Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 21
2
The U.S. Airline Industry
and Pilot Commuting
This chapter discusses characteristics of the U.S. airline industry and
the policies and practices that are likely to have an effect on pilots’ com-
muting choices. This discussion draws on the expertise of committee mem-
bers, information from stakeholders who provided comments at committee
meetings or through the study website (see Box 1-3 in Chapter 1), a review
of the comments related to commuting that were submitted to the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) in response to the Notice of Proposed Rule-
making (NPRM), and a review of available airline policies.
COMMUTING: BACKGROUND
Commuting is usually defined as travel between home and a work lo-
cation on a regular basis. A Gallup Poll found that the mean commute in
the United States was 45.6 minutes and the median was 30 minutes; over-
all, about 64 percent of commutes were less than 1 hour while 8 percent
were 2 hours or more (Gallup, Inc., 2007). Characterizing a population’s
commuting routines is complex at best because of the enormous variation
between individuals, as well as the variation for individuals from 1 day or
week to another (Lyons and Chatterjee, 2008). Most of the research on
the effects of commuting and commuting habits has been conducted in the
context of daily routines using ground transportation in large urban areas.
Although there are some studies of remote or rural geographic areas and
of employees in specific industries, such as shift workers, hospital staff,
and miners, there is very little research that examines (or even mentions)
the commute of pilots or the airplane as a mode of transport.
21
OCR for page 22
22 THE EFFECTS OF COMMUTING ON PILOT FATIGUE
The nature of commuting has been changing. In one study of commut-
ing over a 10-year period, half of the sample changed their main method
of travel at least once, and one-fifth changed three or more times (Dargay
and Hanly, 2003). Several studies have looked at the physiological effects
of relatively long car drives (Kluger, 1998); self-reported attitudes in high-
congestion conditions (Hennessy and Wiesenthal, 1999); and rail com-
muting (Walsleben et al., 1999; Evans et al., 2002). A common conclusion
across many studies is that unpredictability leads to stress. Unpredictability
can be due to unanticipated delays because of traffic volume or weather
or the unreliability of services. However, the studies do not examine the
extent to which fatigue from commuting would affect subsequent job per-
formance. They also do not make comparisons across modes of transport.
There is insufficient research as to whether a 90-minute car drive is more
fatiguing than a 90-minute train ride or a 90-minute plane ride.
There is a body of literature looking at the positive effects of travel
(Mokhtarian and Solomon, 2001; Bull, 2004; Lyons et al., 2007; Jain
and Lyons, 2008). These include a physical and cognitive break between
activities at home and those at work and time to do other activities. Some
activities—such as reading, writing, or rest—are only possible in passive
modes of transportation, such as trains, busses, limousines, and airplanes.
But even active modes of transportation, such as driving one’s own vehicle,
can provide time to think, to listen to an audiobook or music, to admire
the landscape, and to engage in conversation with companions. The value
of these activities depends on individuals’ preferences and other demands
on their time.
COMMUTING IN AVIATION
Commuting is different in aviation than in most other industries. For
many pilots, commuting is not a daily occurrence, as pilot duty assignments
often extend over several days and keep pilots away from home for multiple
days at a time. As a result, a pilot’s commute to work may be undertaken
as infrequently as once or twice per month—or more frequently, depend-
ing on the flying schedule and commuting arrangements. Pilots sometimes
travel to arrive near their domicile (the location of the airport from which
they fly) for a period before they are scheduled to fly for logistical reasons
or to have a rest opportunity. This rest opportunity may be of a length and
quality varying from a nap in a chair to a full night’s sleep in a hotel room
or apartment.
It is not uncommon for pilots to travel by air to and from their flight
assignment. Pilots commute by air to some extent because they can, and
to some extent because they want to: like many Americans, pilots’ planned
commutes depend on a host of personal and professional decisions involv-
OCR for page 23
23
THE U.S. AIRLINE INDUSTRY AND PILOT COMMUTING
ing family, economics, and logistics. Commuting by air enables pilots to
live a considerable distance from their domicile and travel to work in a
relatively short time.
Pilots who provided input for this study told the committee that their
commute is influenced by both economic and lifestyle considerations. In
the comments the committee received from pilots, half or more of those
who addressed the reasons for commuting by air, cited the high cost of
living in the area of their domiciles, frequent domicile closings and the
future unpredictability of domicile changes, and a desire to maintain fam-
ily stability. A pilot may choose a community of residence outside of the
domicile area because of cost of living near his or her assigned domicile. A
home community may be selected based on such quality-of-life factors as
a desired geographic region, proximity to a school system, or the existence
of a support infrastructure for family while the pilot is on extended flight
duty. Commuting by air also enables a pilot to maintain a stable residence
if he or she is reassigned to another domicile. One of the respondents to the
NPRM expressed similar sentiments:
Commuting is common in the airline industry, in part because of life-style
choices available to pilots by virtue of their being able to fly at no cost to
their duty station, but also because of economic reasons associated with
protecting seniority on particular aircraft, frequent changes in the flight
crew member’s home base, and low pay and regular furloughs by some
carriers that may require a pilot to live someplace with a relatively low
cost of living. (quote pulled from public comments in response to FAA’s
NPRM, see Appendix D)
The key issue for safety is whether a pilot begins the subsequent duty rested
and fit to fly regardless of how the pilot commutes to work.
