Qantas Link in Crisis again....now its for Captains!
I don't know if I'd call it a worldwide oversupply of qualified pilots waterfalls'. The collapse of several low cost/Liesure carries have led to redundancies and furloughs, but how many of these affected pilots are willing (or able) to move downunder to fly a Dash'? A REX management pilot mentioned the other day that if VB were to collapse in 09', all of our (read REX management's) crewing issues would be solved. Now, I'm not saying that VB are going under, but the mindset that "we will always be able to get pilots" has been put to the test in recent times.
Getting pilots is one thing. Getting the right pilots for the Terms and Conditions on offer, now that's something else!
P.S. Just saw your post Dragun. I honestly believe it is that in a nutshell. It's that simple. Ironically, it will probabably be the only thing long term that will convince the operators of what we've been telling them for some time now. Nasty little schemes to suck in, and lock in young impressionable people will only go so far. In fact I think you'll find it will ultimately serve to drive more people away from the profession.
If ever patience was a virture...
Getting pilots is one thing. Getting the right pilots for the Terms and Conditions on offer, now that's something else!
P.S. Just saw your post Dragun. I honestly believe it is that in a nutshell. It's that simple. Ironically, it will probabably be the only thing long term that will convince the operators of what we've been telling them for some time now. Nasty little schemes to suck in, and lock in young impressionable people will only go so far. In fact I think you'll find it will ultimately serve to drive more people away from the profession.
If ever patience was a virture...
Last edited by KRUSTY 34; 2nd Jan 2009 at 02:04.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: deepest darkest recess of your mind
Posts: 1,017
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a VB pilot Krusty, I can assure you that IF that happened, Rex would be THE LAST place I would be going to work. I'd be better off going back to the old job, better security, better money, more days off. $40 k F/O? Tell em they're dreaming!
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: AZORES
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Q400 and the Q200
Hello
I´m really curious about MFF concept of flying the Q200 and the Q400 as a same airplane.
Presently I´m a BaeATP advance turbo prop captain at SATA AIR AÇORES.
Until March 2010 we will receive 2 Q200 and 4 Q400 next generation. Most part of the pilots is concerned about the concept of flying them as MFF. We have very short and long runways, some of them without precision or non precison APP's, only visual APP. Our pilot directors and Administration are still persuading us of flying these airplanes at the same time.
LOng Time ago Fly be (England) used the MFF concept on the Qseries. Today they only fly the Q400. Our chief pilots told us that Qantaslink is about to introduce this concept. Honestly we don't believe it. We think this is another strategy to persuade us. We Know that thESE two airplanes are complety diferent.
CAN YOU GIVE MORE INFORMATION REGARDING THIS SUBJECT????
THANKS
I´m really curious about MFF concept of flying the Q200 and the Q400 as a same airplane.
Presently I´m a BaeATP advance turbo prop captain at SATA AIR AÇORES.
Until March 2010 we will receive 2 Q200 and 4 Q400 next generation. Most part of the pilots is concerned about the concept of flying them as MFF. We have very short and long runways, some of them without precision or non precison APP's, only visual APP. Our pilot directors and Administration are still persuading us of flying these airplanes at the same time.
LOng Time ago Fly be (England) used the MFF concept on the Qseries. Today they only fly the Q400. Our chief pilots told us that Qantaslink is about to introduce this concept. Honestly we don't believe it. We think this is another strategy to persuade us. We Know that thESE two airplanes are complety diferent.
CAN YOU GIVE MORE INFORMATION REGARDING THIS SUBJECT????
THANKS
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Portland
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have a couple of buddies who work for or in some cases used to work for Qantaslink and they confirm that the company is looking at having their pilots fly both the 400 and the older Dash 8 types. Apparently most of the pilot body and all their senior check airmen are against it and I can tell you although they may be the same type rating there are vastly different aircraft to fly and operate. Not a good idea.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Brisbane
Age: 69
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CCQ - cross crewing qualification
Unfortunately this is being considered, much to our horror.
We believe the when the 400 was sold to Qlink, one of the selling points was the savings that were possible with crews flying both types. At that time, there was one company flying both types with the same crews. Not any more.
Perhaps someone in the chain of command does not want to lose face and that every possible way of achieving flexibility and cost saving has to be investigated.
Ansett's management priority, as I was told at a CRM seminar, was safety, comfort and economy in that order. Let's hope the reverse is not being applied.
There is also a feeling that CASA very much regret not making the 400 a separate endorsement instead of a type variant, however the mould has been set.
