Flying a WB is no more difficult than a NB, just different. If the WB is operated on long-haul intercontinental routes then the BIG difference is management of the operation and all that such an operation - ATC- mother nature - politics- fuel planning - crew/pax issues - hotel/handling issues etc. etc can throw at you. This requires exposure and experience. It has absolutely nothing to do with flying hours. In companies who operate only WB's then 5-6 years might be enough to have seen the whole network and some of the problems. That's about 5000hrs, but it is 6 years relevant exposure. If you are in a mixed fleet company then 4-5 year short haul with easy options and ground assistance at hand, followed by another 4-5 years to learn the long-haul operation is reasonable. IMHO 4 years short-haul then 1 year long-haul might not be enough even if it = 4000hrs.
Just consider the dynamics: 5 years = 4000hrs, but you are still 26 years old. The purser is 40, all the cabin crew are >30, the F/O is 30. Would it be wise????? to be LHS? There are hours ands there are hours, but then there are years.
I flew WB long-haul charter for a couple of charter companies who were WB only, but not for too long, and as there was no expansion or retirement the issue of upgrades didn't raise in my time. Cathay has WB only. I know they have regional and then long-haul. What is their policy? IHMO taking a $200m a/c & 500pax and >15 crew to the other side of the world in all climates, both weather & political, would need 10 years exposure of aviation, most of it relevant. At least that would get you north of 30 years old.
Last edited by RAT 5; 31st October 2015 at 22:41.