QF Ops DXB-LHR

[Management101]

With all the discussion among the ranks about how many pilots are needed between DXB and LHR, do you really think it's in anyones long term interests to stick with the current formula requiring 4 pilots into Europe for anything less than a 64 hour stay?

Even 3 pilots is more than any other carrier. Most operators, including BA, do Asia Sydney 2 crew. No other carrier out of Dubai to Europe does anything other than 2 crew ops, or can I be corrected on this?

If the cost of QF operations exceeds the costs of all other operators, then the operation will die. How long will QF keep flying onwards from Dubai to LHR in its own right?

Even more concerning, what happens if all future long haul aircraft deliveries are based and registered in a holding company offshore (could be the middle east for an example), and operated by crew from a different entity? Not without merit, as trust me, it has been discussed many times very high up.

Protect yourselves people. Think of the long term, not just the next year or two.

[Sprite]

Of course Management 101 is a troll - however this is a good reminder of certain points.

DXB - LHR will not require 4 crew or 64 hour slips, so the first point is moot. And the second point.


The third point, however, about holding companies, will only happen if a B scale is introduced.

So if a B scale for pilots is introduced, we can be assured that those pilots will be given the best routes, the higher divisors, the new overseas bases with quick promotions, while the rest of us languish in Australia with blank lines and minimum divisors.

So the best protection, even for those with only the highest level of self interest, is to avoid a B scale at all costs.

The troll is too stupid to realise we know what is going on - think of the long term he says - yes, don't ever accept a B scale.

[Management101]

Sprite, should it be 2 or 3 pilot crews then?

The big point, and if you want job security, is that to prevent a 'B' scale the 'A' scale people need to get rid of some outdated provisions. Simple. If everyone else can do it 2 crew, why can't QF?

Not give away the farm, just accept some changes that will stop the situation you describe above.

[Sprite]

AFAIK the award would permit two crew ops to London. So no need to panic, M101 ;-) No changes necessary!

[Visual Procedures]

Great idea Sprite. Don't ever accept a B scale :rolleyes:

That will certainly secure the flying futures of the junior crew. It was a great tactic in that meeting in 2003 which 800+ pilots attended that has now resulted in 68 jets crewed by non-mainline pilots.

Just because its a 'B' scale to you, doesn't mean it is to someone else.

Thats 68 jets worth of commands that mainline effohs missed out on. Is that command pay a 'B' scale compared to a rotating 767 effoh beating his head against the MEL-SYD-BNE triangle?

Thats 68 jets worth of effoh positions in mainline. Is having those future opportunities in mainline a 'B' scale?

You say you know what is going on. It must be a nice view from your feathered nest.

Don't you worry about the rest of us though. We know we'll be fine. Coz we'll all be senior one day. :ugh:

[SOPS]

Why can't QF do DXB LHR DXB with 2 crew? It's only a 7 hour flight. Or am I missing something?

[Capt Fathom]

Or am I missing something?

What about the flight up from Sydney? That would have to hurt!

[Sprite]

You may think that if a B scale is introduced that it will mean promotion and expansion for those currently on the A scale. It will not. It will mean exactly the same as what they are doing to the CC - minimum flying for A scale and (presumably) overseas base, consequent promotions and maximum flying for the B scalers.

I am not by any means in a feathered nest.

[Tankengine]

The flights will be crewed by the number of pilots required - that is it!:rolleyes:
The only reason QF currently run more than 2 crew from SYD-SIN is that the S/Os need to get to SIN for the Europe sector anyway so they operate instead of passenger. If the tools in power wish to change things they should do it in accordance with the fatigue study done a few years ago rather than the dangerous practices of a few other airlines.:ugh:

[SOPS]

Capt Fathom, I was only referring to the DXB LHR DXB sector. I realise the sector from SYD to DXB would require heavy crew.

[mustafagander]

It may be worth pondering exactly where, in which time zone, those other airlines which do 2 pilot Gulf-UK are based. After Oz-Gulf, 24 hour slip this sector might well be very tough and, in fact, not be legitimate under FRMS with 2 pilots.

