Ask The Pilot

[mjt57]

He was a 767 training Captain. When that aircraft was retired, many Capts and FOs lost a bar.

That would've been a bit rough on the FOs, wouldn't it? Having to go back to being an SO sitting in the back for another few years... (I was going write "twiddling their thumbs" but I guess that they still have meaningful work to do in that role.)

 

[harvyk]

That would've been a bit rough on the FOs, wouldn't it? Having to go back to being an SO sitting in the back for another few years... (I was going write "twiddling their thumbs" but I guess that they still have meaningful work to do in that role.)

JB et al., would the downgrade from FO to SO mean the person would also then be on long haul routes only? Or are SO's also used on some short hauls?

 

[jb747]

That would've been a bit rough on the FOs, wouldn't it? Having to go back to being an SO sitting in the back for another few years...

The loss of the 767 and the almost simultaneous reduction in numbers on the 747 resulted in quite a lot of people taking a redundancy package. Many, possibly most, were able to keep their rank, but they needed to have sufficient seniority to access any particular slot on the other aircraft types. The movement of people was across most fleets. Many 380 FOs lost their slots and had to go to the 330, and some of them also lost a bar, but were able to stay on the 380.

Losing any position that you've put a lot of work into getting would be upsetting. At the time though, it looked as though the most junior SOs could even lose their jobs...that was only alleviated by the number who took the VR.

(I was going write "twiddling their thumbs" but I guess that they still have meaningful work to do in that role.)

That's the problem with the SO job. Outsiders think they twiddle their thumbs. You can do an awful lot of work without touching the controls. There are times when supporting is actually harder than the actual flying.

JB et al., would the downgrade from FO to SO mean the person would also then be on long haul routes only? Or are SO's also used on some short hauls?

SOs aren't normally used on shorter flights, but they may sometimes be required by flight time limitations. They're only on the long haul aircraft types.

A scenario that could conceivably appear in the future with the loss of about half of the 747 fleet planned would see their Captains, FOs, and SOs use their seniority to move onto other fleets when their aircraft are retired. Looking at the Captains for instance, a substantial number are senior enough to displace on to the 380. That means they'd push 380 Captains out of their slots. They in turn are all senior enough to displace on the 787 (or 330). The push continues until we get a Captain who'd prefer to go to FO 380...and then so on. Very, very, messy.

 

[Quickstatus]

So some captains might under that scenario even be tempted to take early retirement than lose a bar?

 

[jb747]

So some captains might under that scenario even be tempted to take early retirement than lose a bar?

As it played out a few years ago, many took the VR. But, if a package were not offered then it's unlikely. The people most able to retire, are those who are least likely to be directly affected. Anyone in a position of losing a bar would be relatively low in the seniority (and to a degree age) stakes.

 

[Hvr]

With all of the potential movements and moving from one fleet to another surely the training costs must be huge?

Whilst the people concerned would be totally professional I can imagine there would be some resentment about being displaced from your role and then working beside the person who took your role and now out ranking you.

Finally, is the training from the Captain's role to FO in the same fleet particularly long?

 

[jb747]

With all of the potential movements and moving from one fleet to another surely the training costs must be huge?

I expect that they are. Which is why offering VR, across the board, at the same time makes sense.

Whilst the people concerned would be totally professional I can imagine there would be some resentment about being displaced from your role and then working beside the person who took your role and now out ranking you.

That isn't all that likely. Most displaced pilots would displace in turn, which would mean going to another fleet.

Finally, is the training from the Captain's role to FO in the same fleet particularly long?

No, it wouldn't be much more than a couple of sims. Just need to teach the other hand how to fly.

 

[flyer89]

Am starting to hear that mainline may well be short in the next year or two. I assume this will be primarily be due to retirements beginning to compound as well as the planned expansion with the 787 etc?

 

[jb747]

Am starting to hear that mainline may well be short in the next year or two. I assume this will be primarily be due to retirements beginning to compound as well as the planned expansion with the 787 etc?

We're basically on to industrial topics, which I don't really want to dwell on...

