Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific
Reload this Page >

Express Freighters Australia (EFA) thread

Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

Express Freighters Australia (EFA) thread

Old 11th May 2013, 23:05
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Wherever I can log on.
Posts: 1,708
Very low hours - built in 2009 and been in storage most of its life. Apparently, it's got quite advanced avionics and cargo handling system.

It's disgusting that they are seeking crews offshore when there are a lot of B744 crews in Australia who would be happy to fly it.
Going Boeing is offline  
Old 12th May 2013, 08:56
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: I prefer to remain north of a direct line BNE-ADL
Age: 44
Posts: 1,039
Yes but if the rumours are true, would they be happy to fly it on 170k? Hell you'd make more coin in Tiger!! It could only appeal to expats wanting to return to Oz but even that sounds like an Oxymoron because you'll spend all your time away on mega long 2 week trips... Hmmmm.
Angle of Attack is offline  
Old 12th May 2013, 09:09
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Next to Bay 8
Posts: 247
EFA is not going to make you rich, but it is a lifestyle job. The guys on the 737 aren't even hitting 500hrs this year with a MINIMUM 3 day weekend EVERY weekend. The 767 guys don't do much more than 500hrs per year (2 days per week) and the 744 guys are forecast to do less than 500hrs per year.

Sure, you'll make more money at other airlines, but you'll work nearly twice as hard.

Each to their own. Some chase money, others chase lifestyle.

And yes, the 744ERF has 30hrs odd total time and plastic on the seats. Never flown a single commercial sector. It is BRAND NEW, but 3 1/2 years old.
OhForSure is offline  
Old 12th May 2013, 22:42
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 424
I suspect that the B747 ops would be a little more demanding time wise than 737/767 domestic.In this operation the aircraft will be in direct competition to the likes of Atlas etc.Trans-Pacific ops would run to 14 hours + tours.

The interesting item is how many crew and the complement. Will they have S/Os for crew limitation extension or slip somewhere in the Pacific and maybe Anchorage or will they go for the extended range operation?

Slip places and periods will also be dictated by where the aircraft is maintained so it may be that there are long standowns away from home. A single aircraft operation also may dictate long slips overseas.How does the award cover that? Are you to be paid for long slips away from home and what are the allowances? Are you to be paid via credited hours or stick hours? What are the standards for hotels and do you get an individual room? What is provided for medical needs? These items are a lot more important when you are out of Australia for long periods as is a decent bidding system which becomes very important with long flying patterns.

This is a very different beast to PER/SYD and the award conditions need to reflect that difference.

Wunwing

Last edited by Wunwing; 13th May 2013 at 01:19.
Wunwing is offline  
Old 12th May 2013, 23:15
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Wherever I can log on.
Posts: 1,708
Good speculation, Wunwing. Another factor to consider is what range that aircraft will have with loads that are significantly heavier than the passenger equivalent. this aircraft is an ER but I don't know if it is certified to the same MBRW as the pax aircraft (412.7t). The Atlas B747-400F aircraft have a MBRW of 394.6t whereas the pax aircraft operate up to 397.2 (I believe that is because of loading limitations to stay within CofG limits) and there is no tail fuel tank fitted to those aircraft (I don't know about the ERF). So with higher payloads, reduced fuel capacity & reduced MBRW, the tours of duty may be less.
Going Boeing is offline  
Old 13th May 2013, 00:11
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 251
One thing is for sure...they will not have flight attendants on them
illusion is offline  
Old 13th May 2013, 00:51
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 424
Illusion.

I can't see anywhere where cabin service is mentioned so I hope your refence to it is just a "throw away" line.

However if your reference is to my comments on necessary contract provisions for long haul flying and you doubt the need for those provisions for longhaul flying, then I can only assume you have no experience of ultra long haul operations or that you are management.

One thing that I didn't mention in my earlier post is conditions for duty travel.Any long haul single aircraft ops will have a large amount of that. You don't want to be in a position of doing a 14 hour duty and then pax for the next 24 hours back to main base, economy class with no paxing credits. In fact even with paxing credits you dont want to be in that position.

To survive long haul multi sector flying there always needs to be a much more rigorous contract process than short haul overnight trips. To think anything else is a trifle naive


Wunwing

Last edited by Wunwing; 13th May 2013 at 01:17.
Wunwing is offline  
Old 13th May 2013, 02:37
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Next to Bay 8
Posts: 247
Wunwing:
You make some good points, I have no idea how EFA will handle those issues, I would assume they're looking at that now. I've just passed along what I've been told by an extremely reliable source first hand.

No 744 freighter can make transpacific unless about 70% full, which I can assure you is not the case with these trips. They are always scheduled to slip in Honolulu. I understand the intention is to run PVG-ORD/JFK during the quieter months of the year, thus eliminating the ANC stop. But ANC will still be required quite often.

No S/Os, just extra F/Os or Capts on sectors that require 3 crew. And obviously with just the one aircraft initially, you would imagine crewing it would be a nightmare. Lots of paxing. It will get better if/when the other two come along.

It'll be interesting to see how EFA handle it. Good luck to all involved.

Last edited by OhForSure; 13th May 2013 at 02:39.
OhForSure is offline  
Old 13th May 2013, 03:36
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Warm & Sunny
Posts: 94
Goodonyamate - Evidently the EFA crew do get first bite of the cherry, but susposedly only a couple are 747 endorsed and the F/O's are all relatively low time jet experienced.
Considering the complexities of the operation, it would seem prudent to hire externally, very experienced, 747 long haul crew.

