Qantas Recruitment
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
That would be right in the area of the 320neo however. It isn’t a priority for Airbus at the moment, and will be many years before it comes into QF service, as they generally wait until the first design is in service with other carriers before introducing them. Given the XLR time from announcement of the project to entry into mainline service will be 6 years the -500, if it ever goes ahead, wouldn’t be in the QF group til the end of the decade, and by that stage a more accurate plan of fleet replacement will have been formulated, too far in the future to worry about now.
I think they’ve got enough applications to process and fill courses for most of next year, so I wouldn’t expect recruitment to reopen until late next year, but as usual in aviation it could be totally variable so be ready to put an application in if it reopens unexpectedly sooner.
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: NZ
Age: 37
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not the case...most are ex turboprop. if youre external expect more rapid call up.
