Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > Fragrant Harbour
Reload this Page >

Potential cargo capacity problems

Fragrant Harbour A forum for the large number of pilots (expats and locals) based with the various airlines in Hong Kong. Air Traffic Controllers are also warmly welcomed into the forum.

Potential cargo capacity problems

Old 1st Sep 2010, 15:34
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sector C
Posts: 78
Potential cargo capacity problems

Potentially CX will be up with a capacity problem with the freighter fleet.

The current strategy somewhat relies on the 747-8F to replace the 747-BCF capacity being transferred to the Air China/Cathay joint venture.

Boeing is set to soon to formally announce a large delay on the 747-8F due to "near cruise speed structural flutter in the flight test program", see Additonal Delays Cripple Boeing?s Strategy and Finances

It has been suggested that changing the placement of the inboard engines maybe the only engineering solution available to remedy this flutter issue.

This will put CX is an very difficult position, with more and more freight being sold, we may see a case of other airlines (including the new Air China/Cathay joint venture) flying freight for CX, as CX does not have the aircraft.

This will again put pressure on the pilot group, scope clauses will be challenged, and no doubt interesting time will be ahead for those who are contractually "freighter only”.

As an interesting sideline from this related article 747-8 delay illustrative of program problems

"The Lufthansa order is understood to have a relationship to Boeing cancellation years ago of its in-flight Internet Connexion service for which Lufthansa was a launch customer and the KAL order is tied up in compensation for late deliveries of the 787 and 747-8F."
Eyes only is offline  
Old 1st Sep 2010, 16:08
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: hONG kONG
Posts: 113
JAL freighters not a done deal either.

I think you obviously have more insight than you are letting on!
Nullaman is offline  
Old 1st Sep 2010, 18:28
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: 45 yards from a tropical beach
Posts: 1,104
Eyes Only
Please expand on 'structural flutter.' Which part of the airframe is affected?
Neptunus Rex is offline  
Old 1st Sep 2010, 19:26
  #4 (permalink)  
711
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Up in the air
Age: 54
Posts: 195
To all those poor early freighter commanders who can't get used to actually working now after 2 years on 40 block hours:

GET BACK IN LINE AS F/O IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT.

(or enjoy DEL,MUM and ANC in the meantime).
711 is offline  
Old 1st Sep 2010, 20:33
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Berchtesgaden
Posts: 6
711

i am not complaining about india, it has it's pro's and con's.
i know that I rather have a yoga experience in bom (make a note of that) than spending a few hours to the left of you.
Adolf88 is offline  
Old 2nd Sep 2010, 05:21
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: planet 10 by way of the 8th dimension
Posts: 16
And I thought if was the pax FOs who were jumping ship to the 777 fleet because they didn't enjoy the long freighter patterns. Dude, we're used to it. Even our 40 hours block months entailed 12-day patterns in HKG sitting on reserve.

This sour grapes stuff has to really stop. If you didn't go for a command on the freighter that was your choice. Why should you be upset at someone who did? If I recall, I didn't see anyone protesting about wanting to come to the Classic. Hats off to the few guys who did. 711, please feel free to explain here so I don't have to hear about it over Yangon.

By the way, we will be staying in DEL, BOM, ANC and DXB with an FO, so if you're an FO on the 744---get used to it.

PS, please also explain what your comment has to do with this thread?
buckaroo bonzai is offline  
Old 2nd Sep 2010, 05:25
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 3.5 from TD
Posts: 1,008
Great article Eyes, should be required reading for our short-sighted leaders. It is so sad to see a company like Boeing, which has always been regarded the leading commercial aircraft manufacturer, turned into a second-rate accountant managed fiasco.

When will people learn? You can't let accountants run your business. Costs are not always the priority and a smaller profit with healthier business practices is more important than a huge profit at the expense of destroying your business' foundation.

So sad to see most aviation related industry heading in the same direction...
Sqwak7700 is offline  
Old 2nd Sep 2010, 08:10
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: europe
Posts: 201
easy solution if china air cargo gets the planes: temporary commuter rosters to Shanghai.
sisyphos is offline  
Old 2nd Sep 2010, 09:30
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 674
If they are that desperate for freight capacity then it should be easy to take the JAL freighters. I am sure there is a compensation clause in the contract with Boeing over the 748F; enough to pay for wet-leases anyway...not that it helps the command situation.
geh065 is offline  
Old 2nd Sep 2010, 11:58
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 12
From a purely selfish point of view, the company should not have binned the Classic fleet so quickly last year.
LandingCheckComplete is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2010, 07:11
  #11 (permalink)  
711
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Up in the air
Age: 54
Posts: 195
Buckaroo,

I have absolutely no problem with early freighter commanders, the company offered the option to everybody, fair enough.

