DECs - It may have just gotten a lot worse
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: nowhere
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Big Country
Age: 59
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DECs - It may have just gotten a lot worse
What exactly just got worse? Worse than what?
If you mean the airline just hired anther lot of decrepit, physically-marginal, barely trainable, silly old farts from N. American legacies like they did two DEC seasons ago, that might make sense. Otherwise, state your real agenda, fliioon. What exactly are you trying to say in your casual, "drive-by" post?
On the off chance you mean an ALLEGED recruitment of DECs will impact the upgrade prospects of the FO fraternity (and I use that word extremely loosely in such a fragmented, incohesive lot as we have here) then just take a look at the number of people bitching over the years about how their own promises of "fast-track" upgrades were not delivered upon.
Fast track upgrade = slow track DEC. No sympathy here. They can GFTs.
What a silly and pointless thread.
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Dxb
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is the real reason EK hires DEc
To lift burden from the simulators by providing fewer sessions than upgrades ?
Management has little faith in the passing rates of effos?
I am not joining until March but I long for answers
To lift burden from the simulators by providing fewer sessions than upgrades ?
Management has little faith in the passing rates of effos?
I am not joining until March but I long for answers
Last edited by Am NOT Sure; 8th Feb 2015 at 21:31. Reason: Typo
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: FL410
Posts: 860
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Am NOT Sure - I think you could see the simplistic filling of a LHS position in training management as follows: ideally internally upgrade before using external sources as you are putting a "known quantity" into the left hand seat, with a training followed and assessed over yeas in the company vs an unknown sourced entity.
To achieve this a new FO needs to be recruited and trained to enable (after line training) a SFO to proceed onto the upgrade process. Once passed he can take the available LHS position. Should a candidate fail this process, then another SFO proceeds until one is successful.
Should the requirements for LHS pilots exceed training capability/capacity as described above, due LHS outflow, simulator availability or fleet expansion, time has to be saved somewhere in the process.
This time saving can be achieved by using DECs, as they will occupy the available seat the new FO would take in the classroom for type conversion, but then (after line training) these DECs are immediately the LHS the company requires, without the need for the SFO process after a new FO.
Thus DECs are reducing the training time requirement/capacity by the time/capability required for converting SFOs.
Advantage: cost, time and capacity saving in training management.
Disadvantage: upsetting SFOs waiting for their "turn" for promotion.
Sometimes companies, even after meticulous training management planning, are faced with a projected future shortfall in LHS using their preferred method of internal upgrades.
Options available are to reduce SFO upgrade passing requirements/standards, thus increasing SFO passing rates to LHS and reducing slightly the capacity required to fill LHS, or resort to DECs for some time. If additional simulator capacity exists, using that can raise output, but in absence the DEC route is sometimes only option.
To achieve this a new FO needs to be recruited and trained to enable (after line training) a SFO to proceed onto the upgrade process. Once passed he can take the available LHS position. Should a candidate fail this process, then another SFO proceeds until one is successful.
Should the requirements for LHS pilots exceed training capability/capacity as described above, due LHS outflow, simulator availability or fleet expansion, time has to be saved somewhere in the process.
This time saving can be achieved by using DECs, as they will occupy the available seat the new FO would take in the classroom for type conversion, but then (after line training) these DECs are immediately the LHS the company requires, without the need for the SFO process after a new FO.
Thus DECs are reducing the training time requirement/capacity by the time/capability required for converting SFOs.
Advantage: cost, time and capacity saving in training management.
Disadvantage: upsetting SFOs waiting for their "turn" for promotion.
Sometimes companies, even after meticulous training management planning, are faced with a projected future shortfall in LHS using their preferred method of internal upgrades.
