QF S/O changes
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Usually Oz
Posts: 732
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capt Fathom , the answer [if correct] is overtime.
Chuck , the answer is closer to 1-2%. The a/c has 45 day recency on autoland & the pilots 90. Usually the sim covers the pilots, and required Low Vis landings tend to cover the a/c.
Having said that I had to autoland a Europe bound a/c the other day because its recency was expiring, and this time last year every 2nd LAX arrival was a CatIII due w/x. "They also surf who only stand on waves!"
G'day
Edited for typing while tired!
Chuck , the answer is closer to 1-2%. The a/c has 45 day recency on autoland & the pilots 90. Usually the sim covers the pilots, and required Low Vis landings tend to cover the a/c.
Having said that I had to autoland a Europe bound a/c the other day because its recency was expiring, and this time last year every 2nd LAX arrival was a CatIII due w/x. "They also surf who only stand on waves!"
G'day
Edited for typing while tired!
Last edited by Feather #3; 7th Jan 2005 at 15:36.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whatever happened to the concept of Senior Second Officers who could land and take-off as they have done for the Airbus Technical pilot! There are lots of S/O's who would have sufficient experience and probably more than a lot of the F/O's. I think its the start of an airline attempt to have less technically able people in the cockpits. Soon the only requirement for S/O will be a PPL and a Microsoft diploma!
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Established.
Age: 53
Posts: 658
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
alidad
As I understand it, the s/o gets paid the extra money due to the extra hours at work, is this not correct?
If so how is this not good, and who is it not good for? The company benefit due to the cheaper rates for s/o's and the s/o benefits obviously. Who else needs to be considered and why should he/she take upgrade for less money and more work?
These rules were not made by s/o's so go suck on your sourgrapes!
As I understand it, the s/o gets paid the extra money due to the extra hours at work, is this not correct?
If so how is this not good, and who is it not good for? The company benefit due to the cheaper rates for s/o's and the s/o benefits obviously. Who else needs to be considered and why should he/she take upgrade for less money and more work?
These rules were not made by s/o's so go suck on your sourgrapes!
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Third Rock
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's simple
As Chimbu so aptly put it, bean counters know the cost of everything, yet the value of nothing.
With companies being driven by bean counters nothing has any value unless there is a dollar sign attached.
It is happening throughout the company, marginal revenue growth and severe cost cutting is a large component of profit growth....doesn't last for ever, look at the many examples in the USA!
The fact that they can count numbers does NOT imply they have any understanding of the industry in which they count...Which is why they are supposed to just count. The heirachy is however so stacked that they make inroads into everything, and meddle in areas where they have no idea!!! (Not just at QF)
So the poor S/O at QF is under pressure. The company mentioned in a recent communication that the S/O can VOLUNTEER for additional observation simulators, or undertake training in their own time! As I alluded to earlier, imagine the Captains of AIPA being told to undertake voluntary training!!!!!!!
The CP wants to generate revenues from the simulators, including external hire to companies and individuals..The same communication referred to above stated that there would be a reduced availability of simulators for private practice sessions. (see where it is leading)...Instead the employee is given a CD and said study that..
"Before undertaking flying training in an aircraft the student should know that the same result can be achieved by reading a few books and studying a CD (So CASA what do you reckon??)"
The end result will be, simulator time sold to outside clients (CX for example) The non availablity of simulator time WILL lead to failures in training and promotion. The first failures either in recurrent simulator practice or F/O promotional training will be deemed "insufficiently motivated" It will not be until there are groups of failures that the system will begin to realise, albeit to late the policy was flawed from the start.
Just how does a pilot maintain a flying standard, how does he or she pass an instrument rating reneweal every three months, when there is no line practice and no simulator practice?
It used to be that airlines were about flying, those days are well and truly over. The pilot is merely an input in the revenue model that values the brand at around A$900million.
With companies being driven by bean counters nothing has any value unless there is a dollar sign attached.
It is happening throughout the company, marginal revenue growth and severe cost cutting is a large component of profit growth....doesn't last for ever, look at the many examples in the USA!
The fact that they can count numbers does NOT imply they have any understanding of the industry in which they count...Which is why they are supposed to just count. The heirachy is however so stacked that they make inroads into everything, and meddle in areas where they have no idea!!! (Not just at QF)
So the poor S/O at QF is under pressure. The company mentioned in a recent communication that the S/O can VOLUNTEER for additional observation simulators, or undertake training in their own time! As I alluded to earlier, imagine the Captains of AIPA being told to undertake voluntary training!!!!!!!
The CP wants to generate revenues from the simulators, including external hire to companies and individuals..The same communication referred to above stated that there would be a reduced availability of simulators for private practice sessions. (see where it is leading)...Instead the employee is given a CD and said study that..
"Before undertaking flying training in an aircraft the student should know that the same result can be achieved by reading a few books and studying a CD (So CASA what do you reckon??)"
The end result will be, simulator time sold to outside clients (CX for example) The non availablity of simulator time WILL lead to failures in training and promotion. The first failures either in recurrent simulator practice or F/O promotional training will be deemed "insufficiently motivated" It will not be until there are groups of failures that the system will begin to realise, albeit to late the policy was flawed from the start.
Just how does a pilot maintain a flying standard, how does he or she pass an instrument rating reneweal every three months, when there is no line practice and no simulator practice?
It used to be that airlines were about flying, those days are well and truly over. The pilot is merely an input in the revenue model that values the brand at around A$900million.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: australia
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are basically 2 reasons that s/o's are employed by QF:
1. To extend flight time limitations beyond that provided by 2 pilot (domestic, SE asia ) operations and, as a consequence
2. To increase the company's productivity e.g. LAX - MEL 4 pilot (well 2 + 2 !!) is a darned efficient operation as it stands... 350 pax a quarter of the way around the world for similar costs that other airlines operating NRT - SFO or JFK - LAX with a "heavy" crew. Perhaps consider the alternative of LAX -SYD, then new crew SYD - MEL. This would be a huge increase in crew costs.
1. To extend flight time limitations beyond that provided by 2 pilot (domestic, SE asia ) operations and, as a consequence
2. To increase the company's productivity e.g. LAX - MEL 4 pilot (well 2 + 2 !!) is a darned efficient operation as it stands... 350 pax a quarter of the way around the world for similar costs that other airlines operating NRT - SFO or JFK - LAX with a "heavy" crew. Perhaps consider the alternative of LAX -SYD, then new crew SYD - MEL. This would be a huge increase in crew costs.