Although some pilots live at or close to their domiciles, other pilots
live in a location that has never been a company domicile, maintaining a
consistent residence as their assigned domicile changes from one airport
to another. Some commutes may be a legacy of previous domicile closings
or changes, in which pilots who once lived near their assigned domiciles
must then commute in order to maintain roots in their original home com-
munities. A point frequently made to the committee was that commuting
choices, including the availability of travel by air, can provide pilots and
their families an aspect of certainty and control when facing or considering
the likelihood of mergers, domicile changes, furloughs, and the like, even
when considering these as potential disruptions in the future. A pilot’s do-
micile may also change as that pilot’s career progresses and the pilot flies
progressively larger aircraft, first as a first officer and then as a captain.
Flexibility in commuting choices provides benefits for pilots, but it
also provides benefits for the airlines. As discussed below, the U.S. airline
OCR for page 24
24 THE EFFECTS OF COMMUTING ON PILOT FATIGUE
BOX 2-1
Benefits of Commuting
Benefits for Pilots
Stable residence for family
Family residence selected for quality-of-life factors
Low cost of living or low tax jurisdiction location
No need to relocate to progress in career
No need to relocate for domicile changes for industry competitive reasons
Benefits for Airlines
A
bility to adapt quickly to changes in flight patterns because of changes in
market
No need to require pilots to live near domicile
No need to pay relocation expenses for pilots for domicile change
No need to pay cost-of-living adjustments for domicile change
Benefits for Passengers/Consumers
Potential lower cost services and lower prices
industry has undergone changes in structure and in the pattern of flights
during the last decade. Having pilots able to commute longer distances to
their domiciles rather than requiring them to live nearby may allow the
industry to change flight patterns more quickly to respond to changing
market demands. Since, for most airlines, pilots are not required to live
near their domiciles, the airlines typically do not pay for pilot relocation
or for cost-of-living adjustments when pilots move from one domicile to
another. Airline passengers may benefit since airline costs are lower and, in
a competitive market, lower costs tend to lead to lower prices for consum-
ers. Box 2-1 summarizes the benefits of commuting for pilots, airlines, and
consumers.
STAKEHOLDERS’ COMMENTS
As described in Chapter 1, requests for input data were sent to a variety
of different stakeholders in the airline industry (see Box 1-2 in Chapter 1).
Because of the extremely short turnaround (a few weeks) between the
requests and the committee meeting, the response rates were relatively mod-
est. As of March 23, 2011, the committee had received responses from 25
airlines (4 mainline passenger carriers, 8 regional passenger carriers, 9 cargo
carriers, and 4 nonscheduled charter carriers), 2 of the airline associations,
and 2 of the pilot associations. The committee’s review of the responses is
OCR for page 25
25
THE U.S. AIRLINE INDUSTRY AND PILOT COMMUTING
summarized below and detailed in Appendix C. (Some airlines responded
with written input after this date, and their input was considered for this
report, but it is not included in the summary of stakeholder response in
Appendix C.) The committee also received written statements from three
individual commercial pilots who volunteered their thoughts on issues being
addressed by the committee.
The committee also reviewed public comments related to commuting
submitted in response to the NPRM. The public comments were purpose-
fully sampled to select those that would be most relevant to definitions of
pilot commuting and perceptions of commuting practices. Using the FAA’s
electronic database (a total of 2,419 submissions), relevant comments were
identified using key terms: “commut”; “commute”; and “commuting”
(N = 176). From these, a total of 85 comments, representing remarks
from 85 different individuals or organization representatives, were deemed
relevant and selected for qualitative analysis. In many cases, an individual
comment contained multiple viewpoints of relevance (e.g., the commenter’s
own definition of commuting and an opinion on the prevalence of com-
muting practices with some suggestions for the NPRM). As a result, more
than 400 viewpoints of relevance to the study were considered. Appendix
D presents a summary of the analysis of the purposeful sample of public
comments submitted in response to the NPRM.
Both of these reviews of stakeholder input have limitations that must
be considered in interpreting the findings. Neither of these analyses is based
on representative samples. In the case of the stakeholder input requested by
the committee, individuals or organizations from targeted groups provided
input based on an open-ended set of questions or, in a few cases, offered
unsolicited input on the study topic. In the case of the review of public
comments to the NPRM, respondents were invited to provide feedback on
all aspects of the NPRM, and this analysis took into account a selection
of comments that were relevant to commuting. The response sample, in
both cases, is self-selected. The reader is urged to remember that the views
reflected in these analyses represent those individuals and organizations that
were motivated to provide input to the committee or feedback in response
to the NPRM. Thus, it is difficult to know, or even estimate, the extent
to which different results would have been obtained from a larger and
more representative sample of the stakeholder population. For those that
responded to the requests, it is difficult to know whether each respondent
understood each question or request as intended. The reader should also
note that not all respondents responded to every question, issue, or request.
In addition to self-selecting whether to respond, respondents self-selected
the questions or topics to which they responded.
One important initial finding from both of these reviews is that there
is no clear, consistent definition of pilot commuting in the airline industry.
OCR for page 26
26 THE EFFECTS OF COMMUTING ON PILOT FATIGUE
There are reports of difficulties in estimating the number of pilots who
commute by air or who commute relatively long distances or durations as
well as any other types of commuting patterns.
