low cost 900 hr vs EK 900 hr

[Metro man]

A few years ago I caught up with a good friend who I hadn't seen for about 15 years, he had become an Emirates B777 Captain. The first thing he did was complain about his job describing his life as a "living hell" and how he would rather be flying a B737 instead.

A couple of years after that he was grounded for a month because he couldn't sleep properly. Then they found he had developed ulcers. A few months later he resigned and is back in the UK.

In a previous life he was in an elite unit in the military and was quite a hard man but Emirates still managed to break him.

[Panther 88]

The chaps I know here that are over 50 seem to all be on hypertension medicine. Not all mind you, but a great many. They all say they never had that problem before EK. It also seems many go sick, not just the oldies, for long periods of time. The long haul pilots of yore loved the lifestyle. It is a great life style when flyin 70 or so hours a month. But 100 hours a month with only 30 days leave a year. You tell me what might be a little rougher?

[nakbin330]

Originally Posted by fivestare

The simple truth is that 900 hours per year is too much for any kind of operation. Long haul can be a pleasure if you do 3 trips per month and end up with 600 hours block in a year, and I'm sure the same applies to short haul.
Unfortunately the people who decide how much we fly only care about their bonuses, the public only care about cheap tickets and the whole system is designed so that everyone is paid to screw the people under them, and we are at the bottom.

Hear bloody hear!

[fatbus]

900 hrs is here to stay. Dump factoring would help. Or increase the min number of days off to ward off fatigue . All vacation . Large part increase in productivity and lower the threshold.

[Metro man]

Back in the good old days, a senior Captain in a legacy airline could bid to be on reserve the whole month and just have one flight to maintain recency. Obviously flight pay and allowances were reduced but basic was still high enough for a good life.

Unfortunately management caught onto it.

[Comanche]

Excellent and uncannily useful replies for this forum. Message is clear. Although I have never operated LH, I can directly relate my experience as a LH passenger to how you feel on a weekly basis. Although SH we do many sectors on an annual basis, I am rarely physically fatigued, it's rather the repetitive cycles that I experience as an emotional drain, which is probably less hard on the body in the long run. Thanks for all replies.

[Metro man]

I do one long haul flight a year from the Far East to the UK when I go on holiday. 14 hours with an 8 hour time change. It takes me a couple of days to get back to normal, during which I'm falling asleep in the afternoon and awake at 3.00am. I couldn't live like that routinely. Even a night turn around and back home at 8.00am or a 4 sector day is a pleasure in comparison.

[Flyboy_SG]

Loco 900 hrs or Long haul 900 hrs... IMHO No one has ever documented the real effects on humanbody so far, as this kind of flying is recent due to economic development, greed, greed and more greed by the airline management to make more money for the investors.

Who cares about crews long term health ? Sadly no one.

Loco or Loha, Both are equally evil on your body. It'll take a decade or two to know the real facts.
4-6 slow decompression on your body a day is as bad as the time zone changes. Remember the life of the aircrafts hull is calculated as per compression cycles?

My advise is to join a company Which offers comfortable 600-700 hrs(hopefully some still exist) , even if money is marginally less but have a balanced life and spend quality time.

Cheers