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

Safety is our Priority

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.

Safety is our Priority

Old 21st Sep 2011, 03:19
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 762
Safety is our Priority

This gem was posted in the "Industry News" section of intra-crapex yesterday:


-----------------

ATA: Airlines would cut 26,700 jobs if FAA implements new pilot test regulations
Posted On: 20 Sep 2011

The US Air Transport Assn (ATA) said an analysis by consultancy Oliver Wyman demonstrates that the pilot fatigue and duty time rules FAA is proposing to implement would "have severe negative effects on US airline employment… while reducing service, especially to small communities."
In a letter sent last week to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which is conducting a final review of the pilot fatigue regulations proposed last year by FAA, ATA VP and general counsel David Berg cautioned that "the proposed rule would cause… approximately 26,700 direct airline and air cargo carrier job losses."

Under the proposed rule, pilots would be required to have "nine hours for the opportunity to rest" before reporting for flight duty, and the clock would not start ticking until he or she is "behind closed doors" in a hotel or other designated rest place, according to FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt. Regulations currently require flight crew members to have a minimum of eight hours of rest time between flight duty periods. However, the rules do not define rest time, meaning transit time from an airport to a hotel may count as rest time.

"If it takes two hours to get to the hotel, you still get nine hours," he emphasised at a press conference last year after FAA issued the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on pilot fatigue and duty time.

This and other provisions "will drive job loss because airlines will not be able to raise prices sufficiently to meet the new costs that the rule imposes because of consumer price sensitivity," Berg wrote to OMB. "This situation will force airlines to cut capacity, in particular service to marginally profitable and unprofitable routes—many of them serving small and rural communities that depend on air transportation to connect to the rest of the country and world. Reducing capacity and service means fewer employees."



Oliver Wyman said its analysis showed that the new regulations would add US$1.96 billion a year in total costs for US mainline passenger and cargo airlines. The analysis placed "specific focus on the cost of requiring additional pilots to conduct the same amount of flying and on the operational impacts of the rule," the consultancy said.

"This substantial increase in costs was estimated to lead to the elimination of marginal flights that no longer met individual airline minimum profitability thresholds. Overall employment reductions required to operate the reduced number of flights were then estimated

-----------------


It's bad enough that these "consultants" are putting a price on safety, but then they try to sell it by saying that improved safety will cost big money, and cause big job losses.


Clearly our beloved managers agree with this tripe. By posting it on the website for all the staff (especially the non-operational staff) to see, they have tacitly endorsed it.

No surprise really.
broadband circuit is offline  
Old 21st Sep 2011, 03:36
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Asia
Posts: 335
Yea but we the industry spend insane amounts to take away liquids and scissors, to search grandmothers and baby strollers cause that is safer !!

FG
Five Green is offline  
Old 21st Sep 2011, 05:26
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: North Pole
Age: 89
Posts: 110
Sounds like the same doom and gloom scaremongering that preceded the introduction of a minimum wage in Hong Kong. It’s funny how they all went silent this month when they announced an increase in employment for the very same low paid jobs that they predicted a decrease in employment for.

Nice work playing the jobs angle too, especially in the US with their toxic politics and high unemployment. Maybe Cathay should find out who the lawyers and consultants are and give them some work over here.
MrClaus is offline  
Old 21st Sep 2011, 05:31
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: negative RAIM.....
Posts: 329
"SAFETY" is nothing more than an advertising and sales pitch nowadays.

If true safety was an airline's motivation (while of course providing a profitable service to the public in a responsible manner) then airfares would not be as artificially low as they are. While there are many who will disagree, so what if we suffer reduced capacity and therefore a reduction in airline jobs? It would see an end to pay-to-fly cadet jobs whereby experienced pilots are overlooked in the stead of zero hour candidates who can be utilized for severely less remuneration (refer the once great Cathay Pacific & it's deliberate nose dive, as well as what I have read recently about The Jetstar consortium......). Experienced pilots would be employed and be paid accordingly, as well as a trend (SHOULD! MUST!) back to "training" and not only checking. Therefore seat prices would go up thus reflecting the REAL cost a "safe" airline. (Same analogy for FA's, maintenance and ground staff, etc).

Perhaps not a popular concept for the greed factor of today's cut & slash management ideologies or the GenY zero hour airline hopeful but the results are in fact "SAFETY" as a priority.