Respondents did offer a wide range of factors that influence pilots’ com-
muting decisions. In order of reported frequency, from high to low, they
included high cost of living near the domicile location; frequent domicile clos-
ings and future unpredictability of the airline industry; cost and availability of
adjunct sleep accommodations; desire to maintain family stability; low pay,
especially for regional carriers; lifestyle preferences (e.g., for good weather
and outdoor living); and absence of adequate coverage for costly moving
expenses. In the aggregate, respondents acknowledged that commuting is
a potentially fatiguing activity, but they also commented that commuting
conducted responsibly would not necessarily increase fatigue levels signifi-
cantly. In regard to policies and regulations that might influence commut-
ing practices, the responses were mixed and diverse, ranging from opinions
that current policies and practices are appropriate to suggestions for airline
ownership of and FAA regulation of factors relevant to commutes and fatigue
(e.g., availability of jumpseats and rest accommodations).
AVIATION INDUSTRY CHARACTERISTICS
Characteristics of the aviation industry that influence pilot commuting
include airline pilot hiring practices, crew scheduling practices (at many
airlines a joint outcome of management decisions and collective bargaining
negotiations); route network and crew basing practices; and competitive
and passenger demand factors that can cause pilot staffing requirements
to change over time. These characteristics also influence pilots’ preferences
related to commuting and their decisions about where to maintain their
homes. Also, some airline policies and practices can facilitate or impede
a pilot’s ability to commute, with the potential for affecting not only the
pilots’ choices of whether and how to commute; but also whether they
experience fatigue related to the commute and whether they may operate
flights in a fatigued condition.
Airline Pilot Hiring Policies
Pilots compete for positions at airlines in an international market for
their services in which the supply of pilots in most years has exceeded
the demand from a relatively small number of employers. The sources of
trained and qualified pilot candidates (primarily, universities, flight schools,
the military, and smaller operators) are geographically diverse. The commit-
tee did not have information on the percentages of pilots from each source.
In the United States, pilots taking entry-level positions at regional airlines
OCR for page 27
27
THE U.S. AIRLINE INDUSTRY AND PILOT COMMUTING
have tended to earn lower wages than pilots at mainline carriers. In many
cases, pilots who join a regional carrier hope to change employment to a
mainline carrier after they have accumulated additional flight experience.
Recent contractions and consolidations among several of the mainline
airlines and changes in the mandatory pilot retirement age have arguably
reduced the outlook for positions at mainline carriers. The tradition in the
U.S. airline industry is for the company not to pay for a newly hired pilot’s
moving expenses or to require that the pilot live at the domicile. As a result,
many newly hired pilots may have both the capability and incentive to be-
gin long-distance commuting. Once established, this pattern may continue
through subsequent domicile changes as the pilots attempt to maintain a
consistent residence.
Airline Crew Schedules and Pilot Work Patterns
At most airlines, labor agreements between pilots and airlines estab-
lish specific policies and practices regarding flight crew scheduling (within
limitations for flight and duty time as established in the Code of Federal
Regulations). Virtually all of these airlines rely on a bidding process to
award monthly schedules (sometimes called lines or blocks) to pilots;
selection advantages are given to pilots on the basis of seniority. Typically,
a monthly schedule consists of multiple assignments of trips (sometimes
called pairings), each of which may consist of several flights over a period
lasting 1, 2, or up to more than 6 days. Each of these trips begins and ends
at the pilot’s domicile (there also may be one or more overnights elsewhere)
and thus comprises the basic duty assignment to and from which the pilot
commutes.
By federal regulations, airline pilots are limited to fly no more than
1,000 hours per year, or an average of about 83 hours per month. On the
basis of this monthly limit, the number of flight hours per trip will deter-
mine the number of trips—and thus, potentially, the number of commutes—
during the month. For example, if each of a pilot’s trips involves 20 hours
of flying over 4 days, the pilot will do about four of these trips per month
for 80 hours of flight time. There will be one or more days off between each
trip during which a pilot may elect to commute home.
Using the seniority-based bidding process, pilots select the desired trips
and days worked given their individual preferences, including the nature of
their commutes. For example, a pilot who commutes by air from home to
the domicile may bid for the monthly line of four, 4-day trips; preferably,
trips beginning at the domicile late on the first day (allowing for an inbound
commute that morning) and ending back at the domicile relatively early on
the fourth day (allowing for a homebound commute that evening). This
pilot will make four commutes during the month. In contrast, a pilot who
OCR for page 28
28 THE EFFECTS OF COMMUTING ON PILOT FATIGUE
lives near the domicile (e.g., a drive of 45 minutes to the airport) may bid
for 10 1-day trips, each of which starts early in the morning and returns to
the domicile later that day after 8 hours of flight time. This pilot will make
10 commutes during the month to accumulate 80 hours of flight time. Note
that in this example the 1-day trips have more flying time per day, on aver-
age, than the 4-day trips in the previous example. The pilot living near the
domicile will likely work fewer days to accumulate the 80 flight hours for
the month; the pilot with a long distance commute will have more work
days and fewer days off to accumulate the same number of flight hours.
Airline Route Networks and Crew Basing
Decisions that airlines make about aircraft routings, crew schedules,
and crew basing can affect pilots’ commuting incentives. The point from
which a pilot begins duty (typically his or her domicile, with the exceptions
noted below) is influenced by airline management practices that vary in the
industry. For example, many scheduled airlines—those that operate on spe-
cific routes at established times—operate a hub-and-spoke route network
in which many flights converge on one airport (the hub) at about the same
time so that passengers and cargo can connect conveniently to a flight that
is going to the ultimate destination (a spoke). Either a hub or a spoke city
could be a pilot’s domicile.
