Qantas Recruitment
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Australia
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The world is a magnificent place, and if want to see as many cities as you can during slip times, it’s probably best to go overseas as Qantas isn’t the job for you. The route network isn’t all that big, and never will be. If the actual flying stuff isn't that important to you, and you can live with going to London, Rome, or LA multiple times over a year, with the promise that home is really home, it may be a great fit. The conditions are good (even for new SO’s), and for me anyway, you don’t have to live with the fear that when the next recession hits, you are turfed out of the country for being a ”foreigner”. That probably won’t happen to those that choose overseas, and I wish them the best of Luck. I’m with dre though, that atlas gig looks far too much like hard work.
QF is still the best job in Australia, and I’d hesitate to reject a job offer, as I’m sure it only comes once, and eventually most will want to come home. You’re probably better off not applying at all until that day comes, if it comes at all.
QF is still the best job in Australia, and I’d hesitate to reject a job offer, as I’m sure it only comes once, and eventually most will want to come home. You’re probably better off not applying at all until that day comes, if it comes at all.
Originally Posted by dr dre
And overseas isn't exactly the golden goose it's perceived to be. A lot of people are saying Atlas is a better option, having been sent a sample bid package for their 74F operation I'd beg to differ. 17 days per month of non stop work that traverses every time zone, usually 24 hrs or less free of duty everywhere, constant switching between days and nights, back of the clock 3 and 4 leg duties. I'm sure I'd personally be shattered at the end of one of those patterns, and that's without even factoring commuting in. I'd hope those guys are getting paid well because that kind of rostering is unsustainable in the long term IMO.
QF LH is without a doubt far less fatiguing.
QF LH is without a doubt far less fatiguing.
*not that there’s anything wrong with that.
Once upon a time I did rosters like the Atlas gig. I didn’t find it onerous at all. It would be interesting to cross examine a couple of Atlas senior people to get their take on the rosters.
Originally Posted by Chad Gates
The world is a magnificent place, and if want to see as many cities as you can during slip times, it’s probably best to go overseas as Qantas isn’t the job for you.
But Atlas? When you're conscious in your 24-30 ish hours off between multiple back of the clock duties you can enjoy the sights of freight hubs like Cincinnati and Anchorage.......
Originally Posted by Australopithecus
QF long haul no doubt is less fatiguing. But you are either going to have to do 15 years in the sh*t show that is shorthaul or stay in a junior rank* for lots longer than most peoples' ambitions.
Lowest LH FO slot went 3 years right at the peak just before Covid. Can expect it to be no more than 5-10 years assuming continuous recruitment in the future.
I doubt it. The fleet isn’t growing, but perhaps the age distribution is skewed so advancement may be quick for a couple of intakes. On average if you want a right seat quickly its probably going to be 8 years on the 737. Same for the left seat. So about half of the average pilot's career can be spent tied to the whipping post.
The fact that the pay is the best in the country isn’t saying much given the alternatives.
The fact that the pay is the best in the country isn’t saying much given the alternatives.
Originally Posted by dr dre
And overseas isn't exactly the golden goose it's perceived to be. A lot of people are saying Atlas is a better option, having been sent a sample bid package for their 74F operation I'd beg to differ. 17 days per month of non stop work that traverses every time zone, usually 24 hrs or less free of duty everywhere, constant switching between days and nights, back of the clock 3 and 4 leg duties. I'm sure I'd personally be shattered at the end of one of those patterns, and that's without even factoring commuting in. I'd hope those guys are getting paid well because that kind of rostering is unsustainable in the long term IMO.
QF LH is without a doubt far less fatiguing.
QF LH is without a doubt far less fatiguing.
There’s a whole lot more out there than Atlas.
Originally Posted by abaderrr
A large percentage of new hires go to mainline solely for the LH lifestyle, being the only such opportunity in Aus. So the suggestion that it's either 8+ years of making bunks (now on a B scale), or they can gleefully accept a SH FO slot on Day 1, to be flogged up and down the east coast doing 4-5 sector days, 5 days a week is hilarious.
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Gladstone
Age: 46
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by abaderrr
So the QF start date that I, and numerous others (that I know of) have turned down fits into which part of your first claim?
Originally Posted by havick
So you’re comparing the rest of the world, or even the US with simply a couple of Atlas bid packets?
There’s a whole lot more out there than Atlas.
There’s a whole lot more out there than Atlas.
There’s always been a plethora of overseas opportunities, the Middle East carriers have been enticing with the opportunity for fast widebody commands and a large route network but working in the ME has real challenges too, and fatigue is also a commonly cited factor.
Asian contracts should start up again soon, again with positives and negatives.
But this isn’t a new thing. Some pilots got start dates or started with mainline 10, 20, 30 odd years ago. But then resigned to go elsewhere for whatever reason. I know of a few who went to Cathay, apparently some to ME carriers too. Better prospects of promotion or pay or other reasons. But they were a minority. Almost all who took LWOP in the last 10 years have returned or are planning to return, very few resigned.
Point being I don’t think Mainline is going to have an issue with large numbers of new hires not showing up on day one because they’ve jumped ship to go to Atlas or elsewhere.
