DEFO back at CX

[Sam Ting Wong]

Spot on, STP.

[Flex88]

STP - Brand new flying school graduates don’t become legacy airline captains

It would be nice if someone simply summarized by saying - whats going on is that the AT's of the world have been consistently and systematically lowering "time honoured" standards and requirements" for crew experience - all in the name of the almighty buck...
They are without exception rolling the dice at someone else's expense. This is not just here, it's worldwide (except US who has now regulated the issue).
Re the above phrase from STP, of course they don't; but they DO slide straight into the RHS at (KA) and after 3 yr at CX.
Just step back 20/25 years and consider the qualifications they required then for the RHS of a heavy widebody....
It would be nice if everybody agreed what is happening is that external forces (the AT's etc) are in a battle to Dumb Down the experience levels of ALL flight crew members to a point it's "affordable" for them and the spreadsheet gang and that's just slightly above the pay of a taxi driver.
Experience "costs" and they don't want to pay for it...
I wonder which surgeon they want operating on their kids, the one fresh out of medical school or the older gent/gal with 20 years experience at the private clinic.?

[Sam Ting Wong]

An experienced guy with an non-experienced assistant.

But seriously, totally agree. It is a business , they want to grow, and they decided to take the risk in order to make more profit.

How big this risk actually is remains debatable.

[raven11]

Sam Ting Wong
"How big this risk actually is remains debatable."

No..it's not debatable. We've dignified this lunatic argument long enough. The largest aviation governing body on the planet has already ruled against it. End of story.

If my 45 years of flying (35 years of it in check and training) given my first hand exposure to assessing pilots of all experience levels: In 99.99% of the cases, if comparing a pilot with 5000 hours of high quality flight time to any sprout with less than 200 hours, the inescapable conclusion is that the experienced pilot is safer and the one I would want in a cockpit when the sh*t hits the fan...and in 100% of cases, the 200 hour pilot is cheaper, riskier, and less safe.

Prima facie.

[drfaust]

Although I appreciate the comment STP, consider what happens in an operating theatre.

If a medical procedure goes wrong, all the apprentices get out of the way and the experienced professionals do the job. Someone's life is at stake after all and they deserve the best care. We don't have this option in an airplane, and they are designed to be operated by two people.

I don't have anything against cadets per se as I had a first job once too, but maintaining a good mix of experience in your hiring policies is a wise thing to do. Even if it costs a few bucks.

[JY9024]

Hi Raven..
I respect your position on how you feel about having an experienced companion sitting next to you when things don't go as expected.
The CX fuel contamination is a classic example and I still to this day use that as an example to the young sprouts when discussing why they need to be able to think outside of a scripted scenario that they have played many times over leading up to a sim check.

However, industrial issues aside, aviation has changed in the last 45 years where the industry now has very little opertunities for new pilots to build experience outside of a major airline.
Due to this, most airlines including smaller turboprop operators are now forced to offer cadet schemes to fill there pilot needs and cx/Ka are no different.
Bringing in DEFO's will be great if the group attracts the right people with not only experience but quality experience from respectable groundings.
Given the job opportunities on offer right now throughout Asia, I very much doubt that we will attract these people.

So Raven, it's trainers like you that need to step up and deliver to these kids the 45 years of real life experience that you've developed, that they won't have had the benefit of experiencing first hand.
In the meantime AT, take a look at what the rest of Asia are offering right now... The DEFO's have options outside of CX..

[TurningFinalRWY36]

I think CX will have a lot of problems with regards to crewing in 10 years time, plenty of A/B scale captains will have retired and the C scalers will take their place. The issue is most C scalers are still quite early on in their career and as they gain experience more options will open up and it will make complete sense for them to move on. The reality is that the package offered to C scalers is inadequate and no one wants to live their entire life not owning a place of their own. This is the reality for 99.9% of C scalers. It is impossible to bring up a family, the cost of living, schooling and trying to afford a 3-4 bedroom is just not possible, let alone saving for retirement. Cathay will have become a stepping stone airline and it will cost them far more in the loss of dedicated crews and increased training costs to replace them. The management right now are just looking at their bonuses and don't realise that they are slowly killing the airline and history will continue to repeat itself with the next bunch of those on the 9th floor.
I don't think it will ever be possible to show these 'people in charge' the right way but if they offered a decent package that allowed their crew to afford to live in the most expensive city in the world cathay would be a much stronger airline.
I think most people realise B scale is never coming back but the disparity between B and C is far too large and I am afraid that it will be the demise of cathay as they will continue to struggle to crew aircraft and retain pilots.
Most of us who joined cathay had the intention of making this our last job before retirement but if management continue down the path they have taken it will only push crews towards taking the leap towards better opportunities and eventually will destroy a 70 year legacy.

