PDA

View Full Version : Upgrade times in CX


Hogan
17th Oct 2005, 13:15
Thanks for all the good info to everyone
Can anyone give me a realistic estimated upgrade time from FO to Captain at CX? I was told that it could be anywhere from 3 to 5 years in the freighter fleet, and maybe twice as much on the PAX side. Am I on track or way off?

Alpine Pilot
21st Oct 2005, 08:56
I heard it´s about 9 years after joining as an SO.
SO for about 3 years right now.

mayday911
21st Oct 2005, 14:17
I was told during the second interview that the Freighter fleet command time should settle at about 4 to 5 years. I also know of a senior F/O on the Airbus that has been with CX 9 years and is still waiting for command.

Mayday

CathayPacific
21st Oct 2005, 23:16
Is that mean you have to get over 10,000 flying hours to become a captain in CX?

nike
22nd Oct 2005, 08:57
Having XX number of flight hours is not the deal breaker.

stillalbatross
23rd Oct 2005, 00:48
At the moment it is sitting inside 9 years from date of joining company to upgrade on to pax fleet. Fellows currently starting command course joined 96-97 and I would think it will drop to nearer to 8 years within the next 18 months as there was very little recruitment in '99.

petitfromage
23rd Oct 2005, 14:22
Concur.

Pax Fleet:

SO time has dropped (as expected) to very close to 3.3yrs.....but the training plan for the next 6-12mths means that once again the priorities lie with command upgrades.
SO to JFO time is set to push out towards 3.8-4yrs again.

Command training is quite dynamic. The current variables including command failures and Cat B'd SFOs means that time to being considered for command is around 7yrs.
If Cat A (and passing the course) time to command is set to stabilise at approx 8yrs from time of joining.

Its not Emirates (4yrs) but its less than half the time (to heavy command) as BA, QF, NZ and AF/KLM.

jtr
23rd Oct 2005, 15:01
"Fellows currently starting command course joined 96-97"

No one who joined in 1997 has started a command course (or been assessed for command) on the Pax fleet.




"The current variables including command failures and Cat B'd SFOs means that time to being considered for command is around 7yrs."

Assuming being "considered for command" means command selection panel, then the time is currently running at 9+ years. i.e. The first guys who joined in '97 are being assessed in Jan 2006 for a pax command, the course date of which is determined by numerous variables.




"If Cat A (and passing the course) time to command is set to stabilise at approx 8yrs from time of joining."

And how exactly did you work that little gem out? You haven't been listening to Don't Know Hau have you?

petitfromage
23rd Oct 2005, 22:15
Youre right JTR....and thankfully no I dont listen to DH (although in his defence he is only passing on info from above! The way he does so however gives the impression he 'knows something" or has some power....which is far from the truth; but its his little empire and he's happy)

Apologise, may post reads poorly. What I mean by 8yrs.....is "below 9yrs". It doesnt look like it'll reach 8.0yrs ever! (But maybe 8.10'ish as there was a lull in hiring in the late 90s)
All bets are off if H1N5 joins the party!

For the 'wannabes', our most junior Freighter Captain joined in Nov 2001.

Yanqmi
27th Oct 2005, 09:04
For all you North American (NA) types (me included) this isn't like the US. You are continually graded from your first sim session in training through every sim and line check you will ever accomplish. Rating is 1-5. 1 you suck to 5 you are a CX dream!! Evaluations are brutally honest and aren't the "train to proficiency" you are used to in the US.

You apply for Command and are graded A-D by a Command evaluation group looking at your past training record. A your ready for Command training, B you need more work to D you'll probably never make it. Unless your A rated you don't get the opportunity for Command training/upgrade.

Quite frankly, Cathay Commanders (even the early 30's types) make your average and above average US Captain look weak and then some! Be ready for it if you want to come here.

Yanqmi

locblue
22nd Nov 2005, 11:08
Hi,

I have 6000 hrs on A340 and B777 combined. How long to command on the freighters, if i were to be based in LAX? No intention of being based in HK. Am happy to give pax fleet a miss.

Any input much appreciated.

coded_messages
23rd Nov 2005, 08:38
Jtr "No one who joined in 1997 has started a command course (or been assessed for command) on the Pax fleet."

Sorry INCORRECT ;)

jtr
24th Nov 2005, 10:24
coded,

Given that neither BS or MD had not been assessed on the 23rd Oct (date of my post) and imsmc they were the first joiners of '97, then I am open to suggestions.

Bear in mind the operative words are "'97" and "started a command course (or been assessed for command) on the PAX FLEET"

i.e.

No one who joined after 01/01/97 has started a command on the Pax fleet

No one who joined after 01/0197 has been assessed for a command on the Pax fleet

You are not mixing commands on the freighter up with this are you?


[edited to make dates specific]

busdriver
25th Nov 2005, 02:57
Second "O's" upgrading to J/FO after 4 years now being pushed up from 3.3 years!

flamingmoe
15th Dec 2005, 06:03
Is the current SO-JFO upgrade time of 4 years likely to change with the company's expansion plans in the next few years? Or are they still limited by training resources?

cpdude
15th Dec 2005, 17:00
FCUX,

If you are a pilot you should know better then to make comments like that following an incident. Must you be reminded of the many incidents that happen around the world? Are you one of those that will never screw up? Those that believe that usually screw up really big when they do!