Going Boeing - indeed, why are the very experienced, surplus Qantas Mainline crew not being used?? I think we all know the answer to that - like not wanting possible members of AIPA "contaminating" the EFA operation, and the solution to that would be for all EFA crew becoming members !!
AND that could overcome the questions posed by Wunwing, of having a workable contract to cover the operation.

Role on....
Alien Role is offline  
Old 13th May 2013, 06:36
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Melbourne
Age: 56
Posts: 952
like not wanting possible members of AIPA "contaminating" the EFA operation,
From what I've heard from a friend of mine who's an FO there, AIPA represent a large number of EFA pilots.
Di_Vosh is offline  
Old 13th May 2013, 08:39
  #51 (permalink)  
Whispering "T" Jet
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Melbourne.
Age: 63
Posts: 586
It's a great gig. Not only every weekend off but public holidays as well. Every week day to do what you want, no traffic on the road going to and from work and short sectors when you are at work!

Do they actually pay you EFA guys to do that job ?
3 Holer is offline  
Old 14th May 2013, 00:32
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 251
Wunwing,
By your comment, I assume you are suggesting that cabincrew should be a necessary part of long haul FREIGHTER flying.

If so...discuss further. If not, forgive me for casting aspersions on your character.
illusion is offline  
Old 14th May 2013, 07:01
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 424
illusion.

I am totally mystified by your comments on cabin staff for freighters.
Where have I or anyone else (except you) suggested that subject?

Just because as a result of a lifetime of longhaul experience I think that this op needs a decent contract, does not mean that I think it needs a ridiculous contract.



Wunwing

Last edited by Wunwing; 14th May 2013 at 09:04.
Wunwing is offline  
Old 14th May 2013, 14:58
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Left Seat
Posts: 2
Exclamation Would of if I Could of

"Do they actually pay you EFA guys to do that job ?"

Fool
A place for the young, naive & has-beens.

60 & bellows is offline  
Old 14th May 2013, 15:06
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Boldly going where no split infinitive has gone before..
Posts: 4,292
& has-beens.
Great!

Looks like I have a shot then!!
Wizofoz is offline  
Old 15th May 2013, 02:42
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Sydney
Posts: 3
Well......well......well.

Looks like everyone is an expert! I know that this is a rumour network but most of what has been posted is nonsense!

I just had to sign up and have my say.

"A place for the young, naive & has-beens" I'm young, so I must be one of the naive ones !

As I am naive, can some of you older ppruners give me a history lesson please.....

how did Atlas get the freighter work in the first place?

did the QF group look at doing it originally?

did the QF pilot group and the union oppose it?

and what about the Cobham 146's ?? Cobham (like Atlas) is not an Australian company either? is it?

did the QF group look at doing it originally?

did the QF pilot group and the union oppose it?

Oh I have so many questions, seeing we are looking at QF group work....what about these additional 717's that Mr. Joyce announced and possibly going to Cobham ?

did the QF group look at doing it originally?

did the QF pilot group and the union oppose it?

Look I may have just reasoned some of this out myself!! as to why everyone is so excited.

Let me see hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

It wouldn't be that it's a 747 would it!

(ps: that's the Qantas thumbs up

Again it may be another silly question but why don't you QF guys (and your union) worry bout something important like that little company called Jetstar who seem to be taking your flying, your new aircraft and employing pilots off the street?
EFAFO is offline  
Old 15th May 2013, 03:29
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Mostly here, sometimes over there...
Posts: 174
Mmmm..... saw this a few days ago.
Qantas mulls buying 747 freighters
Buttscratcher is offline  
Old 15th May 2013, 08:39
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 566
From a CAPA article

Qantas through its subsidiary Express Freighters Australia and Sydney-based Skyforce Aviation have applied to the IASC for a total of 53 tonnes of freight capacity per week each way on the Australia-Papua New Guinea route. A total of 77.5 tonnes capacity per week in each direction is currently available under the bilateral air services agreement between the countries which allows for a total of 100 tonnes per week.

The full article.
C441 is offline  
Old 15th May 2013, 08:55
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: australia
Posts: 605
WIZ

Must say bit surprised - I'd consider you more a "still is" rather than a "has been".

....OR is the oasis at the end of your long, long desert trek shimmering into view as...


SYDENEY!!! (to quote a famous IOC boss!)

The home of everything QANTAS....(and a few other things as well but they're minor so who gives a f**K about anything else!)

Still love the fact it's the Japanese controllers who sum up QF so accurately and succinctly....in one - yes one - word!

Cheers all.
galdian is offline  
Old 15th May 2013, 10:44
  #60 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 424
EFAFO
Why is what I posted nonsense?

What do you know about ultra long haul ops?

If you do know anything from your vast long haul flying experience you can attempt to refute what I have said.

Again I say what works domestically in Australian is not the same beast that the proposed B747 is. Do you think that its OK to fly for 16+ hours and then pax for the next 24 hours to get home? That is certainly what has happened in the past with some of the wet lease freighters that operated to and from Australia.

Have you read up on the history of this subject going back to just after
WW2?

Do you know about the domestic and international history of this and how we arrived at this point? Do you know about some of the shadowy operators that moved our international and sometimes domestic freight?

If you do then you will know why the proposed B747 op is a big deal? If you don't then before you comment further do some research. Perhaps look at the various AIPA submissions to the Productivity Commission and Parliamentary enquiries.Ask some of the long haul pilots and look back at some of the PPRuNe threads on the subject.

Wunwing

Last edited by Wunwing; 15th May 2013 at 10:48.
Wunwing is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.