[Oval3Holer]

@Oval

Quote:
Yes, STP, I am also going to stop flying as a passenger. Really.
If that’s how you honestly feel I sincerely think you should consider stopping now.

STP

STP, I have considered stopping now. I have CHOSEN to continue, having assessed my risk versus reward. I will RECONSIDER later.

[Steve the Pirate]

Originally Posted by raven11

If my 45 years of flying (35 years of it in check and training) given my first hand exposure to assessing pilots of all experience levels: In 99.99% of the cases, if comparing a pilot with 5000 hours of high quality flight time to any sprout with less than 200 hours, the inescapable conclusion is that the experienced pilot is safer and the one I would want in a cockpit when the sh*t hits the fan...and in 100% of cases, the 200 hour pilot is cheaper, riskier, and less safe.

Prima facie.

raven11, I'm not sure you can use your evidence as being prima facie in the sense of "accepted as correct until proved otherwise" because no-one has the opportunity to assess those same pilots to whom you refer in the exactly the same circumstances. However, if by prima facie you mean "based on the first impression" then I clearly can't argue against the impression you formed and I accept that. I respect your opinion but we'll clearly have to agree to disagree that hours are a suitable means of inferring competence through experience.

One final question for you if I may; could you define 'high quality flight time'? Thanks.

Originally Posted by drfaust

Although I appreciate the comment STP, consider what happens in an operating theatre.

If a medical procedure goes wrong, all the apprentices get out of the way and the experienced professionals do the job. Someone's life is at stake after all and they deserve the best care. We don't have this option in an airplane, and they are designed to be operated by two people.

I don't have anything against cadets per se as I had a first job once too, but maintaining a good mix of experience in your hiring policies is a wise thing to do. Even if it costs a few bucks.

Fair comments and I agree. I hope the same is true in aircraft when the situation demands the more senior pilot take control; if fact, it's specified in the SOPs of many airlines that this is the case. I particularly agree with your comment regarding a mix of experience in the hiring policy being a wise thing. The 3 SO entry streams that have existed in CX for some time have ensured a mix of backgrounds but, in my experience, those with 'experience' haven't always been 'better' pilots.

STP

[raven11]

STP

I agree to disagree with you.

The definition of high quality flight time? Once again, it should be obvious. Must I really state it for you?

You and I both know what it is....as does every one on this forum.

I can tell you what isn't high quality flight experience: An MPL with 100 hours in a small plane and 75 hours in a simulator of questionable quality.

[JY9024]

Rav,

Honest question, are you comfortable whith the level of experience of a cadet that has only flown for CX that now has 8 -10 years of experience?

Would you pax on a flight captained by the same (ex) cadet?

I too would prefer new joiners whith more experience but it's not up to me, and I also agree that an airliner might not be the right place for them to get that experience but Rav, how else are they going to get it?

[raven11]

JY,

Geez....don't misunderstand me. After a few years of training under their belts our guys are great! Our training system is one of the best and our young pilots develop quite nicely. Hats off to them!!

We all had 200 hundred flying hours at one point in our careers. The first 1000 hours for any pilot are formative (quality) and play a large role in determining how a young pilot develops. I've always felt that after 5000 hours of quality time, pilots are very similar (and equal) in ability.

With the foregoing in mind, hiring cadet pilots in careful proportion to experienced pilots, is a feasible cost/risk undertaking; as long as it is managed very carefully. A 200 hour pilot needs to safely get to 5000 hours. During that journey, the more exposure that an inexperienced pilot has to pilots with experience....the better.

My point is simply this: please, let's not jump the shark and try to say that hiring a 200 hour pilot is just as good (or even better???) than hiring an experienced pilot.

Let's leave that line of argument to non-pilot managers who might also argue that 3-man long haul is just as safe as 4-man.

[Foxdeux]

Originally Posted by TurningFinalRWY36

I think CX will have a lot of problems with regards to crewing in 10 years time, plenty of A/B scale captains will have retired and the C scalers will take their place. The issue is most C scalers are still quite early on in their career and as they gain experience more options will open up and it will make complete sense for them to move on. The reality is that the package offered to C scalers is inadequate and no one wants to live their entire life not owning a place of their own. This is the reality for 99.9% of C scalers. It is impossible to bring up a family, the cost of living, schooling and trying to afford a 3-4 bedroom is just not possible, let alone saving for retirement. Cathay will have become a stepping stone airline and it will cost them far more in the loss of dedicated crews and increased training costs to replace them. The management right now are just looking at their bonuses and don't realise that they are slowly killing the airline and history will continue to repeat itself with the next bunch of those on the 9th floor.
I don't think it will ever be possible to show these 'people in charge' the right way but if they offered a decent package that allowed their crew to afford to live in the most expensive city in the world cathay would be a much stronger airline.
I think most people realise B scale is never coming back but the disparity between B and C is far too large and I am afraid that it will be the demise of cathay as they will continue to struggle to crew aircraft and retain pilots.
Most of us who joined cathay had the intention of making this our last job before retirement but if management continue down the path they have taken it will only push crews towards taking the leap towards better opportunities and eventually will destroy a 70 year legacy.

