A350 rumour
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 1,060
Likes: 62
From: HKG
If that's the case, bravo to the CAD. Just looking at the cockpit should be enough for a sensible person to know it's not a good idea. Look at the systems and even a not so sensible person would start to doubt the idea. Good news for the more senior guys on the Airbus as at least it will mean no CGK/ICN/SIN night returns or any other of the many lovely patterns they currently enjoy.
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 419
Likes: 18
From: Retired-ville
The last time I heard one of our managers discussing the issue was only recently, and his view was quite definative.
Whilst it was mentioned there had been a 'degree of misunderstanding' by someone in the CAD, and this may have been due to a doors issue, CX were still believing it would be able to plan for crew to operate both 330 and 350 as a common type.
If this recent news above has superseded the previous doors issue, then that certainly throws a substantial spanner in the works with regard to future 'bus crewing levels.
Whilst it was mentioned there had been a 'degree of misunderstanding' by someone in the CAD, and this may have been due to a doors issue, CX were still believing it would be able to plan for crew to operate both 330 and 350 as a common type.
If this recent news above has superseded the previous doors issue, then that certainly throws a substantial spanner in the works with regard to future 'bus crewing levels.
Eidolon
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 2,244
Likes: 62
From: Some hole
Its a common type rating on the type certificate, for both cabin crew and pilots.
c. Pilot Type Rating: The licence endorsement for the A350-900 series aircraft is "A330/A350". The A350-900 and the A330 series aircraft are variants of the same type of aircraft.
http://easa.europa.eu/system/files/d...1_Issue-01.pdf
c. Pilot Type Rating: The licence endorsement for the A350-900 series aircraft is "A330/A350". The A350-900 and the A330 series aircraft are variants of the same type of aircraft.
http://easa.europa.eu/system/files/d...1_Issue-01.pdf
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,117
Likes: 0
From: Hong Kong
I believe that the CAD. Has rejected their application for a A330/340/350 common type.
The A340 can be CCQ with the A330/350.
If the FAA and the Europeans give the A350/330 common type I doubt very much that the CAD will reject it.
The A340 can be CCQ with the A330/350.
If the FAA and the Europeans give the A350/330 common type I doubt very much that the CAD will reject it.
Joined: Oct 1999
Posts: 206
Likes: 6
From: Up there
I wouldn't give the HK CAD any credit, they are civil servants who barely have a clue about aviation and that's being generous. Any loss of face moments would be immediately met with CANNOT 
Simply put they are out of touch with aviation and barely function as a regulator.
Simply put they are out of touch with aviation and barely function as a regulator.
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
From: HK
That's great news for the bus drivers stuck here, demoralized, whilst out of seniority upgrades are being done onto the 777. Some light at the end of the tunnel, if we all will get a chance to fly it.
It would be even better if the fleet office would keep updates coming, and be transparent with why command fleet type switches have suddenly stopped.
So, do we have to wait until the first jet arrives and is entered onto the HK register until approvals are written into the manuals?
Life kind of sucks right now. Snookered. No way out.
It would be even better if the fleet office would keep updates coming, and be transparent with why command fleet type switches have suddenly stopped.
So, do we have to wait until the first jet arrives and is entered onto the HK register until approvals are written into the manuals?
Life kind of sucks right now. Snookered. No way out.
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 635
Likes: 0
From: All over
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
From: On the road
I had heard they had the CCQ in the bag but were sweating on MFF. CCQ is a short differences course so you can change types. MFF is the ability to fly the two types at the same time.
No MFF would introduce a a very big spanner to the works...
No MFF would introduce a a very big spanner to the works...
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 298
Likes: 0
From: In front of the PC
so let me understand this correctly....
CAD is pretty much a box ticking exercise when it comes to approving FTL's, dispensations and various other bits and bobs that CX need from time to time.
Do you really think they are now all of a sudden going to put there foot down and say no to CX's request for MFF / CCQ or whatever you want to call it, considering EASA have already approved it to other operators across 3 types???
There is big money involved here, of course CX will get it right, to believe otherwise would be naive!
Its just another aeroplane, how hard can it be?
CAD is pretty much a box ticking exercise when it comes to approving FTL's, dispensations and various other bits and bobs that CX need from time to time.
Do you really think they are now all of a sudden going to put there foot down and say no to CX's request for MFF / CCQ or whatever you want to call it, considering EASA have already approved it to other operators across 3 types???
There is big money involved here, of course CX will get it right, to believe otherwise would be naive!
Its just another aeroplane, how hard can it be?
ng cares?
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 438
Likes: 0
From: Here ---> X
The ones who care are those that will have to safely operate two essentially different airplanes, thereby increasing their responsibility, workload and overall burden, all the while working increasingly fatiguing rosters, thanks to airlines and manufacturers pressuring regulators to allow them to do so for the sake of 'competitivity'.
Or, to paraphrase an illustrious contributor: 'To my bonus' ®...
Or, to paraphrase an illustrious contributor: 'To my bonus' ®...
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 635
Likes: 0
From: All over
Joined: Dec 2015
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
From: 1 Tung Fai Road
Maybe with that idiot Mike Davis gone now, sense will prevail