Basing pilots at a hub can be attractive for airlines from the point of
view of scheduling flexibility and for exchanging crews during connecting
operations in the midst of an operating day. Even in a hub-and-spoke sys-
tem, though, many airplanes are positioned at the spoke airports overnight,
and basing pilots at a spoke airport can reduce the expenses of providing
overnight accommodations (“overnighting”) for the pilots who work the
originating and terminating flights of the day. In any case, the scheduling
and routing of crews does not have to match that of the aircraft. For airlines
using domicile basing, whether located at a hub, spoke, or elsewhere, the
airlines typically leave the pilots responsible for performing the commute—
by whatever modes and means necessary—so as to be at the domicile reli-
ably on time and ready for duty. By requiring its pilots to be ready to fly
at any domicile, operators are able to select domiciles that minimize the
overall costs of staffing the airline, in addition to other factors.
In contrast to the practices of most major scheduled airlines, other air-
lines (most commonly those offering nonscheduled service1) operate flight
patterns in which their airplanes may be routed in a highly variable manner
in accordance with customer demand, rarely returning to a specified base.
Given this aircraft routing it may be most efficient to dispatch flight crews
1 Nonscheduled airlines operate on customer demand without a regular schedule.
OCR for page 29
29
THE U.S. AIRLINE INDUSTRY AND PILOT COMMUTING
directly from their homes to wherever the previous crew left the airplane.
Many of these airlines, consequently, have no established pilot domiciles.
In these cases there may be at least a shared responsibility between the
company and pilots for the trip from home to the first flying assignment. In
one variant of these practices, home basing, there is effectively no commute
because the pilot’s on-duty work period begins and ends at his or her home.
All of the travel to and from the pilot’s operational flying is scheduled by,
and the responsibility of, the company. As on-duty travel (as distinct from
commuting travel), depending on the timing of the flights and as required
by regulations governing flight time, duty time, and rest, the company may
be required to provide adequate facilities and time for rest between the
positioning flight to the duty location and the pilot’s first operational flight.
In another variant, gateway basing, the company establishes a number of
gateway airport locations and assigns the pilot to the gateway nearest his or
her home. Pilots are then responsible for commuting between their homes
and the gateway, while the companies are responsible for on-duty travel
between the gateway and wherever in the world the pilot’s first operational
flights will begin and end.
Competitive and External Factors
The dynamic and evolving structure of the airline industry affects the
environment in which pilots make commuting decisions. Some airlines’ re-
sponses to a changing competitive environment have involved establishing
new hubs and downsizing or closing existing hubs and starting service to
cities they previously did not serve or ending service to some cities. Airline
mergers and acquisitions have also led to downsizing or elimination of
hubs believed to be redundant in the postmerger route structure. Seasonal
scheduling can cause other complications and may result in changes in pilot
domiciles to accommodate increased or decreased passenger demand for
particular routes.
These changes in flight patterns may lead to domicile expansions,
contractions, closings, or openings, with concomitant changes to where
a pilot is domiciled. Changes in domiciles are handled, typically, through
seniority-based bidding: pilots with relatively less seniority may sometimes
be involuntarily displaced to new domiciles in other parts of the United
States (or even other parts of the world), or, in the extreme, furloughed
from the company. Subsequently, recalls from furloughs in response to
increases in travel demand may result in pilots being recalled to a domicile
that is different from the one from which they were released. Other major
disruptions to pilot employment have occurred as airlines have reorganized
their fleets and route systems under bankruptcy protection or even ceased
operations and liquidated; other employment opportunities for pilots have
OCR for page 30
30 THE EFFECTS OF COMMUTING ON PILOT FATIGUE
developed, often at different domiciles, as new entrant airlines have begun
operations.
Changing Service Patterns in the U.S. Airline Industry
Figure 2-1 shows the number of passengers carried by U.S. airlines
in both domestic and international service in 2000, 2005, and 2010. In-
ternational traffic increased throughout the period while domestic traffic
increased between 2000 and 2005 then decreased in 2010, largely because
of changes in the economy. Aggregate traffic statistics for the U.S. air-
line industry do not show some of the important changes that have oc-
curred over the last decade in both industry structure and service patterns.
Throughout the past three decades following airline deregulation, new
airlines have entered the market, some airlines have grown, others have
gotten smaller sometimes as part of a bankruptcy restructuring, and still
others have ceased operations.
Two kinds of changes in the U.S. airline industry over the past decade
are particularly notable in their potential to affect pilot commuting pat-
terns: the rise of regional jet service, and mergers. An important industry
change that could affect pilot commuting is the rise of the regional jet in-
dustry and the extent to which regional jet service operated under contract
to mainline carriers has replaced service in larger jets operated directly by
mainline carriers. The rise of the regional jet industry is a relatively recent
development (see Oster and Strong, 2006). In 1995, there was no regional
800,000
700,000
Number of Passengers
600,000
500,000
Domestic
400,000
300,000 International
200,000
100,000
-
2000 2005 2010
Year
FIGURE 2-1 Passengers carried by U.S. airlines.
Figure 2-1.eps
SOURCE: Derived from data, used with permission, from Air Transport Association
of America, Inc. (2011).
OCR for page 31
31
THE U.S. AIRLINE INDUSTRY AND PILOT COMMUTING
jet service operating from the hub airports of the mainline carriers. By
2000, such service accounted for 16 percent of aircraft departures, and in
the next 3 years such service had grown to 38 percent of aircraft departures
from hub airports. In that 3-year period, domestic departures from hub air-
ports by mainline carriers declined 18 percent while departures from those
hubs by regional airlines under contract to the mainline carriers increased
250 percent, so that combined departures by mainline carriers and regional
jets increased by more than 11 percent. Although some of this regional jet
service was on routes that had not previously been served by the mainline
carriers, much of the service was a replacement of mainline jet service by
regional jet service.