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Lagrangian point 2
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by aussieflyboy
Any truth to the rumour that QF Pilots were told at a recent planning presentation that the expectation is that Mainline domestic will reduce to 50 A321s (down from 75 odd 737s) and NJS (or other entity) will increase to 50ish A220s?
Would make domestic commands difficult for those that were wanting just a couple years international before switching to domestic and having family home time.
Would make domestic commands difficult for those that were wanting just a couple years international before switching to domestic and having family home time.
I didn’t hear this, but I can’t imagine a321s will be used to fly to Hedland or Isa, etc, like 737s are now. It’s entirely conceivable that a220s would do a lot of this work, and a smaller mainline narrow body fleet that would do mainly capital cities and some lesser capacity international stuff could be the way forward.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by dr dre
And overseas isn't exactly the golden goose it's perceived to be. A lot of people are saying Atlas is a better option, having been sent a sample bid package for their 74F operation I'd beg to differ. 17 days per month of non stop work that traverses every time zone, usually 24 hrs or less free of duty everywhere, constant switching between days and nights, back of the clock 3 and 4 leg duties. I'm sure I'd personally be shattered at the end of one of those patterns, and that's without even factoring commuting in. I'd hope those guys are getting paid well because that kind of rostering is unsustainable in the long term IMO.
QF LH is without a doubt far less fatiguing.
QF LH is without a doubt far less fatiguing.
It takes 3 hours to turn the 747, that would mean 9 hours in just turn time for a 4 leg day... That fails the pub test.
There are no days longer than 2 sectors on the 74.
FAA mandates 32 hours of rest within 7 days. Usually get 3 x 32/7's inside 14 days. These can happen at any port. Most layovers are 24-30 hours.
17 days on will usually be 13 flights. No 3+ days...
Most ops are 4 crew, a few 3 crew legs and even less 2 crew.
Expect 1-3 landings a month.
I have a number of good mates at Giant.
Originally Posted by ResumeOwnNav
It takes 3 hours to turn the 747, that would mean 9 hours in just turn time for a 4 leg day... That fails the pub test.
There are no days longer than 2 sectors on the 74.
FAA mandates 32 hours of rest within 7 days. Usually get 3 x 32/7's inside 14 days. These can happen at any port. Most layovers are 24-30 hours.
17 days on will usually be 13 flights. No 3+ days...
Most ops are 4 crew, a few 3 crew legs and even less 2 crew.
Expect 1-3 landings a month.
I have a number of good mates at Giant.
There are no days longer than 2 sectors on the 74.
FAA mandates 32 hours of rest within 7 days. Usually get 3 x 32/7's inside 14 days. These can happen at any port. Most layovers are 24-30 hours.
17 days on will usually be 13 flights. No 3+ days...
Most ops are 4 crew, a few 3 crew legs and even less 2 crew.
Expect 1-3 landings a month.
I have a number of good mates at Giant.
3x 32hrs rest breaks within 14 days isn’t much. Definitely less than what you’d get in a typical pattern in mainline. No more than 24-30 hr layovers in 17 days will build up to the point of exhaustion by the end of a trip. I think that was the biggest stand out, as well as continual switching between days and nights with 24hrs off, which will have a greater effect on fatigue than a roster of pure night shifts.
For comparison when the mainline 744 was around 13 day ‘double shuttle’ trips would be common. That was 6 legs in 13, no multi sector, always augmented and least two rest periods of at least 48hrs (sometimes 60+hrs) in those trips. And by the end of those pilots generally remarked that was more than enough. My own look at the Atlas rosters saw that happening about halfway through a typical 17 day trip.
Of course there may be some who can manage that workload successfully, and good for them, but it is definitely more fatigue inducing than the worst mainline trip I can think of, and now those trips don’t even exist anymore.
Last edited by dr dre; 1st Oct 2022 at 06:56.
Originally Posted by aussieflyboy
Any truth to the rumour that QF Pilots were told at a recent planning presentation that the expectation is that Mainline domestic will reduce to 50 A321s (down from 75 odd 737s) and NJS (or other entity) will increase to 50ish A220s?
But even with that the combined A220/A321 total order is 134 aircraft, so there are another 34 aircraft to be accounted for. Split evenly that adds up to 67 A321s, which is similar to the 75 737s atm.
Seat capacity, 75x 738 and 20x 717 adds up to just shy of what 50 321 and 50 220 will give you, however passenger numbers are forecast to rise by about 3.5% per year for the next 10+ years so 50/50 won’t be enough to cater for the expected rise in numbers, however getting the extra 34 options (17 321s and 17 A220s) roughly will. So IMO there’ll definitely have to be more than 50 321s coming in the long run.
What the A321 will be doing is more overnight flying to Asia, at the time the current 737 fleet is mostly sitting idle. So even a lesser number of 321s can mean the same amount of crew required.
Last edited by dr dre; 1st Oct 2022 at 07:13.
Originally Posted by Lapon
Of course if Airbus go ahead with the A220-500 variant that could change things again.