Safety aside, any perceived benefits of cross crewing would have to be thwarted by the difficulties in rostering and reserve coverage, assuming that newly rated crew would not be allowed to fly both types unless paired with someone who had so much time on type.
C&T are going to be flat out for a while so extra sims and line training/checks may not be a high priority for some time. The phrase "jack of all trades and master of none " comes to mind.
Happy new year all.
We believe the when the 400 was sold to Qlink, one of the selling points was the savings that were possible with crews flying both types. At that time, there was one company flying both types with the same crews. Not any more.
Perhaps someone in the chain of command does not want to lose face and that every possible way of achieving flexibility and cost saving has to be investigated.
Ansett's management priority, as I was told at a CRM seminar, was safety, comfort and economy in that order. Let's hope the reverse is not being applied.
There is also a feeling that CASA very much regret not making the 400 a separate endorsement instead of a type variant, however the mould has been set.
Safety aside, any perceived benefits of cross crewing would have to be thwarted by the difficulties in rostering and reserve coverage, assuming that newly rated crew would not be allowed to fly both types unless paired with someone who had so much time on type.
C&T are going to be flat out for a while so extra sims and line training/checks may not be a high priority for some time. The phrase "jack of all trades and master of none " comes to mind.
Happy new year all.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: #37 for Start
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
South African Express Airways operate the Dash 8-315 and Q400 as a common type with CCQ.
Although most in the Pilot Group believe this is not a desireable situation, it has been approved and that is how it works.
There are some restrictions though:
Good Luck!
Although most in the Pilot Group believe this is not a desireable situation, it has been approved and that is how it works.
There are some restrictions though:
- Crews are not allowed to fly both on the same day.
- Rosters are built in pairs where crews would fly the one for a few days in a row, then have atleast one day off before flying the other for a few days in a row.
- Jumping back and forth on a daily basis is strongly discouraged.
Good Luck!
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Brisbane
Age: 69
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Krusty,
You are quite correct.
The sims are quite separate, the aircraft may appear to be similar but are quite different in handling in many respects.
The 200/300 are big small aircraft as opposed to the 400 which is a small big aircraft. I hope that makes sense. You can still fly a 200/300 by feel, whereas the 400 is so much more by the numbers. IMHO of course.
Cheers
You are quite correct.
The sims are quite separate, the aircraft may appear to be similar but are quite different in handling in many respects.
The 200/300 are big small aircraft as opposed to the 400 which is a small big aircraft. I hope that makes sense. You can still fly a 200/300 by feel, whereas the 400 is so much more by the numbers. IMHO of course.
Cheers
Last edited by harrowing; 3rd Jan 2009 at 12:20. Reason: typo
Thank's harrowing, that's pretty much what I thought.
I hope to Chr!st that some time in the future some student of human/machine interrelationships doesn't write a thesis on how an organisation and the authority that was supposed to be overseeing it, got it so obviously and terribly wrong!
I hope to Chr!st that some time in the future some student of human/machine interrelationships doesn't write a thesis on how an organisation and the authority that was supposed to be overseeing it, got it so obviously and terribly wrong!
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Ozmate
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please go easy on me guys as I don't know how different/similar the two dash types are. Have never flown either.
As many would know, QF shorthaul (and others) fly both the "Classic" B737 and the NG B737. There are no restrictions. You can fly 4 sectors in a day and until recently that could be any combination of -300, -400, and -800. The -300's are now gone (from mainline).
They are VERY different beasts. For those familiar with B747's it is a bit like "Classic" vs B744 as far as cockpit layout goes. (Except we don't have the benefit of those wonderful F/E's).
What are the big differences between the two Dash types? Are they any more different to the "Classic" vs NG B737 (anyone flown all these types)? BTW, we have 3 separate Sims.
Genuine question.
As many would know, QF shorthaul (and others) fly both the "Classic" B737 and the NG B737. There are no restrictions. You can fly 4 sectors in a day and until recently that could be any combination of -300, -400, and -800. The -300's are now gone (from mainline).
They are VERY different beasts. For those familiar with B747's it is a bit like "Classic" vs B744 as far as cockpit layout goes. (Except we don't have the benefit of those wonderful F/E's).
What are the big differences between the two Dash types? Are they any more different to the "Classic" vs NG B737 (anyone flown all these types)? BTW, we have 3 separate Sims.
Genuine question.