The growth of regional airlines at the expense of mainline airlines may
change the overall pilot commuting patterns in the airline industry if the
commuting patterns of regional pilots are markedly different than those
of mainline pilots. Without examining the commuting patterns of pilots in
these two industry segments, however, it is not possible to determine even
the direction, let alone the magnitude, of such changes. One possibility is
that regional pilots might on average commute longer distances than main-
line pilots because of the lower salaries regional pilots generally earn, which
could make them less able to live close to their domiciles if those domiciles
were in areas with a high cost of living. Another possibility is that regional
pilots might on average have shorter commutes because the service they
provide is more likely to be shorter haul service providing feed to longer
mainline flights at the mainline airline’s large hub. In a service pattern such
as this, a regional pilot is more likely to begin and end the flight sequence
each day at the same hub airport, unlike a mainline pilot, particularly a
mainline pilot who may have multiday international flight sequences and
therefore begin and end days while on assignment at multiple hubs.
Airline mergers were not uncommon prior to airline deregulation in
1978, but the pace of mergers and resulting industry consolidation picked
up considerably in the 1980s. Most of those mergers were among relatively
small airlines or were the result of large airlines merging with (or acquir-
ing) smaller airlines. However, several of the more recent mergers since
2000 have involved large established carriers. Notable among these was
the merger of American and TWA in 2001; the merger of US Airways and
America West in 2005; the merger of Delta and Northwest in 2009; and
the merger of United and Continental in 2010. As is discussed below, such
mergers have the potential to change pilot commuting patterns because they
often involve reducing the flight activity at some of the premerger hubs. In
addition to the effects of hub expansion and contraction, mergers can bring
changes in domicile assignments as pilots from the premerger airlines bid
for new opportunities (crew positions and aircraft types) across the changed
array of domiciles of the new (merged) airline.
OCR for page 34
34 THE EFFECTS OF COMMUTING ON PILOT FATIGUE
350,000
300,000
Number of Departures
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
0
2000 2005 2010
Year
FIGURE 2-2 Southwest total departures.
SOURCE: Data from Bureau of Transportation Statistics (n.d.-a).
Figure 2-2.eps
bitmap, labels replaced (now editable)
and 2010. Both also showed strong growth in departures at their primary
hubs, Atlanta for Air Tran and New York’s Kennedy Airport for JetBlue.2
Southwest is a much more established airline than Air Tran and JetBlue
and had the most domestic aircraft departures in 2010 of any U.S. airline.
Southwest showed steady increases in departures over the period (see Fig-
ure 2-2), and it did not experience sharp decreases in departures at any of
its primary cities (see Figure 2-3). There were small drops in several cities
and somewhat stronger increases in Las Vegas, Chicago Midway, and Bal-
timore, as well as significant new service established in Denver. Although
these changes in departures reflect changing service patterns, they are not
the dramatic changes that have been seen at some of the carriers involved
in mergers, as is discussed below.
There is considerable variation in departure changes across the regional
carriers. American Eagle, a regional carrier owned by American Airlines,
has had a relatively stable pattern of service with its primary airports being
the American hubs of Dallas and Chicago: see Figure 2-4. Similarly, Atlantic
Southeast, which has been primarily a regional carrier affiliated with Delta,
has focused much of its service on Atlanta: see Figure 2-5. When Delta
stopped using Dallas and Cincinnati as hubs, Atlantic Southeast also saw
2 A partial exception to this pattern was Frontier Airlines, which used a regional affiliate,
Great Lakes Airlines, to provide some service, and it showed increases in departures over the
period. Frontier, however, is something of a hybrid between a mainline and a regional airline
in that it operates both larger Airbus aircraft (with more than 90 seats) and smaller regional
jets with fewer than 90 seats.
OCR for page 35
35
THE U.S. AIRLINE INDUSTRY AND PILOT COMMUTING
25,000
20,000
Number of Departures
15,000
2000
10,000 2005
2010
5,000
0
X
S
U
L
X
DW
AK
I
A
L
N
O
EN
BW
DA
ST
PH
LA
LA
BN
O
SA
C
O
D
H
M
M
FIGURE 2-3 Southwest departures by city.*
*In all figures for the airline departure analysis, cities are identified by the appro-
priate airport code. Provided in Appendix E is a list of airport codes alongside the
corresponding airports and cities.Figure 2-3.eps
SOURCE: Data from Bureau of Transportation Statistics (n.d.-a).
bitmap, labels redrawn
30,000
Number of Departures
25,000
20,000 2000
15,000
2005
10,000
2010
5,000
0
C
AH
X
K S N
S A
U
D
FW OR JF LA MIA BO NA SA LG M RD DC SJ
D C
FIGURE 2-4 American Eagle departures by city.
SOURCE: Data from Bureau of Transportation Statistics (n.d.-a).
declines in flights in those cities. Beginning in 2010, Atlantic Southeast has
also been providing services Figure 2-4.eps
associated with United Airlines.
redrawn
In contrast, Air Wisconsin has experienced greater change in its ser-
vice patterns: see Figure 2-6. The two principal cities Air Wisconsin served
in 2000 were Denver and Chicago, which it served as a United Express
carrier. However, in 2010 it became a US Airways Express carrier and
switched its primary cities from Denver and Chicago to the US Airways
hubs of Philadelphia and Charlotte, both cities it had not served in 2000.
