Pill...experience noted, I apologize. Your initial post gave me the wrong impression (I was still processing the shock of this policy change). I totally agree with your last post.

Actually, after some thought, I think I would prefer an experienced 3-man crew (Capt, RQ FO, FO) to a 4-man (Capt, RQ FO, green SO, green SO). Sure, you'll get less in-flight rest, but at least both guys in the cockpit would have some time under their belts...you are paid more, and you get more rest at destination.

Goes to show what happens when rostering practices are solely amendable by the company....makes me wonder what other future changes might be on their drawing board. All while insisting that whatever they do it will be preceded by a full operational and corporate risk assessment and that safety is their first priority.:ugh:

If safety were our priority our crew compliment would be 2 Cpts and 2 FOs.

(like at EK - for the managers continuously quoting what the competition does)

They only quote what the other airlines are doing when it works in their favour .
Agreed that the safest option is 2 Capt's 2 FO's

Problem: WingBrusher SO's are upgrading, getting some P1 time in log book, becoming employable elsewhere and leaving.

Solution: Do not upgrade them, keep them as SO longer, no P1 time, not employable elsewhere, stay in the crib at CX. Thousands of applicants on recruitment books to become new WingBrushers. Overall cost per pilot reduces.

Problem solved! HPETTW

So now we can have 2 x 200 hour super heroes and a cat D completely incompetent RQ.
Welcome to single pilot ULH ops

It's ok brown nose there was a complete operational and corporate risk assessment carried out. Albeit no FRMSC fatigue risk management consultation....but it wasn't deemed necessary....

The new position of "FOP - Risk Manager" which was created under the new corporate restructure was filled recently by a Pilot from the Boeing Fleet Office. His first act in this new role , apparently, was to approve this erosion of flight safety margins. Well Done!

You guys are all worried about the new crew compliment, when in fact you should be focusing on the real elephant in the room for safety, "Removal of the 2nd clipboard"
Where am I supposed to put the notams? they cant just float around the cockpit willy nilly can they?. How am I going to rip a straight line of paper off the ACARS to seperate weather from clearances and the like? Removed due to cost? where do you buy these things? Why cant you just put it down to cost of doing business and hide it in fuel hedging or something, blame KA or even the pilots and replace the one and only thing that has been consistent in this company , the reliable "CLIPBOARD."

The "Risk Management" is financial risk, not flight safety,

They have deemed this low risk to the finances.

We should all be thankful their is enough trainers to continue training the new SO's because if there wasn't its possible we would be doing this 3 man so next time you see a trainer giver him/her a pat on the back and tell them they are doing a great job keeping this shambles on the rd!

Don't believe the hype!
If times were really tough they would have banned ID travellers from receiving/using the amenities kits!

They've cut back on cockpit clipboards, though.

Wrong. This change in the crew complement is a direct response to the company's INABILITY to train and upgrade S/O's, JF/O's etc. The increasing number of resignations of trainers and CX's inability to fill the slots is a real crisis. This is their reaction.

Why would a line captain allow the RQFO to do the takeoff or landing on these pairings?
There are plenty of regional sectors on all fleets where the FO can achieve recency requirements. If necessary they can fly with a training captain on these long haul pairings to build their "experience"?
A line captain is there to ensure safe and efficient operations in the airline, not facilitate the training/experience/maintenance of the RQFO recency.
Let management manage recency.

...and endorse volunteering.

Well said.

Plenty of regional sector for a 777 RQ, I don't think so.

This, after a recent report of a new SO flying into a CB while the RQ was taking a controlled rest.

If our "leaders" ' priority is safety (and even if it is money saving), they should not allow this.

Or perhaps they considered that as stuff ups happened before, the new crew complement is not "less safe" than before.

I agree why would you, though bear in mind non-HKG based pilots rarely get regional sectors so recency is even more of a problem with this.

And sos volunteering for psuedo training aswell. Read the aoa board and youll see they want so volunteers to run the 350 ipt for everyone.

"Our number one priority is making money for ourselves"
"Somewhere down the list of "Priorities" is Safety but we mostly leave that up to the pilots who seem to cope quite well with almost every insult and difficulty we put in their way"
"Impressive really because in the briefing to Senior Executives, we always try to emphasise what a thick bunch of walkovers the Pilots are" " Amazing how well they do".
Come on Swire - tell the bloody truth for a change!

Great, this is making my job a lot harder.
Now every time we land, one of the front seat pilots will be completely tired, be it the Captain or the Fo,

Not good at all. I will also miss the occasional suggestions from the back, unless the So's become a bit more vocal.

Maybe this is what all that talk about increased responsibility was all about a few weeks back.

This airline is done. Put a fork in it. :mad:

Yep never once has the RQ ever been known to do a sector on a long haul........:eek:

Yes it happens a lot already, otherwise a hell of a lot of RQ's would never get a sector.

The loss of experience on the flight deck is the main concern as is the slower upgrade times for SO's, it's yet another imposed degradation to us all. Not to mention the loss of assistance to the CN at the coal face.

The CDR signs for the jet and is responsible for it and all the occupants until everyone is off and in the terminal. Therefore, with 2 SOs and a knackered RQFO, he should be doing the landing. If he assesses that the FO is not fit for purpose (too tired) he should declare an emergency as the 2 SOs are not licensed below 20K ft and, therefore, technically the flight is now single pilot. A minimum of an MOR and an ASRF would be required, in addition to the investigation under ICAO ANNEX 13. How long before the second FO would be reinstated?

I have flown with a young lady RQ who quite happily admitted that she hasn't HAND flown ANY commercial aircraft above 1000'...I :mad: you not.

Ummm whilst I get the point your making, how many have? 15 Miles out at 4500 on the Loc or 3 miles out at 900', again in a straight line is still not hand flying in my book.

Or maybe that is the point your making. Either way the whole place stinks.

Especially with FDs on - a video game and not flying!

The corollary is that very few of the people I fly with fully understand the automatics because they want to 'hand fly' - which results in little or no mode selection directions! And when they do try, their ability (or lack of) to multitask shows through!

Well that should be remedied now that the F/Os will get more exposure!

Well, apparently now there's plenty to go round.

Crew Complement
 

Yep,,, now 6 or 7 years as SO before upgrade and a similar bump for FO to Capt.

"Time to Win" , errrr, just not for you.. :sad:

So, let me get this straight: for someone with a bit of experience, you could be a Captain at HKE in less than half the time you will spend as a SO in CX? Ok, that becomes a tough decision.

Maybe the Check & Trainers could send another letter......

Now that's funny :D

Or, maybe 100 line pilots can try writing a letter and attaching their names to it.

Go for it Liam and Steve....I mean, seriously, go for it. My name was on the trainers letter.

Put your pens to paper....

I will happily sign such a letter. The FO in this situation will be unsafe. A few maydays because of
pilot incapacitation should do the trick. Especially in good ole America.

To what end? Unless you're prepared to take some sort of action when nothing happens as a result of your protest then all you're doing is shouting at windmills.

Whilst I applaud the initiative of those trainers who signed the letter, how many of them resigned when nothing came of it? Few, if any I suspect. To those who remained, I don't think you can have it both ways, that is, complain about something that you vehemently disagree with and then continue to support the activities that you complained about. I think the phrase is, "Put your money where your mouth is"

"incompasitation". :D

Sounds horrible..........:sad:

Seriously?

So you've never once taken a sector as RQ? Really?

Fixed it, dam spell check!