We long haulers in QF aren't idiots you know, we (almost) all realise that there must be changes to survive but beware of throwing the baby out with the bath water.

[DirectAnywhere]

I reckon it will be a pretty decent sector actually. In body clock terms for the QF1 it will be about a 7am (based on EST) report for an 8.05 am departure. Probably a 5.30ish am wake-up. Could be a lot worse.

Arrives in London about 4pm body clock.

The southbound sector ex LHR would be much worse for mine - even with a couple of days off. Anyway, the odds are that EK will be doing it soon anyway.

[4dogs]

Question 1: Why did B scale enter the conversation?

I thought the FWC specifically rejected that as an option.

Question 2: Why do we still have pilots who believe that rostering practices that "are JAA, FAA and not to mention CASA approved" have any real significance in fatigue risk management?

Until quite recently, the FAA has been completely missing in action on managing fatigue and EASA has totally ignored its own scientific advice as well as the advice of the UKCAA. As for CASA, the last time they paid attention to this area was in the late 90s and they have had their heads in the sand ever since. Not one of those agencies can lay claim to "best practice" in fatigue risk management.

Mere compliance will never guarantee safety.

Stay Alive,

[Bahama Breeze]

4dogs,

With regard to your B scale question, the FWC merely decided that the B scale discussion was too great for them to make a determination, being such a massive overhaul, and considered that QF will likely not be hiring any new LH pilots for the duration of the binding arbitration (which carries through to Jan 2014).

It's basically been left to be renegotiated in the next EBA.

BB

[Capt Fathom]

SOPS,

You can't just refer to Dubai-London-Dubai in isolation. The crew are flying Sydney to London return via Dubai.

Yes it is only 7hrs to London from Dubai. But that crew has flown 14 hrs from Australia to Dubai, plus a 6/7 hr time change!

An interesting Fatigue Management scenario.

[SOPS]

Point taken

[Offchocks]

Rumour has it:

SYD-DXB 4 man crew 48hrs rest
DXB-LHR 2 man crew 39hrs rest (due schedule constraints)
LHR-DXB 2 man crew 48hrs rest
DXB-DYD 4 man crew

[noip]

OC,

Current agreements would need changing for that "rumour" to have legs.

N

[Keg]

I'm not sure they would.... unless we're going to cling to the prospect that DXB constitutes an 'asian slip'? Is there other clauses that need re-writing.

What's interesting is how the FRMS plays out. It's perhaps a slightly different proposition to what EK crew do now in terms of doing a LHR return, 48 hours off and then a SYD return. Time will tell.

[noip]

Under current scheduling rules, the above rumoured pattern is not permitted.

N

[unseen]

Which part contravenes which rule?

[TopBunk]

BA have for years done that down to SYD (and before also to BNE, MEL, PER) from SIN.

ie LHR-SIN (4 crew, 48 hours off)
SIN-SYD (2 crew, ~34 hours off)
SYD-SIN (2 crew, 48 hours off)
SIN-LHR (4 crew)

Maybe it's time to look at those agreements. Better to do that and maybe keep the LHR leg in-house, surely?

[Capt Kremin]

I can't see the difference between the mooted DXB-LHR patterns and the current SYD-LAX-JFK which is operated two pilot to JFK unless a SO may be operationally required.

[Stalins ugly Brother]

Under current scheduling rules, the above rumoured pattern is not permitted.

N

Noip, what current scheduling rule do you keep referring too? Can you provide the reference?

I can't see the difference between the mooted DXB-LHR patterns and the current SYD-LAX-JFK which is operated two pilot to JFK unless a SO may be operationally required.

I agree, it appears to be a very similar operation.

There seems to be an opinion that the reference to "asian slip" will extend to operations to and from Dubai from LHR. Last time I looked on a map Dubai wasn't in Asia, I think it's a long bow to be drawn to use with this operation.