The 737-400 classic is basically the same as the NG. Basically the same overhead switches, same centre console, same engine start proceedure, similar QRH checklists and the similar performance ( generally they both climb and descend at 300kts and cruise .745 to .780, the NG goes higher)
Only the glass on the 734 is not as big/good as the NG and the NG carries a few more punters.
So I can see how flying them both at once should be no biggy.
Now as for the Dash 8-300 and 400? From what I've seen they are QUITE a bit different, in performance, cockpit design and engines.
Only the glass on the 734 is not as big/good as the NG and the NG carries a few more punters.
So I can see how flying them both at once should be no biggy.
Now as for the Dash 8-300 and 400? From what I've seen they are QUITE a bit different, in performance, cockpit design and engines.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Ozmate
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ACMS, you are not serious surely!
Have you flown both types of B737?
The only reason the overhead panel is similar is because of Southwest Airlines wanting a common endorsement with their Classics and NG's. Otherwise it would have been a la B777 overhead.
The analogy I was drawing between "Classic" B747 and B744 was the "Dials" vs "Glass". Apart from the ADI and HSI the "Classic" B737 is "dials".
BTW there is a big difference between the performance of a -300 and an NG.
Oh, and I see you edited your post after I posted this reply ACMS.
Have you flown both types of B737?
The only reason the overhead panel is similar is because of Southwest Airlines wanting a common endorsement with their Classics and NG's. Otherwise it would have been a la B777 overhead.
The analogy I was drawing between "Classic" B747 and B744 was the "Dials" vs "Glass". Apart from the ADI and HSI the "Classic" B737 is "dials".
BTW there is a big difference between the performance of a -300 and an NG.
Oh, and I see you edited your post after I posted this reply ACMS.
Last edited by woftam; 3rd Jan 2009 at 12:01.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Downunder
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys, I'd posted on tech log a couple days ago about the same thing and have found the same questions here. Just wondering if there are any problems swapping between types at short notice. My oufit is notorious for quick change decisions and I can envisage say a 400 going u/s and they will transfer the crew to a 300 with the usual comment " are you ready to board yet? "
The 200/300 is a cat B aircraft and the 400 a cat C aircraft. Practically for our outfit this at present means different plateau heights, different circling areas, different minimums, different operating characteristics reference bleeds on/bleeds off takeoffs, different flap settings for takeoffs, different takeoff power settings, standing starts at max weight vs always rolling starts, fadec vs non-fadec. Different speeds on initial/intermediate/final appproach/circling, different configuration change speeds. How do others handle the multitude of differences when fatiqued/tired operations will show up the flaws of operating these different aircraft as the same type?
I'd imagine that with the 737-400/ng mix you'd at least fly the aircraft as cat C at all times with the type changes. The dash 200/300 and 400 mix has the change of category from cat B to Cat C on top of the type differences also. A recipe for a stuff up if I've ever seen one. If common crewing is so great why haven't all the other operators in the world with 100/200/300 and 400 types embraced common crewing with gusto, as they would have the so called "benefits" from CC? Oh yeah, maybe a f..k up waiting to happen.
Thanks for the rant.
The 200/300 is a cat B aircraft and the 400 a cat C aircraft. Practically for our outfit this at present means different plateau heights, different circling areas, different minimums, different operating characteristics reference bleeds on/bleeds off takeoffs, different flap settings for takeoffs, different takeoff power settings, standing starts at max weight vs always rolling starts, fadec vs non-fadec. Different speeds on initial/intermediate/final appproach/circling, different configuration change speeds. How do others handle the multitude of differences when fatiqued/tired operations will show up the flaws of operating these different aircraft as the same type?
I'd imagine that with the 737-400/ng mix you'd at least fly the aircraft as cat C at all times with the type changes. The dash 200/300 and 400 mix has the change of category from cat B to Cat C on top of the type differences also. A recipe for a stuff up if I've ever seen one. If common crewing is so great why haven't all the other operators in the world with 100/200/300 and 400 types embraced common crewing with gusto, as they would have the so called "benefits" from CC? Oh yeah, maybe a f..k up waiting to happen.
Thanks for the rant.
annaconda, you really hit the nail on the head.
Back in the nineties SAAB had the S340C on the drawing board. It was basically a standard 340 airframe with all the SAAB 2000 systems, engines, performance, flightdeck etc... The aim being of course to have a common type endorsement with the 2000, and a higher level of operational flexibility for operators. Sadly the type was stillborn, and the small number of 2000's remain a completely seperate type endorsement (as they should be). Clever people the Swedes. They identified early on that only a minimal amount of dissimilarity would be acceptable if safety were not to be compromised.