OCR for page 36
36 THE EFFECTS OF COMMUTING ON PILOT FATIGUE
35,000
30,000
Number of Departures
25,000
20,000
2000
15,000
2005
10,000
2010
5,000
0
ATL
DFW
XNA
VPS
GTR
MYR
CHA
PFN
AVL
GNV
CVG
TPA
CAE
SHV
MGM
HSV
TYS
BTR
MEM
IAD
DTW
ORD
FIGURE 2-5 Atlantic Southeast departures by city.
SOURCE: Data from Bureau of Transportation Statistics (n.d.-a).
Figure 2-5.eps
bitmap, labels redrawn
16,000
14,000
Number of Departures
12,000
10,000
2000
8,000
2005
6,000
2010
4,000
2,000
0
DEN
ORD
MSN
MKE
ATW
RAP
ASE
GJT
MLI
SBN
IAD
PHL
JAX
CHS
JFK
CLT
DCA
LGA
ORF
BUF
RIC
GSO
BOS
GSP
FIGURE 2-6 Air Wisconsin departures by city.
SOURCE: Data from Bureau of Transportation Statistics (n.d.-a).
Figure 2-6.eps
Indeed, only one of the cities found in Air Wisconsin’s top 10 in 2000,
bitmap, labels redrawn
Milwaukee, continued to receive Air Wisconsin service in 2010, and none
of the cities that were top 10 Air Wisconsin cities in 2010 had been served
by Air Wisconsin in 2000.
The Air Wisconsin experience illustrates how changes in contracts be-
tween the regional airlines and the mainline airlines can result in large changes
in regional operations at specific hub airports, with associated changes in re-
OCR for page 37
37
THE U.S. AIRLINE INDUSTRY AND PILOT COMMUTING
gional pilot domicile assignment. Air Wisconsin effectively moved its entire
operation to a different part of the country so that virtually all of its pilots
experienced changes in their domiciles.
Mergers
In addition to the rise of affiliated regional airlines, mergers also played
an important role in the changing service patterns of the mainline airlines.
For example, Delta and Northwest merged at the end of 2009. The merged
Delta’s total departures are presented in Figure 2-7. Delta experienced
steady declines in departures throughout the period.
Delta also experienced some sharp declines at some of their hubs, partly
in the wake of the merger and partly for other reasons: see Figure 2-8.
While the main Delta hub, Atlanta, experienced only small proportional
declines in 2010, the former Northwest hubs of Detroit and Minneapolis/
St. Paul experienced sharper declines following the merger. However, not
all the declines were necessarily related to the merger. Delta’s original Cin-
cinnati hub experienced sharp declines before the merger and even sharper
declines following the merger. The even sharper declines in aircraft depar-
tures at Dallas/Fort Worth indicate a decision made prior to the merger to
no longer operate a hub at that airport. These sorts of sharp declines at
airports that had once been hubs may well have placed pressure on pilots
to alter their commuting patterns.
400,000
350,000
Number of Departures
300,000
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
0
2000 2005 2010
Year
FIGURE 2-7 Delta total departures.
SOURCE: Data from Bureau of Transportation Statistics (n.d.-a).
Figure 2-7.eps
bitmap, labels redrawn
OCR for page 38
38 THE EFFECTS OF COMMUTING ON PILOT FATIGUE
70,000
60,000
Number of Departures
50,000
40,000
2000
30,000
2005
20,000
2010
10,000
0
O
TW
S
EM
VG
C
SP
A
FW
X
K
C
L
BO
SL
LG
LA
AT
JF
M
D
C
M
M
D
FIGURE 2-8 Delta departures by city.
SOURCE: Data from Bureau of Transportation Statistics (n.d.-a).
Figure 2-8.eps
bitmap, labels redrawn
After the merger was completed and the Delta and Northwest pilots
had integrated their seniority lists, subsequent seniority-based bidding for
domiciles and positions may have also resulted in changes to commuting
patterns. For example, it is possible that some former Delta pilots who had
homes in or near Minneapolis and had been commuting from Minneapolis
to Atlanta could now bid to be domiciled at Minneapolis, a former North-
west hub, and have a shorter commute. Such opportunities, however, given
the drop in departures in Minneapolis, may have been limited to pilots with
relatively high seniority. Another possibility is that former Delta pilots who
were both domiciled and living in Atlanta may have found their best post-
merger opportunities were in a former Northwest hub and thus may have
chosen a longer commute.
As can be seen both with the Delta/Northwest merger noted above and
with the other merged carriers shown in Appendix E, mergers often result in
decreases in departures at some of the premerger hubs as the merged airline
consolidates its operations (as occurred for St. Louis following the Ameri-
can/TWA merger). But airlines have also sharply decreased departures at
hubs for reasons not associated with mergers, as was seen in Delta’s reduc-
ing departures at Dallas/Fort Worth and in Appendix E with US Airways’
reducing departures at Pittsburgh. Regardless of the reason that hubs are
sharply downsized or eliminated, such actions can put pressure on pilots
either to relocate or to alter their commuting patterns. Flight departures are
correlated with airline crew staffing requirements. Again, these hub airports
are not synonymous with pilot domiciles, but the dynamic nature of hub
departure volumes suggests that the staffing of pilots to operate the flights
OCR for page 39
39
THE U.S. AIRLINE INDUSTRY AND PILOT COMMUTING
passing through them has been subject to substantial change over at least
the past decade. Lacking specific data about pilot commuting patterns, the
committee was unable to measure the specific effects of mergers on pilot
commuting.