And before others respond.... Yes, I'm perhaps old fashioned and a lesser desire to accept the immoral profit chase-at-any-cost of today's business world but at the end of the day mine and my own do not have to rely on luck more and more when travelling by air. Will it happen? Of course not. Words like profit and self interest over-rule others words like integrity and accountability in today's (airline) world.
TopTup is offline  
Old 22nd Sep 2011, 00:43
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 511
The hiring of large numbers of zero hour and low time pilots scares the bejeebers out of me......

At some point someone in Flight Ops needs to tell the decision makers on the board the consequences of diminishing the experience level in the cockpit! As if it wasn't already obvious.....

We either provide our customers a premium product....or we don't. And unless we are becoming a LCC, that premium product begins in the cockpit!

The zero hour candidates should be hired in reasonable proportion to experienced pilots. Our pay and benefits package must be pegged so as to attract experienced pilots.

If safety is truly our number one concern, then we need to put our money where our mouth is....just like we do when we hire our board members and managers.
raven11 is offline  
Old 22nd Sep 2011, 04:24
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: negative RAIM.....
Posts: 329
Using CX as the example here, I understand from colleagues at CX who are (some "were"!) in the Training Dept & as Base Capts have & did indeed speak out formally. At one stage management conceded to 1 (zero hour) cadet to every 1 DESO. That was soon rescinded:- money speaks louder obviously.

And while still at CX, it's difficult to make a formal stand on the diminishing standards as well as immensely more training resources required to bring a zero hour pilot up to the same speed as a 2-4000 hr DESO, etc, etc.... But when:
a) a very senior Capt (RH) sides with management & in fact, as I understand it was even part of the brains behind this "iCadet" scheme, and as such profits directly from it; and
b) when many senior Training Capts resign from their position but said positions are quickly filled by other eager-to-impress ladder climbers...

....the whole system & safety culture has become eroded for short term visions & utter greed: all at the deliberate & unashamed reduction in safety & quality.
TopTup is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2011, 07:50
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: HK
Posts: 49
Thumbs down Safety is our third to forth priority

Safety never has been a priority at CX.

Profit above all else.

To wit; recent typhoon disruptions with min rest overnights and split duties turned into turn-arounds, back into the typhoon, just to get the jet back.

All thru the night, crew fatigued etc etc

Safety??? Bull5hit

$$$$$$ only

And Dick H is the worst.
larrikan larry is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2011, 13:46
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: ceduna
Posts: 133
larry

Really! Do you work for CX? Your posts seem to me that you don't. A stirrer I would say. What dump of an airline do you work for? Not CX.
FO.
routetuner is offline  
Old 2nd Oct 2011, 11:13
  #9 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 762
Sounds right to me

Really! Do you work for CX? Your posts seem to me that you don't. A stirrer I would say. What dump of an airline do you work for? Not CX.
Let's take a close look at his post:

Safety never has been a priority at CX.
Correct.

Profit above all else.
No question about it!

To wit; recent typhoon disruptions with min rest overnights and split duties turned into turn-arounds, back into the typhoon, just to get the jet back.
Accurate.

All thru the night, crew fatigued etc etc
Happens all the time.

Safety??? Bull5hit
Hey, Larry's on a roll!

$$$$$$ only
Right on the money (my attempt at a pun doesn't alter the truth of his statement)

And Dick H is the worst.
Don't necessarily agree. Sure, he's just a "yes man", but there have been lower lifeforms managing us in the past, and in the present for that matter.

So, all in all, to answer routetuner's question:

What dump of an airline do you work for?
Sounds like the answer is CX.
broadband circuit is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2011, 08:02
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: HK
Posts: 49
Thumbs down Routetuner

Yes, I do work for CX.

Have done many years and certainly long enough to be able to say what I do with a degree of accuracy and lament.

This is not a safety oriented airline, and decrees to crew control that they are to lie to pilots in the event that pilot is unsure about the "legality" of a pattern. Whatever is needed to get the flight out.

Yes, I know, we should all know our rules. Sadly, and by design, many do not, what with vague wording etc etc etc. So crew get lied to, by crew control, this being a directive from management.

CX has safety as an afterthought.

I know.
larrikan larry is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


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.