Safety is Cathay Pacific Airways’ number one priority

Bullsh!t

our current arrangement is that no cabin crew will be rostered for more than one such turnaround flights per month.

Oh but never mind the flight crew...as long as the pax meals and hot beverages are served safely whilst we descend into a typhoon with the flight crew half asleep....

Oh and remember those max FDP 12hr two sector middle of the night Riyadh patterns via Bahrain that were deemed too fatiguing and were changed....well it all of a sudden doesn't commercially suit them anymore, so guess what, they are back :mad::mad:

.of course safety is our number one priority!!!!!

:yuk::yuk::yuk:

I was wondering how long before someone put this on. I was laughing my arse off when some dip shit put this in print. Exactly cockpit crew completely excluded from this little safety gem.

If you don't think you can compete the duty safely, due to any reason, including fatigue - don't do it! Call in sick. The company will soon get the message. Hard to do, I know, but we do have a professional responsibility.

The management's responsibility is to maximize profit - this is the company's number one priority. Ours is to make it safe.

I like the fact that they completely dance around the actual sign on, departure and arrival times! Once you read them their entire argument goes out the window. The average Joe could perceive a late night turn around as 8pm till midnight! When it's more like 11pm till 6am stopping and starting around 2-3am somewhere, yep safety is number one:ugh:

Don't want to nit-pick SMOC, but it's more like 6pm sign-on, fly, land just before midnight, take off again an hour later & land back in HK about 6am.

Which means IF you've managed to get some sleep at home, then you've woken up at about 3 - 4 pm, and been awake for over 12 hours through the dead of the night.

Safety my arse!

Guys,

The solution here is very simple.

If you get to SIN at midnight and are unfit to fly back. Call in unfit and get off the jet.

If that happens enough, they'll get the idea.

Even a drunken sailor knows that. The question is whether guys here have enough balls to do it??? Not many I'm guessing.

Safety is Cathay Pacific Airways’ number one priority

If safety is their number one priority, then why are we now being told not to pull full reverse on a wet runway? Oh yeah, safety is actually number 2. Number 1 is money.

Safety is Cathay Pacific Airways’ number one priority
If safety is their number one priority, then why are we now being told not to pull full reverse on a wet runway? Oh yeah, safety is actually number 2. Number 1 is money.

So a 13000' rwy with 5 HWC is too short if it is wet? Come on, use some common sense, oh that's right, CS died long ago........

Even a drunken sailor knows that. The question is whether guys here have enough balls to do it??? Not many I'm guessing.

But some get their balls treated rather nicely.:E

My point is, if safety is their number 1 priority then shouldn't we be using all the means at our disposal to slow the aircraft? Isn't it safer to use 3 systems to slow you down rather than just 2? (brakes and spoilers). This argument isn't about common sense, it's about defining safety as a NUMBER 1 PRIORITY? If you're not using all the available systems, then you're not maximizing safety. If you're not maximizing safety then you can not call it your number 1 priority.

This new policy will end in tears I'm afraid, as the CX anally retentive check and training culture will work it's way into the system and within a few years we will be hesitant to use full reverse at all, and we will end up with our own version of a QF1.

If you get to SIN at midnight and are unfit to fly back. Call in unfit and get off the jet.

I can just hear the excuses now. Please feel free to add to them ladies & gents:

Yea, but I'm on overtime.

Yea, but that'll screw up my requested SYD the next day.

Yea, but I had some things to do tomorrow.

My point is, if safety is their number 1 priority then shouldn't we be using all the means at our disposal to slow the aircraft? Isn't it safer to use 3 systems to slow you down rather than just 2? (brakes and spoilers). This argument isn't about common sense, it's about defining safety as a NUMBER 1 PRIORITY? If you're not using all the available systems, then you're not maximizing safety. If you're not maximizing safety then you can not call it your number 1 priority.

Sorry but my A/C only has two engines so I will look after them as much as possible. If safety is your concern then use TOGA every takeoff as well then?

Suggest some of you guys need to wake up and smell the coffee! We are not the only airline to fly this kind of pattern and if you want a 9-5 job then you are in the wrong profession.
Yes it stuffs up your social life, but that's the "job" so get used to it and stop behaving like children. You have to arrange your life to be properly rested.
To all those brave "men/women" suggesting to everyone else to go sick downroute, to stuff the system, I am sure you will do it when you are rostered for such a flight. No of course you will go sick first and your mate who has been on reserve for 8 hours will get called out. Going sick downroute would not be a good idea either as you might stuff the company, but yourself as well, remember you signed on as being "fit" to operate out of HK. I am sure the company will be very "understanding!!

Suggest some of you guys need to wake up and smell the coffee! We are not the only airline to fly this kind of pattern

Just because someone else does it doesn't make it safe. Traditional tribes-people in the mountains of Burma have been using heroin for centuries. Does that mean that it is safe for us all?

Either it is safe or not. What any other operator does is irrelevant to the discussion. Flying out at 6pm for a midnight turn around and getting back to HK at 6 am is insanely unsafe.

Caveat: some of these flights are 777 sectors, and are done by Nth American based pilots. I have no objection to that happening because it is nicely aligned to their circadian rhythm. Notice that I said pilots - using any HK crew, pilots or cabin crew, is insane.

