fast does a regular 787 fly and how fast do they fly?
So, the union agreed to 10h30m flight limit with only two pilots, but now they say that 10h30m makes pilots fatigued? I don't get it. Isn't 10h30m, 10h30m, no matter how you look at it?
It's about pushing everything to its limits, even if the time is shorter the distance isn't. A pilot will have to follow the same process but at a faster pace, increasing the probability for a mistake.
From a pure legal standpoint, you are correct. They agreed that a maximum of 10h30m is allowable for two pilots. But from a standpoint of safety, I feel like that they do have a point. Just because the plane can make the flight in 10h15m doesn't mean it will always make that time. Delays due to weather, traffic and other factors can cause a delay that would easily bring the crew above the maximum allowable time. This could cause pilots working longer and being more exhausted in the most critical phases of flight (approach and landing) OR it could give crews the incentive to rush their way into the air so they can fly below legal limits (the tenerife disaster comes to mind). Just because something is legal and allowed doesn't mean it's safe.
Air Inter pressured its pilots to fly fast, and one of them crashed into a mountainside
Improper scheduling. The FAA would step in in the United States and tell the airline that this needs to be an augmented crew.
If there's any delay... say, need to slow for turbulence or traffic or go around a large thunderstorm... and now they're passing duty time.
This route used to operate with stopover in Bangkok where new Thai/Chinese crew would take over for Bangkok-Guangzhou-Bangkok leg.
Great knowledge to know about....🛫🤓
No one here mentioned exactly how fast they were going. Cost Index 300 does not tell us much. The flight in question is typically filed for a speed of 550 to 569 mph ground speed (487 to 495 knots), and at FL039. A recent flight had them topping out at 645 mph (561 knots ground speed) on their last leg with a tailwind.
Now the Flight Attendants will have to take over flying so the pilots can sleep :D
Didn't really get a lot of information.
What are the typical creating speeds What are they flying at Why do you say it's too fast?
I would expect a significantly longer duration for the westbound flight. A difference of just 15 minutes on an 11 hour flight doesn't seem probable. The CI doesn't tell us much. The question is whether pilots are being asked to operate the 787 at above its certificated speeds. Operating with two pilots in one direction and four in the other obviously raises the issue of pilots having to travel as passengers. Perhaps the union needs to address that. A pilot should be paid the same whether they are at the sharp end, or having to travel with the self-loading cargo.
The CI is one of several variables that the FMS uses to calculate the most economic cruise mach. The FMS won't command a Mach number outside of the flight envelope. If they want to burn more fuel that's fine, airlines find it cheaper in some cases to tanker fuel. The crew fatigue is a serious threat to safety.
Yeah 👍
😂😂😂 "self loading cargo" had me on the floor.
@@jmakeni08 Alas, I cannot take credit for that. It was an expression coined in the "Uncle Roger" column of the magazine Flight International, decades ago.
Sounds like they changed the block time to make the flight fit within union rules which is absolute BS. I'll bet the flight regulary goes overtime. The union should take note of every flight's actual flight time vs block time.
Basically I thought that a flight time of more than 8 hours necessitated a 3 man cockpit crew , at least
Nope.
Depends on the country
In the US it’s 9 hours then you need an extra pilot
I thoughts max of 8 hours of flight time was mandatory worldwide. If it’s not it should be because that’s way too much time in the air for two people to stare at clouds and instruments
Why not fly 3 crew and rotate breaks? Other seem to do it this way.
Isn't that circulating stream the reason why eastbound flights are faster, at least in the N. Hemi?
These times are odd ... when I flew the 747-400 2 pilots up to 8 hours,
8:01-11:59 hours = 3 pilots (captain/ F/O, 1 relief pilot),
12:00 + hours = 4 pilots (captain, F/O, 2 relief pilots) ...
1st 30 minutes everyone was up from then relief pilot(s) took rest, then rotated, and last 1 hour all up front again ... our issue was that flights we knew would historically be 12:00 + seemed to be flight planned at 11:59 to remove the additional relief pilot.
I suspect it has something to do with arriving earlier in China. Most travelers on this route would be business travelers safe to presume who want to get there early for the business day to begin. The flight doesn't remain so competitive if the passenger lands at 09:00, gets out of the airport at 10:00 and reaches the office at 12:00 or 13:00.
Countryside bus drivers: "Amateurs."
* proceeds to drive 20 mph over legal speed limit *
OK so the two choice of airlines is china and africa. When does the next ship sail please?
I wonder what Kenya's Civil Aviation Regulations are like regarding Duty/Flight time limitations
It's ridiculous not to have 4 pilots. When there's an accident, they're quick to shout pilot error, forgetting that it's exhausting not to have a rest. You wouldn't drive a car so long without a stretch and rest stop. We Africans must do better!