Options available are to reduce SFO upgrade passing requirements/standards, thus increasing SFO passing rates to LHS and reducing slightly the capacity required to fill LHS, or resort to DECs for some time. If additional simulator capacity exists, using that can raise output, but in absence the DEC route is sometimes only option.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: nowhere
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Surrounded by aluminum, and the great outdoors
Posts: 3,780
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you mean the airline just hired anther lot of decrepit, physically-marginal, barely trainable, silly old farts from N. American legacies
they would have to be silly to join your lot there
they would have to be silly to join your lot there
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Expat land
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DECs not quicker than upgrades
Skyjob,
A well written post, but I respectfully disagree with your conclusion:
The last batch of DECs in 2012 took an average of 5.5 months from joining to line check. They do the full conversion (same as new hire) then the full upgrade (same as SFO) then all the add-ons (freighter, polar etc).
A new hire to FO takes around 2.5 months and an FO to CMD upgrade takes approx 2.5 months as well.
Therefore, there is no training or financial benefit in DECs.
Problems such as lack of Sim time and instructors can be offset with outsourcing (which is already announced as happening to a large extent in 2015).
Probably the only insurmountable argument for DECs is a lack of suitable candidates (FOs) for upgrade. This has happened at times in the past, but there is a long queue of suitable 777 and 330 FOs with all the requirements waiting for a letter at the moment.
A well written post, but I respectfully disagree with your conclusion:
Thus DECs are reducing the training time requirement/capacity by the time/capability required for converting SFOs.
A new hire to FO takes around 2.5 months and an FO to CMD upgrade takes approx 2.5 months as well.
Therefore, there is no training or financial benefit in DECs.
Problems such as lack of Sim time and instructors can be offset with outsourcing (which is already announced as happening to a large extent in 2015).
Probably the only insurmountable argument for DECs is a lack of suitable candidates (FOs) for upgrade. This has happened at times in the past, but there is a long queue of suitable 777 and 330 FOs with all the requirements waiting for a letter at the moment.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: MIDDLE EAST
Posts: 1,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And that, Kingpost, is where the nail has been hit firmly on the head, time and time again.
This Company has historically been saved from the brink by failing airlines over the years, just when it needed a large intake of new pilots. Now, however, might be a different story. If, as on a different thread running, the packages are getting better and better in the US, there is no reason why many will stay in EK, let alone join. My concern though, is rather than do the right things to retain and attract good pilots, the minimum will be done and rules and regulations altered. There is absolutely no way that aircraft will be allowed to be parked. SVP'S & DSVP's will not jeopardise their fat salaries for that so will bring in 'temp' measures to cope with the crisis. Sickness policy for cabin crew, no resignation accepted this month due to admin constraints, 30 days leave allocation. These are just some of the examples of a system that's barely trying to keep up, let alone plan for the future. We will see more of these policies and some, no doubt, will conveniently become permanent. This is based on previous history and, as far as I know, there has been no cultural change in senior management to suspect it will be otherwise.
My final concern is what this thread is all about. Unfortunately, because of all of the above, the type of person joining now is not what they were 10-15 years ago. Not worse, just different. Most are still very good operators and are keen with generally good handling skills from previous LC's. However, they often don't have the previous command time that many F/O's used to have and they don't have the overall experience. They come here with 2500 hours and spend the next 4 years being 'Emiratised'. They're exposed to an increasing number of demotivated captains, often creating a perception that the slightest rule deviation will result in disciplinary action or, worst still, dismissal. You only have to witness the content of some of our ACR's (Arse Covering Report's) to see this. Training for them is based on an assessment of their procedural compliance and knowledge rather than the practical application, using airmanship and resilience. These evaluations are increasingly being undertaken by inexperienced trainers themselves who do not have the confidence or experience to apply common sense. 60 trainers left last year on the Boeing alone, either voluntarily or were asked to go. After 4-5 years the F/O is now expected to breeze an interview in which the skills of airmanship, practical applications of SOP's and resilience are being tested. Is it hardly any surprise then that when we need 200 upgrades this year on the Boeing, 20 have already failed their interview and we're only just into February. Interview failure rate is well over double the normal 10%.