It appears however that commercial expediancy once again may undo all the valuble lessons learnt by those who have gone before!
Back in the nineties SAAB had the S340C on the drawing board. It was basically a standard 340 airframe with all the SAAB 2000 systems, engines, performance, flightdeck etc... The aim being of course to have a common type endorsement with the 2000, and a higher level of operational flexibility for operators. Sadly the type was stillborn, and the small number of 2000's remain a completely seperate type endorsement (as they should be). Clever people the Swedes. They identified early on that only a minimal amount of dissimilarity would be acceptable if safety were not to be compromised.
It appears however that commercial expediancy once again may undo all the valuble lessons learnt by those who have gone before!
Nope, didn't read you post until this am, sorry.
Mate, the 737 NG is basically a polished up 300........the performance is better but the basics are the same.........Same HYD sys, Air Con, Elec, QRH is basically the same blah blah blah. Pretty close performance.( both Cat C ) I mean it's not a 777 is it??????
I have flown the classic for over 2000 hrs and I've flown the J/S many times and the Sim on the NG. No biggy, just the way Mr Boeing designed it.
This fact has been criticised many times by Airbus fans, saying the 737 NG is only a trumped up shiny new 300 anyway !!
And yes the NG is only like a 300/400/500 so Southwest could keep it the same. In fact they modify their EFIS to represent the old 300/400/500 style displays!! A bit much if you ask me. ( and they haven't
)
I have a few freinds in QF that fly both and they have no problems adjusting to the minor differences.
I have friends in VB that used to fly both as well, they reported no problems.
Now the Dash 8 on the other hand............different Cat, Engines, Flight Deck etc etc etc AND vastly different performance...
Mate, the 737 NG is basically a polished up 300........the performance is better but the basics are the same.........Same HYD sys, Air Con, Elec, QRH is basically the same blah blah blah. Pretty close performance.( both Cat C ) I mean it's not a 777 is it??????
I have flown the classic for over 2000 hrs and I've flown the J/S many times and the Sim on the NG. No biggy, just the way Mr Boeing designed it.
This fact has been criticised many times by Airbus fans, saying the 737 NG is only a trumped up shiny new 300 anyway !!
And yes the NG is only like a 300/400/500 so Southwest could keep it the same. In fact they modify their EFIS to represent the old 300/400/500 style displays!! A bit much if you ask me. ( and they haven't
)I have a few freinds in QF that fly both and they have no problems adjusting to the minor differences.
I have friends in VB that used to fly both as well, they reported no problems.
Now the Dash 8 on the other hand............different Cat, Engines, Flight Deck etc etc etc AND vastly different performance...
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: on the arc
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just digressing to the earlier issue of the expected pilot shortage -
I have just spent time in the US and the flight schools there are experiencing serious difficulties as banks are no longer funding flight training (neither the US or Europe), students have stopped training, or not beginning, and the profession is seen as high risk in terms of job security.
All this together with high cost and slow return of investment are seeing a drying up of the pipeline of new pilots in the US and Europe.
When the upswing comes, the recent pilot shortage will fade into insignificance by comparison to the coming one.
This will affect Oz as well, as the pilot recruiting pool is global.
I have just spent time in the US and the flight schools there are experiencing serious difficulties as banks are no longer funding flight training (neither the US or Europe), students have stopped training, or not beginning, and the profession is seen as high risk in terms of job security.
All this together with high cost and slow return of investment are seeing a drying up of the pipeline of new pilots in the US and Europe.
When the upswing comes, the recent pilot shortage will fade into insignificance by comparison to the coming one.
This will affect Oz as well, as the pilot recruiting pool is global.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: AZORES
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hey Q4NVS
So, South African Express Airways operate the Dash 8-315 and Q400 as a common type with CCQ.
And what about the flight simulators? Pilots have to make 2 different sims every 6 months or no?
And what about the flight simulators? Pilots have to make 2 different sims every 6 months or no?
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Loungefart, I know exactly what you mean. I currently work as an instructor in the US. There have been a number of flight schools closing shop and the only ones that are doing any business it seems are the ones with International students from China, Korea, India, Mexico... Not many Americans starting training at the moment and as you said, the ones currently training are having trouble getting the money to finish.
By the way, if you think Qantaslink pays bad, try $15,000 a year for a first year regional FO on a jet in the US!
By the way, if you think Qantaslink pays bad, try $15,000 a year for a first year regional FO on a jet in the US!