If 99.9% of C-scalers can't afford to own their place in HK, then the average HK citizen is really f*cked. Median monthly wage in HK is $14,800, what does a C-scaler earn monthly? And you wonder why locals are flocking to the cadet scheme.

https://hk-magazine.com/article/insi...-you-hong-kong

[Foxdeux]

Originally Posted by UNIFO

Foxdeux, I can assure the queue is still there even if there's another 10% cut on current local package. No company is paying local employee any housing assistance and i-school allowance. Many local uni graduates are making 15-20k per mo with free OT.

Exactly, which is why C-scale is here to stay and it's a very good gig for locals, for expats probably not so much. Being a vegetarian won't help destroy the meat industry.

[JY9024]

Rav,

100% agree,

Thanks.

[Dan Winterland]

I think CX will have a lot of problems with regards to crewing in 10 years time

It will come sooner than that. KA are already seeing a faster (than before) turnover of ex-pat Standard Contract guys. They come to HK thinking the money's good, but soon find out it isn't, think about having kids - and then the facts hit home. They have little viable option but to leave for a lower paid, but sustainable job elsewhere.

With the new contracts, CX and KA are going to have to face facts that they are now just another 'average' employer. There isn't a huge benefit to hold people here and the turnover will be much higher.

[zoombaggin]

Soooooo

Soooooo when do the DEFO intakes take place - if it is anything like there cadet scheme is going, pushing back each course 3 months at a time over and over, i'll start sitting by the phone in say, ummmmm October 2017?

[TurningFinalRWY36]

Why do you think courses are being pushed back? Because what we are doing up in hk is having an affect. You should be happy as this will hopefully improve the conditions for all new joiners.

[Steve the Pirate]

raven11, I'm not trying to be deliberately obtuse, rather I'm just trying to clarify your position in my own mind. You've previously stated that you think it's insanity to put low hours pilots in the right seat of an airliner. Now you're saying that:

After a few years of training under their belts our guys are great!

By that statement do you mean hours in a control seat as P2X or P1? If you mean P2X then by the time they upgrade they will have amassed about 2700 hours - does that meet with your assessment of a pilot being experienced? If on the other hand you mean P1, they will have only completed their initial flying training (almost 4 years earlier) along with recurrent simulator training and checking. In this instance, ab initio cadets will have anywhere between 150 and 250 hours, depending on when they underwent their initial training.

In either case, I agree that these ex-cadets will have 'experience', in that they will have spent time in an aircraft in a real environment but they won't necessarily be 'experienced' in terms of their piloting skills.

I suppose my question is: how does this fit in with your vocal support of the FAA stipulation of an hours requirement before someone can act as co-pilot in an aircraft of a Part 121 air carrier? If you count P2X as applicable experience then our current scheme fits the bill. On the other hand, if you don't include P2X hours, then we're no different from airlines that put cadets straight into the right seat, KA for example.

You say:

With the foregoing in mind, hiring cadet pilots in careful proportion to experienced pilots, is a feasible cost/risk undertaking; as long as it is managed very carefully. A 200 hour pilot needs to safely get to 5000 hours. During that journey, the more exposure that an inexperienced pilot has to pilots with experience....the better.

I agree with the first part of the above statement, and I've said as much earlier in this thread. As far as the part I've highlighted, doesn't this happen anyway? By definition, inexperienced pilots will always fly with more experienced pilots because of the time it takes to reach command. I understand that time to command differs from company to company. I accept in some airlines there might be a possibility of an ex-MPL captain flying with a brand new ex-MPL co-pilot but that doesn't mean to say that they'll be incompetent as a crew.

The bone of contention for me in this discussion has always been the supposed link between hours and experience. I think that many confuse 'experience' with ability or competence - a flawed argument in my mind. The FAA stipulation of 1500 hours was a knee-jerk reaction after the Colgan accident and, arguably, has done nothing to increase safety in our industry.

STP

[Pogie]

Originally Posted by Steve the Pirate
Our training system is one of the best

OMG! What airline do you work for? Have you ever worked for any other airlines? Our training system is horrible. It's all self-study and guidance from peers to keep you from getting low scores in their pathetic checking system. I've received very little training at this airline.