My bet, 48h Dubai,36h LHR, 48h Dubai. Crewed 4/2/4.

Unless there is a Dubai basing opening up! :eek:

[unseen]

Last time I looked on a map Dubai wasn't in Asia

Wikipedia says otherwise - so it just me true......;)

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asia

But so do some other sources

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/Asia

http://www.worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/as.htm

Just don't ask the UN - they say it is in Asia as well

http://esa.un.org/unpd/wup/CD-ROM_2009/WPP2009_DEFINITION_OF_MAJOR_AREAS_AND_REGIONS.pdf

[Ka.Boom]

Its being contemplated for Cabin Crew using a portion of the current LHR CC base.

[Stalins ugly Brother]

Its being contemplated for Cabin Crew using a portion of the current LHR CC base.

I don't think there will be a need for a CC basing.

Potentially I wouldn't be surprised to see London crew depart LHR about 9 pm, arrive Dubai about 7am next morning, Depart Dubai 2am that night after about a 14 hour slip and be LHR 6am.

Oz crew Arvo departure, arrive dubai midnight, 34 hrs slip depart 10am following day, arrive back in oz 6am next day. S/o's on the same Pattern.

Just my guess.

[standard unit]

I don't think there will be a need for a CC basing.

I can't imagine Qantas being able to keep CC in the London base with the kind of pattern you've suggested.

My understanding is that it's hard enough now....

[ramius315]

After Oz-Gulf, 24 hour slip this sector might well be very tough

It'll only be tough if certain senior dinosaurs continue with their "maximum of 2 hrs in the control seat" policy. :ugh: get decent rest breaks in flight like other airlines use and the trip will be more than manageable.

[goodonyamate]

It'll only be tough if certain senior dinosaurs continue with their "maximum of 2 hrs in the control seat" policy. get decent rest breaks in flight like other airlines use and the trip will be more than manageable.

so who actually allows that to happen?

Say no.

If that doesnt work, tell them to get f*&ked.

Go fatigued...then report

[illusion]

Go fatigued and put in a report......

That is a big call for someone who only goes to work a couple of times a month.

[clear to land]

Are you saying that QF don't have in their OM-A (or whatever they call it in Aus) an approved rest policy for ULR pairings, including pre/post flight rest strategy suggestions.?

[Twin Beech]

Fatigue is independent of your recent work history; it is a short-term phenomena. If some ****, regardless of rank, is mandating a patently unsafe or sub-optimum rest roster it should be voted down by the rest of the crew.

Nobody gets a vote for less safe in my plane, not even me.

[C441]

Second-hand, but still credible information suggests it will be 2 pilot DXB-LHR-DXB unless operational requirements such as Flight time limitations, particularly 30/7, or weather require 3.

The London slips will remain unchanged, with one being 38 hours and one 62 hours to provide "standby" coverage in case of disruptions. At present the patterns starting and finishing in Melbourne have the longer slip in LHR, but that may change as those patterns will have an overnight in Melbourne before and after DXB operation making it an 11 or 12 day pattern.

[Stalins ugly Brother]

At present the patterns starting and finishing in Melbourne have the longer slip in LHR, but that may change as those patterns will have an overnight in Melbourne before and after DXB operation making it an 11 or 12 day pattern.

WTF! 12 day trips. You can go London on holidays for that long! :ugh:

Maybe we need a Melbourne base! :E

[noip]

London trips used to be 12 days .. Frankfurt trips 14 ... Back to the future.

I can't see 2 pilot being the go though.

You cannot do 2 pilot LHR-DXB after a 39 hr slip - Sched rules would need to be changed for that to happen
DXB-LHR up to 8.30 blocks - 10 hr duty. Very little leeway before duty extension needed - and certainly, where you land you stay - no ability to continue to destination.


However, it will become clear in a couple of weeks ....


N

[unseen]

You cannot do 2 pilot LHR-DXB after a 39 hr slip - Sched rules would need to be changed for that to happen

Which rules?????