Having the extra pilots should be a must
Hold up. You're telling me that airlines could get me to my destination sooner by going faster but don't? 😂😂😂
It looks like a future episode for mayday aircraft investigation 🤔
Hard to imagine how the extra fuel is less than the pilots. I could see this flying cargo somewhat. Two pilots flying people for 11 hours is dangerous.
you can do 13h duty with morning start in home time zone
The title in this video made me laugh and so I HAD to listen to find out what it's all about.
The purpose of the flight??
Flying with a high cost index is not unsafe. But it gives unrealistic flight times on paper. At the end of the day it is the captain’s decision how fast to climb, cruise and descent. With a CI of 300 you will most certainly not be able to achieve the flight plan trip time. Things like turbulence and merely the fact one doesn’t want to cruise one knot below high speed buffet means it is unrealistic. So I think this is the issue that their Union have with this. So it’s a planning trick only. Safety is not an issue in my opinion unless you talk about fatigue issues.
Fatigue is a serious issue and a two crew operation on this sort of length duty isn’t good. However….that’s a scheduling issue and nothing to do with flying the aircraft “too fast” in order to save on allowances and hotels. The costs of which are dwarfed by the difference in fuel burn between doing this route at CI 0 and CI 300.
did the plane burn mid air? 😲
Perfectly safe. I was an airline Captain for 25 years.
On the cessna 150 yes you were
@@pavelklush3464 Actually a B-777 Captain ... and a DC-10, 737,757,767, DC9 and a few more. But, I'm sure you know more than me about this stuff.
You forgot the buran, the space shuttle and USS Enterprise...the reason I saying this is if you think a 10 and half hour night flight is perfectly safe you hv never flown a commercial night flt before. And even if you are one of those supermen who can work 25 hrs a day most ppl can't so it can't be safe.
Is there an aviation industry code that is being violated ?
I was under the understanding that flying faster burned much more fuel, so much so that delivery ferry flights fly at a slower speed to conserve fuel & thus extend range & in addition commercial flights only flew quicker to be a preferable passenger choice ?
It does burn more fuel and reduces range. But this 10 or 11 hour sector is well under the max range of a 787 (near 16 hours)
Just 1h45min shorter flight time, it’s not like a lot quicker than the typical cruising speed
Yes it puts pax at risk
Pilot fatigue
Harder on motors
Airframe limits
Crew rest
10 hours plus is hard on any flight crews2 pilots only)
All airlines do this. It’s a constant battle between pilot unions and airline management.
It is clearly not illegal it's really smart if you ask me . N working on a 10& half hour long flight isn't that difficult . Crews are still allowed to take controlled rest in the cockpit depending on company policy so fatigue is out of the question . As a cost cutting method n terms of safety the idea is sound . But ofc the higher fuel consumption n aircraft wear must have already been accounted for
I didn't think overspeeding of KQ was this serious. Here in 🇰🇪Kenya, people were joking about it when news started circulating in the media.
This is scary. I would not want to fly with Kenya Airways if they’re going to be putting such a small crew on such an exhausting flight. This is a disaster waiting to happen
I will never go on this plane never trust it the day it crashed I was in Amsterdam airport and I was talking to myself about this plane saying I don't trust this plane these planes will crashed something about you I don't like and don't trust at the same time not knowing this same type of plane is going to crashed on the day I spoke against it. I was saying this in the morning hours , I continue talking inside the Airport watching this Ethiopia plane this sound strange but it happened. I dream last week that a plane going to crashed with a person that people knew I don't know the person but I make sure prayed if anything happens not my family or friends are on that flight now hearing 4 days after a plane from China crashed dreams are real vision are real .
If traffic and aircraft allow it, the service should go faster as long it is safe. But such a long haul flight requires 2 sets of pilots (human conditions).
Why the incessant background music/noise?
Why not 3 pilots as a compromise?
Doctors and nurses work 12 hour shifts every single week three times a week with no problem.
When managers squeeze costs out of the operation they (blindly) remove any resilience to the operation. If a flight has to divert because of destination weather just once, the ‘savings’ on crewing for the entire year of operating minimum crew can be wiped out. Unfortunately managers are often bonuses on savings and not overall operational efficiency and resilience.
I don't really see a problem in flying faster to avoid exhaustion of the pilots. What's the problem?
Why not passing from 4 to 3?
overspeeding in mid air?
China and Kenya should reach agreement on reciprocal accommodation for pilots on layover.
It's in both countries best interests to keep the flying public safe. The unions would also serve themselves well by making some accommodation, since the pandemic affects everybody as well. Of course the union is going to blame the company. Really, lay off the rhetoric, and try to be more accommodating.
I wont lie it's good to see my country featured here; especially because the story doesn't have loss of lives in it 😊
How fast are we talking here? Is the plane being asked to fly past Vne? That's the big question.