If your not a pilot, then back the truck up jack because jack is all you obviously know about this situation.:mad:

BusyB
15th Dec 2005, 18:35
Amazing how we can be in agreement about somethings cpdude,

cpdude
15th Dec 2005, 19:15
BusyB,

I don't have any hard feelings towards you personally; I just think your AOA attitude/opinions of non-members stink.
:p :)

nolimitholdem
16th Dec 2005, 22:44
Have to agree with FCUX, if someone's going to toss out a comment like "Quite frankly, Cathay Commanders (even the early 30's types) make your average and above average US Captain look weak and then some!", then you can't really get your panties in a twist when someone rebuts with an anecdote about a "Commander" who wasn't all that...

If the quick reaction to the rebuttal is any indication, I guess the story about JFK is true?!

:hmm:

cpdude
16th Dec 2005, 23:01
Quite frankly, Cathay Commanders (even the early 30's types) make your average and above average US Captain look weak and then some! Be ready for it if you want to come here.

You must be a young regional pilot that finds it difficult to step up and play with the big boys. Can't join them so the next best is to defame them is that it? Childish you are but try and keep up here. Look back and see who wrote the quote above will ya!

BTW, I just LOVE that little "jack truck" saying(very clever), you must be a CX captain... That would have taken me days to think of, you should be proud of yourself!

Well obviously you don't know anything about the incident in JFK and your not going to hear it from me because frankly you already have taken up more of my time than your worth!:8

Mr. Bloggs
16th Dec 2005, 23:34
Well, the United DC-10 Captain (Sioux City Iowa /UA-232) must have been “Weak”.

I think the United Pilot of UA-811 (B747-122/ Honolulu) with a rather big hole in the side, was a bit “Weak” also.

It’s a big statement. Just curious, who are the best pilots? Europeans, Africans, Asians? Obviously not North Americans. Maybe the Australians and Kiwi’s get the honour.

Maybe 747 pilots are the best ISO the counterparts that do anywhere from 3-7 sectors a day on regional flights around the world. Maybe it’s the guys/gals flying around in single/twin engine turboprops in all the weather. Maybe its the fighter pilots of the world who get shot at.

cpdude
17th Dec 2005, 03:08
Every now and then someone will make a statement about the quality of Pilots either from a specific airline or background. Pilots with a varied background often don't make these kinds of comments because they are very aware of the fact that you have above average and below average pilots everywhere.

What can be accurately discussed is the atmosphere created by companies with respect to the environment that pilots have to work under. A weak environment where procedures are ill-thought or not enforced allows less structured individuals to freelance the operation of the aircraft creating an unsafe or not as-safe state. I can say that Cathay has a very strict often described as anal enforcement of procedures in the cockpit which is something NA airlines do not have. This has very little to do with quality of a pilot but it does create a more professional operation generally speaking.

Being a NA pilot working in Asia I can say that many NA pilots come to Cathay with a very casual or relaxed attitude only to find that it is not accepted or appreciated by the large contingent of British and Australian Checkers.

One thing that is consistent when you ask a pilot “who is the best” the answer is usually "I am".
:cool:

cpdude
18th Dec 2005, 13:53
Pointless. :zzz:

christn
18th Dec 2005, 18:21
I wonder if there is a Doctor's web site where they publicly ridicule each other and gloat when another hospital's patient dies? We demand 'Professional' status but we display the mentality of a 'chav' !

cpdude
18th Dec 2005, 20:20
FCUX,

Pointless because you cannot see that you accused the wrong person of making that comment even when the evidence is right here in this thread!

Your lack of apology is indicative of whom you are.

:p

Gobble
20th Dec 2005, 08:52
cp dude
You should learn when to pul your head in and shut your mouth.

It's people like you with your poorly thought opinions that give this industry and its people a poor name.

"best pilots.... worst pilots.... Cx.... NA.... bla bla bla bla....."

Sign off and go and breath some fresh Asian air!

:}

nolimitholdem
20th Dec 2005, 16:41
You must be a young regional pilot that finds it difficult to step up and play with the big boys. Can't join them so the next best is to defame them is that it? Childish you are but try and keep up here.

If condescension is the yardstick by which safety is measured, then truly CX must be the safest place of all! :yuk: My god, is that "big boys" thing for real? Too funny! It never ceases to amaze me how people can begin to believe their own bs after enough time!



I can say that Cathay has a very strict often described as anal enforcement of procedures in the cockpit which is something NA airlines do not have.

Uh. Ok. Dammit, and I have a Air Canada flight booked next week. Little did I know, they're just playing cards and having a party up front, whereas here I thought they adhered to some sort of strict cockpit procedures. It's probably a lost cause to hope that the author of this comment could realize how laughable it is.

I think CX is generally regarded as having an excellent safety culture. I also think there are PLENTY of examples of how CX is not above reproach in that regard either. But trying to somehow elevate the status of CX, their commanders, or what have you, only looks...what was the word? Childish?