Slight sidetrack from the main topic, but just curious. Credit for a PER-LHR return would be about 35:00 for a 4 or maybe 5 day trip. At 787 planning divisor of 155, that's about 4.4 trips or about 18-22 days worked per 56 day roster. Does that sound right?

It'll be 5 days I suspect but your numbers sound about right. There will probably a few two day trips of PER-MEL-PER in there too (5:30 per day). Maybe the schedule will allow them to be done as a day trip- 7:30 credit or thereabouts.

I hear you however the hourly rate for the 787 is higher than say the present rate for the 747 by about 10% so he is paying for those increased stick hours. IMO the bottom line is the cost of the pilots per seat per sector and that is basically unchanged. The other thing is that with no overtime people will be more inclined to go sick for the duration of a pattern with a medical certificate hence no pattern protection. Only time will tell how this pans out.

about time the LAME;s had some balls been too soft for so long, mmmm if you know what I mean Stevie boy.

I am with Alan on this one which is very uncool. When I do a ULR flight for 15 hours on the 777 I am sitting in the seat in the flight deck for hours. When it's break time I go to the bunk and lie down on my little bed. Why do you want to take another seat in the cabin that could be paying the bills? I must be missing the facts.

Not true.
A PER/LHR pattern is longer than a SYD/DFW
So as an example Using a DFW pattern that's more conservative than a PER/LHR.

Non 787 you would get 39.72 credit hours plus 15.13 hours overtime.
That's 54.9 credit hours paid per trip.
787 EA you only get the stick hours of 32.4. 787 you get no overtime.
Without night credits 787 you get 7.32 hours less (39.72 Credit hours with night credits vs 32.4 stick)
These figures would look worse on a PER/LHR pattern.

On this example It's 69% less paid hours per trip on the 787. The higher hourly rate is not enough to compensate for the loss of overtime and night credits.
Let's say for example the hourly rate was $100 on the 787. That would be $3240 per trip.
The hourly rate on existing types could be only $59 or nearly half and still earn the same. Eg 54.9 CREDIT hours x $59 per credit hour= $3240
So the higher hourly rate definitely does not compensate. If you compare A330 rates for Captains or even 767 vs 787 stick hour higher rate it's significantly less. I remember Wayne Kearns complaining that the hourly rate was far to high in Short Haul. What he knew but didn't admit was that SH pilots often did 12 hours duty for 4-5 hours pay so the hourly rate was irrelevant.

If the 787 were flying Asia trips with no overtime you claw a little back from the losses on the ULR routes. But for Qantas the 787 flies ultra long thin routes. The longest Qantas has ever flown.
Alan's a mathematician after all. Pilots have been fooled by the appearance of a bigger number that results in significantly less money in your pocket.
Nothing can be changed now and it's a fantastic achievement for Qantas. I think Alan Joyce is smarter than people give him credit for. The savings are massive and the productivity significantly improved without night credits.

Is this a reference to my question?

So on the 787 doing PER/LHR returns at a about 35 stick hours per pattern and 155 planning divisor, I wouldn't be working 18-23 days per 56 depending on whether they are 4 or 5 day trips? Obviously some of those days will be part-days depending on arrival and departure times.

Not asking about "what ifs" re night credits or O/T. Just trying to make an educated choice about days a work per BP.

Thanks in advance.

No it's not. Your own figures show only a 41% decrease.

People were pretty angry Elaine boasted about 30%. If I were him I would have been shouting it from the rooftops. Whichever way you cut it, it was an astounding achievement for the wee fella.

Why are you people debating an EA that's been voted on and the vast majority have approved? Get over it. No one is forcing you to fly it.The 787 will not be flying between Mel and Per either according to the engineers I've spoken with. The aircraft will fly Mel- Lax-Bne-Per-Lhr and return the opposite way. Even though I'm in favour of a proper crew rest as per the award, look at what's just happened with penalty rates for the hospitality industry today. FWA, I bet will not be very sympathetic, unfortunately, to a revised crew rest as stipulated in the EA. The precedent has already been set by other operators using the standard crew rest. Not right but realistic.

How many other operators are flying the equivalent of Perth - London?

I understand that as the crew rest is a fatigue (safety) issue, Fair Work may not hear it. Unless they can convince FWC it's an industrial and not a safety issue, Qantas may have some jurisdiction problems here. CASA?

Any reason why their logo features a Concorde which was never owned, operated or maintained by their members... Just wondering. Isn't this the guy that would blame the Kennedy Assassination on offshore maintenance given half the chance. I'm not an engineer but I am not averse to the plight of the engineers - but I think this bloke has cried safety far too many times and is now pretty much viewed as lacking credibility. Didn't he get himself into a bind in a Senate Inquiry when a Senator asked after his rant about 'third world countries' whether he considered the Federal Republic of Germany a 3rd world country??? As I said, not averse to the plight of the engineers... I've known many in my time so I hope it all works out.

But several other operators provide first or business class seats to the pilots in addition to the standard crew rest. BA and UA for example. And they are not flying sectors as long as QF will.

Two points I would make . One the 155 planning divisor is the companies for planning the numbers of pilots they should have. The divisor can actually be up to 180 stick hours which is a huge increase over what we currently fly with night credits. Secondly, when comparing hourly rates remember that the 787 is over 100,000 kgs lighter than the 747 and carries about 135 less paxs therefore IMO the hourly rate achieved was very good even allowing for no overtime or night credits.

As pointed out previously by another poster, BA don't provide a business seat in the cabin where the crew rest facility contains an "equivalent" seat, where this is not the case (747 and 777 without proper bunk area) they provide a business seat which can be moved to first if available at close-out.

Nothing wrong with arguing for one though, especially on a sector like PER-LHR!

From a rest/risk perspective, let's not forget the other airlines also have 2 capts and 2 fo's who are current....Qantas will have only 2 current/qualified pilots who can land, and two SO's who while no doubt could get the job done if need be, will have spent all their time in the seat above FL200. With TOD's this long, surely adequate rest is something that must be considered. Rest doesn't necessarily mean sleeping either.

AerialPerspective,


"Any reason why their logo features a Concorde which was never owned, operated or maintained by their members... Just wondering"


3 points....


1- You say that you're not an engineer and I suspect you are not a pilot either. Perhaps company troll ???


2- Not a Concorde on the logo, the nose gives it away.


3- I suspect a few of the old Qantas Lames from days gone by who were based in Singapore WITH Concorde licences may have something to say about your statement.


So what exactly is your point?


McHale. http://cdn.pprune.org/images/smilies/smile.gif

Thanks dragonman.

Even occassioal180 hour divisors would equate to 5 PER/LHR trips and 25 days worked out of 56. Having always found 4 pilot ops much, much easier than 2 pilot BOC flights from Asia, it sounds quite appealing to me.

......and CASA's position on the crew rest seats is......?