However, it was pretty clear what to expect, what kind of lifestyle, rosters etc.
I have absolutely no sympathy for some of them , who suddenly start a "discussion" about combined pax/freighter flying. This is a ruthless,despicable and selfish attempt to jump the line, absolutely unacceptable.
711 is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2010, 09:37
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: planet 10 by way of the 8th dimension
Posts: 16
711

Fair enough. When these guys "discuss" combined pax/freighter flying (and pay) it merely wishful thinking. As far as being a "ruthless,despicable and selfish attempt to jump the line", well I'd say that if the company decides to offer that it would be due to need/demand. That being said, since freighter captains are by definition already captains, they are not taking any of your slots away.

Again, I sense perhaps a bit of sour grapes. Example: FO "A" signs a contract on B scale (or UFO scale) and therefore has a set pay scale for his career plannning. During "A"'s progression he has the chance to apply for a frtr command but chooses to remain flying pax. FO "B" does apply, passes the course and is also aware of his pay scale for the remainder of his career. Suddenly, the market changes and the company decides to "upgrade" the frtr cpts to B scale. Why would FO "A" be upset? Because it's not fair? Well, his contract wasn't diminished in any way.

Simplified version: A construction site puts up a sign offering work for 10 men starting at 0800 the following morning. The next morning 50 guys show up and the foreman selects 10 and offers them 100 dollars to work until 1700. They accept. At 1100 the foreman realizes that he needs 5 more men to complete the job. If he doesn't complete the job his company will have to pay a hefty late penalty. So he then goes out in the street and starts searching for workers. It's difficult because the other 40 men have since left looking for work elsewhere. The foreman finally finds 5 guys and offers them 100 dollars to work until 1700. They accept. Should the first 10 guys be upset because they have to work 3 hours more to gain the same 100 dollars? That's what they signed up for.


See my point?
buckaroo bonzai is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2010, 10:22
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Established.
Age: 49
Posts: 658
I do have a problem with early freighter commanders who accepted the crap conditions and helped drag it down for all of us.
The Messiah is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2010, 11:24
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: planet 10 by way of the 8th dimension
Posts: 16
T.M.

Please explain: "who accepted the crap conditions and helped drag it down for all of us."

1. what were the "crap conditions"? Kept base and improved pay.

2. How did frtr cpts "drag" anything down for you? Did your contract suddenly change?

Enlighten me.
buckaroo bonzai is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2010, 12:10
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: now a paxdoggiedog too...
Posts: 46
Pot this is kettle... come in, pot

I do have a problem with early freighter commanders who accepted the crap conditions and helped drag it down for all of us.
So I assume you were hired on A-Scale? Or is it that different somehow?

United we stand, divided we fall, and by God pilots just love to divide themselves like small bickering children... while management chuckle all the way to the bank.

freightdoggiedog is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2010, 13:34
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 164
T.M.

Please explain: "who accepted the crap conditions and helped drag it down for all of us."

1. what were the "crap conditions"? Kept base and improved pay.

2. How did frtr cpts "drag" anything down for you? Did your contract suddenly change?

Enlighten me.
Simple really.

Let me break the seniority list like this, prior freighter command offered:
A-TOP 100: b-scale capt.
B-MID 100: b-scale F/O
C-LAST 100: b-scale F/O

Now we have:

A: 100 B-scale capt. flying pax and freighter
most of B and some C: 100 b-scale F/O's
most of C and some B: 100 Freight-scale capt. flying 100% freighter for 30% less money than A

We could have had:

A and B: 200 B-scale capt. on 100% the money
C: 100 B-scale F/O

The ones taking a freighter command have effectively dragged the conditions down for the rest of the F/O's senior to them.
fly123456 is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2010, 15:06
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Established.
Age: 49
Posts: 658
See above, it's not rocket science.
The Messiah is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2010, 16:25
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: now a paxdoggiedog too...
Posts: 46
Pot, be advised I read you one...

So Messiah and Fly123456, you must both be

- A-scalers, or else

- not know the meaning of the word "hypocrite", and/or

- have a bad case of sour grapes?
freightdoggiedog is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2010, 16:30
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Established.
Age: 49
Posts: 658
No just never understood why someone would accept the same position (ie. Captain) for less money that's all.
The Messiah is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2010, 16:52
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: now a paxdoggiedog too...
Posts: 46
Not quite

They accepted the position for MORE money than they had been making previously (as F-scale or even based B-scale FOs), not to mention the advantage of starting on CN payscale increment 1 far earlier; a no-brainer really, if they wanted to stay on a base and didn't plan to take advantage of HKG housing.

Much as you presumably accepted a B-scale (or F-scale if you joined as a DEFO) because it was better than whatever you had previously, even if this way you were (from the point of view of your A-scale predecessors) accepting "crap conditions and helped drag it down for all of us".

The point is that the company has successfully played this game for years: the senior guys on "superior" conditions let it happen due to I'm-all-right-Jackitis, then when a few years later they find themselves in a minority they take it out on their junior colleagues for accepting "crap conditions and helping drag it down for all of us", instead of realizing that they have been outfoxed by management again.

Newsflash: it's happening again with housing. So, are we going to sit here and throw [email protected] at each other or are we going to try and stop lower conditions being offered to junior crew this time?

Like you say, it's not rocket science, but I'm not holding my breath.
freightdoggiedog is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

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