In the absence of opportunities to commute by air, these changes in the
airlines’ operating pattern could lead to large-scale, sometimes short-term,
relocations of pilots and families or inflexibility in the airlines’ ability to
adjust to changes in flight patterns and thus to staffing needs. Consequently,
the availability of commuting by air allows airlines to adjust crew staffing
and domiciles quickly in accordance with market demands.
AIRLINE POLICIES AND PRACTICES
Various airline policies and practices may facilitate or hinder pilots’
abilities to commute, particularly by air and over long distances. Such
policies include access to free or reduced-rate air travel, commuting poli-
cies that spell out the consequences of failing to report to the domicile on
time because of commuting, and policies related to sick leave (including
attendance/reliability) and fatigue. For the most part, these policies are
currently unregulated and subject to collective bargaining agreements. The
committee requested information from airlines, airline associations, and pi-
lot associations about these policies and practices. Responses were received
from 33 airlines including mainline, regional, cargo, and charter carriers. It
is important to note that these responses were a collection of heterogeneous
submissions. Airlines provided a range of information: some airlines pro-
vided basic descriptive statements about their policies while others provided
copies of the actual policies. The committee did not request nor receive
information as to how these policies were developed, on what scientific
research they were based, or on how the policies were implemented.
Access to Air Travel and Rest Facilities
As is the case with many other airline employees, pilots are able to take
advantage of free or reduced-rate (nonrevenue) travel, on a standby basis.
Nonrevenue travel is available on the pilot’s own airline network and, in
many cases, also on other airlines. Seating may be available using unsold
seats in the passenger cabin or the jumpseat, which is an additional observer
seat on the flight deck available to other pilots by courtesy of the captain.
Although some airlines allow pilots to reserve the flight deck jumpseat in
advance, other carriers require pilots to stand by for the jumpseat until it is
awarded to the senior requestor 30 minutes before flight time. Under these
procedures, only the most senior pilots would be able to rely on obtaining
a jumpseat for their commutes.
OCR for page 40
40 THE EFFECTS OF COMMUTING ON PILOT FATIGUE
Some airlines have adopted additional corporate policies that facilitate
pilot commuting by air or reduce the potential for stress and fatigue. For
example, FedEx reported to the committee that it allowed pilots to reserve
the jumpseat in advance; provided sleeping facilities at both its sorting hubs
and outlying stations; and included the time spent in commuting from the
pilot’s home airport to the domicile in the calculation of duty time with
respect to the limits established by the labor contract. (Time spent commut-
ing is not considered in duty time under current FAA regulations.) Similarly,
Delta Airlines reported in a submission to the committee that it allows
jumpseats to be reserved in advance. Some cargo and charter carriers that
engage in home basing reported to the committee that they provided re-
served seats for the trip to the pilot’s duty location and provided minimum
rest periods of 4-9 hours, depending on the carrier, between the arrival of
the commuting flight and commencement of preflight activities for a pilot’s
operational flight.
Although nonrevenue travel dramatically lowers the cost of commuting
for pilots, it has the disadvantage of the uncertainty of standing by for open
seats, especially given recently experienced record load factors.3 Figure 2-9
shows the changes in system-wide domestic load factors from 2000 through
2010. By 2010, load factors had increased to over 82 percent. (Load factors
on international flights by U.S. carriers were over 81 percent.) During the
most popular travel times and on the most popular routes, load factors are
even higher. The result is that there are fewer and fewer empty seats avail-
able to pilots (or other airline employees) for nonrevenue travel than was
the case when load factors were lower.
Adding to uncertainty over commuting arrangements are flight delays
and cancellations due to bad weather, air traffic control delays at congested
hub airports, and flights delayed or cancelled because of unscheduled main-
tenance needs. Pilots told the committee in testimony that they experience
stress from these uncertainties, with the risk of losing pay and being subject
to disciplinary actions if their commute goes badly and they do not arrive
at the domicile in a timely manner. Furthermore, they stated that the most
common way to mitigate this uncertainty is to begin the commute on an
earlier flight from the home airport to the domicile, which takes more time
away from home and may reduce sleep opportunities prior to the start of
duty.
Although some airlines provide quiet, dark, temperature-controlled
sleeping facilities in or near the domicile, most airlines do not. Many pilots
arrange for their own sleeping facilities at or near their domiciles. These
facilities range from private apartments owned or rented by the pilots to
3 The passenger load factor is a measure of how much of an airline’s passenger carrying ca-
pacity is used and is calculated as the ratio of revenue passenger miles to available seat miles.
OCR for page 41
41
THE U.S. AIRLINE INDUSTRY AND PILOT COMMUTING
90
80
Percentage of Seats Filled
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
00
01
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
Year
FIGURE 2-9 U.S. carrier domestic load factors.
SOURCE: Data from Bureau of Transportation Statistics (n.d.-b).
Figure 2-9.eps
hotel rooms rented by the night to temporary living arrangements shared
among groups of pilots. The arrangements at shared accommodations
(often referred to by pilots as “crash pads”) vary from a private bedroom
regularly assigned and available to the pilot to a shared room with mul-
tiple bunk beds in which the pilot takes a “hot bunk” that is open for
the night. Thus, shared accommodations can achieve the ideal of a quiet,
dark, temperature-controlled sleeping area, or they can fall well short of
the ideal. The quality of sleep obtainable at these locations, whether at
hotels, shared apartments, or company provided rest facilities, may vary
considerably.