But, there are various rumours that might tend to agree with that. One story is that the number of suitable applicants is well short of what will be needed. This is an issue world wide. There's a limit to the number of starry eyed kids in the world. Most people who need to know are aware of the toxic, divide and conquer industrial models that have been used all around the world. They work in a world in which there is a never ending supply, but totally fail in a shortage. Ryanair has probably been the most recent example of this.

I'm not sure that the retirement issue is all that great right now, but in the next couple of years there are a lot of people approaching the age. Other issues are that models that assumed most pilots would go to 65 would seem to have been optimistic. Another is that in a toxic environment, retirements are not being notified any sooner than contractually required...which makes replacement planning impossible.

I see a number of own goals being kicked....

 

[flyer89]

Apologies for redirecting it into more unpleasant territory. I’m doing my ATPLs at the moment so am one of the silly ones that decided a career in the profession was still a good idea. At least I know it I suppose....

 

[jb747]

Apologies for redirecting it into more unpleasant territory. I’m doing my ATPLs at the moment so am one of the silly ones that decided a career in the profession was still a good idea. At least I know it I suppose....

There's always the hope that once the system fails, saner heads might prevail. Even MoL has had to wind back the rhetoric.

 

[flyer89]

Even MoL has had to wind back the rhetoric.

A lot of people had a good giggle when he was forced to do that.

 

[defurax]

Yesterday I was watching the RAAF C17 doing low passes along the main straight of the F1 track in Albert park. I was wondering if this is done entirely by manual flying or if the main straight coordinates are entered in the FMC?

 

[jb747]

Whilst they'd probably have a way point in the vicinity(say 5 nm away) to help set the whole thing up, I would expect them to just look out the window and fly it manually.

 

[RooFlyer]

I think there is a mandatory retirement age for commercial pilots in Australia. (?65?). Is that law, or airline imposed? Either way, do our pilots think there may be some 'stretching' / relaxing of that age limit coming up, subject to strict medicals? Is it under discussion at all in the regulators 'space'?

 

[opusman]

Interesting quote from the Guardian write-up of QF9:

Lisa Norman, the other captain, makes an appearance. She allays fears (mine) of the plane running out of fuel. “We could get to London and still have an hour and 40 minutes left,” she says.

1 hour 40 minutes reserve seems like quite a lot doesn't it?

 

[jb747]

Interesting quote from the Guardian write-up of QF9:

1 hour 40 minutes reserve seems like quite a lot doesn't it?

And it's far more than a QF plan will normally give you.

There was never any danger of them running out of fuel. Only of them not making it to London. There are plenty of options within Europe.

 

[flyingfan]

With inbound aircraft, does ATC ever prioritise arrivals or do you just join the end of that queue and take a number barring a pan-pan or emergency? I assume that with that, ATC won't care whether you're a turboprop from an aerodrome elsewhere in the state or an A380 that's just flown for 13 hours across the Pacific?

I further assume that ATC equally doesn't care if your aircraft has had a day of rolling delays and some on board are in jeopardy of missing international connections - or is it possible to request an expedited arrival that's not directly related to the safety of the aircraft or those on board?

Are there many 'Lifeguard' flights around?

 

[jb747]

With inbound aircraft, does ATC ever prioritise arrivals or do you just join the end of that queue and take a number barring a pan-pan or emergency? I assume that with that, ATC won't care whether you're a turboprop from an aerodrome elsewhere in the state or an A380 that's just flown for 13 hours across the Pacific?

I further assume that ATC equally doesn't care if your aircraft has had a day of rolling delays and some on board are in jeopardy of missing international connections - or is it possible to request an expedited arrival that's not directly related to the safety of the aircraft or those on board?

Are there many 'Lifeguard' flights around?

That sums it up pretty well. Emergency and air ambulance flights get to jump the queue. Otherwise, ATC certainly don't care. They just manage the blips as they appear, which really is all they can be expected to do.

 

[Melburnian1]

jb, while I've discarded it, the print edition of last Friday's 'Oz' (with what is now usually a single page on 'aviation' tucked away on about page 30, business section) had a large ad from QF promoting that it was hiring flight crew.

Surprising because I'd have thought QF would always, like most mainline airlines in Western countries, have a huge number wanting to join it.