Of course, F/O's need to play their part too. Turning up to interviews late, dirty shirts, non standard uniforms, long hair, unprepared in knowledge. It hardly makes for a good first impression. The same impression when guys turn up for ground school refresher training unprepared and indifferent to having to be in the classroom.
Ultimately, it comes down to attitude. Whilst some F/O's are far from being at the standard they think they're at, the Company has the biggest burden and responsibility to retain and nurture a culture of high professional standards. They can't just verbalise it or print it in SAFA, that actually have to implement it. This starts at the recruiting stage which in turn, will be based on terms and conditions being offered. Offer a poor package, expect to get one in return.
From the sidelines, it's like watching a sports game unfold, never knowing what surprise will shock you next. The problem is, many of us have been watching this same game unfold for the last 15 years. I wonder how many will still be on the field when the final whistle blows!
Harry
This Company has historically been saved from the brink by failing airlines over the years, just when it needed a large intake of new pilots. Now, however, might be a different story. If, as on a different thread running, the packages are getting better and better in the US, there is no reason why many will stay in EK, let alone join. My concern though, is rather than do the right things to retain and attract good pilots, the minimum will be done and rules and regulations altered. There is absolutely no way that aircraft will be allowed to be parked. SVP'S & DSVP's will not jeopardise their fat salaries for that so will bring in 'temp' measures to cope with the crisis. Sickness policy for cabin crew, no resignation accepted this month due to admin constraints, 30 days leave allocation. These are just some of the examples of a system that's barely trying to keep up, let alone plan for the future. We will see more of these policies and some, no doubt, will conveniently become permanent. This is based on previous history and, as far as I know, there has been no cultural change in senior management to suspect it will be otherwise.
My final concern is what this thread is all about. Unfortunately, because of all of the above, the type of person joining now is not what they were 10-15 years ago. Not worse, just different. Most are still very good operators and are keen with generally good handling skills from previous LC's. However, they often don't have the previous command time that many F/O's used to have and they don't have the overall experience. They come here with 2500 hours and spend the next 4 years being 'Emiratised'. They're exposed to an increasing number of demotivated captains, often creating a perception that the slightest rule deviation will result in disciplinary action or, worst still, dismissal. You only have to witness the content of some of our ACR's (Arse Covering Report's) to see this. Training for them is based on an assessment of their procedural compliance and knowledge rather than the practical application, using airmanship and resilience. These evaluations are increasingly being undertaken by inexperienced trainers themselves who do not have the confidence or experience to apply common sense. 60 trainers left last year on the Boeing alone, either voluntarily or were asked to go. After 4-5 years the F/O is now expected to breeze an interview in which the skills of airmanship, practical applications of SOP's and resilience are being tested. Is it hardly any surprise then that when we need 200 upgrades this year on the Boeing, 20 have already failed their interview and we're only just into February. Interview failure rate is well over double the normal 10%.
Of course, F/O's need to play their part too. Turning up to interviews late, dirty shirts, non standard uniforms, long hair, unprepared in knowledge. It hardly makes for a good first impression. The same impression when guys turn up for ground school refresher training unprepared and indifferent to having to be in the classroom.
Ultimately, it comes down to attitude. Whilst some F/O's are far from being at the standard they think they're at, the Company has the biggest burden and responsibility to retain and nurture a culture of high professional standards. They can't just verbalise it or print it in SAFA, that actually have to implement it. This starts at the recruiting stage which in turn, will be based on terms and conditions being offered. Offer a poor package, expect to get one in return.
From the sidelines, it's like watching a sports game unfold, never knowing what surprise will shock you next. The problem is, many of us have been watching this same game unfold for the last 15 years. I wonder how many will still be on the field when the final whistle blows!
Harry
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: earth
Posts: 1,098
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't close this thread, we have no "like" button here.
We need all the applause and consent and spread this article to other threads, especially the ones asking for information about EK!
For nailing, you are one hell of a carpenter, Harry.
We need all the applause and consent and spread this article to other threads, especially the ones asking for information about EK!
For nailing, you are one hell of a carpenter, Harry.