The challenge of obtaining restful sleep in a less-than-ideal facility can
further increase the stress of commuting and can contribute to pilots’ oper-
ating flights in a fatigued state. This outcome is more likely if a pilot com-
mutes to the domicile with the intent of obtaining rest there, is unable to
sleep well, anticipates becoming fatigued by the end of the upcoming duty
shift, yet declines to call off the trip (desiring not to cause a flight delay or
concerned about losing pay from a trip dropped due to fatigue).
OCR for page 42
42 THE EFFECTS OF COMMUTING ON PILOT FATIGUE
Commuting Policies
A pilot who does not report to the domicile on time to prepare for
the first operational flight of the trip (usually 1 hour prior to scheduled
pushback) must be replaced by a reserve pilot. The flight’s departure may
well be delayed if a late-arriving pilot does not alert the company about the
situation ahead of time. Consequently, pilots who show up late for duty risk
disciplinary actions up to and including termination. Airlines recognize that
the uncertainties of commuting may be responsible for some late reports or
no-shows for duty. It is in the interest of the airline to receive “prenotifica-
tion” from pilots who are experiencing difficulty with their commute in or-
der to facilitate the call-up of reserve pilots without the cost and disruption
of a flight delay. However, it is also in the interest of the airline to maintain
consequences for pilots who report late in order to motivate the pilots to
arrive for duty reliably on time.
Consistent with these goals, some of the airlines that provided infor-
mation to the committee reported the establishment of commuting policies
that require pilots, for example, to attempt standby travel on two flights
that have open seat availability and would arrive at the domicile on time.
Pilots who do not clear the standby list for the first flight must then notify
a crew scheduler or chief pilot about their situation (providing the airline
with the desired advance notification of a possible late report). If these
pilots do not clear standby for the second flight, they may be provided a
reserved seat on the same flight (possibly bumping a paying passenger) or
may be allowed to drop the beginning of their scheduled trip with loss of
pay for the missed flight segments, depending on the airline’s policy. Under
some commuting policies, pilots who provide the specified prenotification
may be assured that no disciplinary action will be taken for the late arrival.
At other airlines, disciplinary action may be taken for overuse or abuse of
the commuting policy, while overuse or abuse may not be well defined.
One airline reported to the committee that repeated use of the allowances
in the commuting policy might result in the pilot losing the privileges of
that policy in the future.
Sick Leave and Attendance/Reliability Policies
Regulations require the individual pilot to assess his or her fitness to fly
and require pilots to decline to fly whenever unable to meet medical certi-
fication requirements (i.e., they are sick). Most airlines provide sick leave
as an employee benefit, with an earned bank of sick or multipurpose
leave hours for pilots to use to avoid loss of pay when missing a trip due
to illness. Traditionally, 1 hour of the pilot’s earned sick leave bank would
OCR for page 43
43
THE U.S. AIRLINE INDUSTRY AND PILOT COMMUTING
be used to substitute for each hour of flying time on the missed trip (most
pilots are paid by the hour of flight time, or more specifically, block time
including taxiing).4
The potential relevance of sick leave to commuting, the committee was
told informally, is that a pilot who is experiencing difficulty with a com-
mute may choose to call in sick for the upcoming trip in order to maintain
pay for the trip (which may be up to one-third of one’s monthly earnings,
depending on the number of trips per month). Atlantic Southeast Airlines
provided, in a submission to the committee, an excerpt from its Flight Op-
erations Manual that “the use of sick leave when commute difficulties are
encountered is a violation of Atlantic Southeast policy and could subject
the pilot to discipline.” Regardless of stated policy, airlines recognize that
this use or abuse of sick leave does occur. Perhaps in response (among other
reasons), some airlines have established attendance and reliability policies
that require pilots who frequently use sick leave to provide documentation
of their illness and treatment, submit to interviews by flight managers, or
be subject to disciplinary steps that may potentially lead to termination.
Fatigue Policies
Some airlines have established specific policies about flight crew fatigue.
Uniformly, under the policies reported to the committee, airlines rely on
the pilots to report fit for duty, including being properly rested, and also
to notify the airline if they are too fatigued to operate safely at any time
during a trip. In what appears to be a typical airline procedural response to
a statement of fatigue by a pilot, Ameristar Air Cargo reported to the com-
mittee in a submission: “There are no adverse consequences for a pilot to
call in fatigued. If a pilot uses the word ‘fatigue,’ ‘tired,’ or similar wording
that he or she is unfit for flight, that pilot is automatically removed from
a flight assignment.” Beyond this initial response, there is variation as to
whether, as a matter of policy or practice, managers interview or investigate
pilots who make such fatigue calls. Reported policies varied as to whether
the pilot receives pay for a trip not flown because of fatigue or forfeits the
pay that would have been earned from the trip.
Delta Airlines reported to the committee that in its experience “. . . our
recent reviews have not shown us a significant amount of absences or
missed flights due to commuting. To our knowledge, we only have a few
4 Under some labor agreements, though, the use of sick leave has been capped on a monthly
basis, so a pilot calling in sick for a trip may lose some or all of the pay for that trip. This
kind of agreement may provide a different incentive for a pilot who is sick to perhaps report
for work and attempt to fly when not medically qualified.
OCR for page 44
44 THE EFFECTS OF COMMUTING ON PILOT FATIGUE
fatigue situations per year that are associated with commuting.” However,
no systemic, reliable information from any airline was available to the com-
mittee about the effects, if any, of commuting on pilots’ reliably arriving at
their domicile on time for duty or about the effects, if any, of commuting
on either fatigue or fatigue calls.