The solution - fly us out there to land at midnight, and put us in a hotel for 24hrs. As someone pointed out to me recently, we will still have to do a midnight sector home the next night, but we will have the chance to sleep in the hotel right up to 11.30 pm-ish, and then only be awake for 6-7 hrs by the time we return to HK. Still through our WOCL, but much less tiring than the turn around.

Oh, sorry, putting us in the hotel for the extra night costs money, and that's more important than safety.

Please give iceman50 the Darwin Award for the most idiotic post of the year.

If safety is your concern then use TOGA every takeoff as well then?

I do. I thought it was company policy.

And what they are doing is unsafe. Signing on at 6pm to work until 6am is completely ridiculous. There is no need to do such a pattern, as already explained, it could be broken up in SIN. This is purely an abuse to make up for the mismanagement of this company at every level. The fact that the CAD does not have a minimum crew requirement per aircraft shows how little involvement they take in the safety of the flying public.

I agree, call unfit. I don't care if I am on reserve. If I am not rested I will speak up myself as well. And I seriously hope, if you get this pattern, you file an ASRF for EACH SECTOR. And one for the following sector in the next pattern as well due to the disruption such a pattern causes to your rest before the next pattern. A paper trail is the only way this pattern will disappear.

BC,

For the record, LAX and YVR based 777 crews are not well suited for a 6pm HKG sign on. That is a 2 or 3am body clock depending on season. Given a bit of westward drift from the ULH to Hong Kong, that makes for a tough shift. That said, it is better than for Hong Kong crew. An EU based 777 crew would be best.

The only thing reverse thrust does on a wet runway is keep the brakes cooler than they would be without reverse thrust.

How many times have you had to delay departure or request cooling fans for the brakes because they were too hot?

I thought so...

Hey Iceman I love that comment "Arrange your life so you are suitably rested!"
You obviously dont have kids and im sure your Wan chai time and various activities can be arranged so you can have your beauty sleep before an all night vigil, but you need to wake up and smell the roses.

not so clever after all are we?

You can become sick anytime during a duty.
You are not really suggesting that you are immune as soon as you sign on, are you?
Sick probably means "becoming unfit" in your post, which is a bit different.
Most of us do not have a crystal ball which allows us to look up to 9-10 hours into the future.
When you are on day 7 during a 11 day pattern doing 2 PX sectors in order to take the a/c back to HKG from Hanoi and you run into a delay you WILL be unfit for duty.

This is not an inconvenience item it is a safety issue.
Mentioning 9-5 probably means you are flying a desk anyhow.

GANKER

I do have kids so grow up!

Dragon69

Can't handle the truth then?

Iceman,

Have you ever replied to a post with a mature, balanced or objective response?

Seems you try and take an arrogant and belittling tone with all your replies.

Apologies cxorcist,

I was not clear on what I said. I was referring to the midnight departure to SIN, which is a turn around that gets back to HK around lunch time. That one is perfect for YVR/SFO/LAX based crew.

Agreed that the 6pm - 6am turn around is not suitable for them.

iceman.

Can't handle the truth then?

What truth is that iceman?? you posted an opinion, an opinion I might add that 99% of the pilot body disagree with you. I doubt you have flown one of these middle of the night turn around, if you had you wouldn't be defending it!!!

Or perhaps you're one of those keen management assh0les who flies a day trip a couple of times a month and then wonders why the rest of the pilots are bitchin.

The first thing you learn when you become a pilot is not to be complacent, complacency kills!!!! And yet that's exactly how these pr!cks on the 3rd floor have become, the fact that we haven't had an incident yet seems to give them the green light to push the envelope further and introduce dangerous patterns.

So take your 9 to 5 job and shove it up your arze.

Dragon69

Yes I have done them and planned my rest accordingly. Also did a lot more of them in my last airline, they were the norm. Not on the third floor, probably fly the same amount as you, probably have for a lot longer, pilots always "bitch", but I will bet the 99% you quote get on with the job and don't claim to go sick and screw their fellow pilots, so do not lecture on complacency or how wonderful you are and know everything.

Badairsucker

Yes so HTFU, mature enough for you! You seem to imply that all your posts are balanced, objective and mature, well they might be in your eyes but perhaps not those of others who read them.

DrFaustus

Perhaps you missed all the posts concerning going "sick" down-route to stuff the company, and our customers, otherwise you would have realised the sickness comment was relating back to those posters who were recommending this tactic. Combined with the tactic of going sick prior to sign on and so stuffing your "mate" who has been on reserve.

Yes I have done them and planned my rest accordingly.

Yeah Bull:mad:t...

Badairsucker

Yes so HTFU, mature enough for you! You seem to imply that all your posts are balanced, objective and mature, well they might be in your eyes but perhaps not those of others who read them.



Thanks for that iceman, you answered my question for me. You are indeed a real ****.

Only reply#3 mentioned "sick" as far as I can see.
The other ones are correctly mentioning "unfit to fly".

And I do agree with you that there is a lot of bitching and moaning going on on the flight deck and I don't like that either.

But I think your comment (pasted below) needs some clarification (from you):
Going sick downroute would not be a good idea either as you might stuff the company, but yourself as well, remember you signed on as being "fit" to operate out of HK. I am sure the company will be very "understanding!!

Are you saying that convenience (Company, passenger...) is counting more than safety?
Why should I care if the company is understanding, they rostered it that way ("yes but it is legal", ever heard that?) in the first place.

Please go ahead