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.