Just release the parking brake as soon as you can now. Let that clock run whilst waiting in the queue for push and start.

E.R..................:ok::D:ok:

When the hangover subsides on Sunday morning, the CI joyride shall pass too.

I can see a benefit to EK at the midnight arrival bank. If they block in at 2329 or earlier, it's an extra day to them to use crew, no?

K

CI 400…fuel prices down,and 20% salary increase…easy maths !

Or perhaps the pay rise has now been budgeted to cover the increase in fuel costs.

What's really sad about the whole scheme of things at the moment is - if there were reasonable people at Fleet Mgt level and there was a 'treat the boys and girls like Southwest Airlines' ie boost morale, genuinely listen to concerns and act on them, use a respectful and appreciative tone in wash-ups and emails, use pragmatic big picture solutions to swap issues etc - then this problem would not be so severe.

Yes 92 hours is too much but most of the guys I know who are committed here for a few years due kids age are sick and tired of the treatment, the arrogance and the tone of certain individuals. They had EGT & others in there being the face and mouth of Fleet for years and yet somehow thought that this arrogance and punitive culture would not have an affect once choices developed in the market.

It's not just an reduction in hours and and increase in pay that is needed to keep people - it's cultivating stake holders that is key to retention.

Take the CI 400. I guarantee you if this happened in DAL or SWA etc there would have been a fleet wide email to the tune of: "Ladies & Gents, let us explain the recent development..."

Here, not a chance and and as long as the culture of zero professional respect continues...people will head for the exit.

Head scratching ....again.

f.

With a simple NOTAM, there's little room for errors.




















With an FCI, they run a high risk of spelling/grammatical errors, and a PROB30 that the whole FCI won't make any sense at all! That in turn would have to inevitably be recalled, amended incorrectly, then recalled again. Thus the NOTAM and no explanation.

Suddenly I feel like a monkey in a circus.

I feel like one for a long time.

Whine, whine, whine!

CI400 - yes please! Bring it on.... :ok:

The lack of explanation is typical of EK middle management incompetence, much like the amendment to the additional fuel policy last year that was only explained about a week after introduction. What is really amusing is the incredulous comments from ATC when requesting the flights present Mach number. On my Europe flight today we had no less than four ATC requests to slow down due to preceding traffic and two requests to change levels due slower traffic ahead. All a bit of laugh really. I won't complain to much because I don't particularly want to spend any more time in the seat than absolutely necessary but a short explanation to the crews as to the intent of the policy might go some way towarpds making the crew feel part of this "Awesome Team" as I hear us described so frequently in the company rag.

Something big has precipitated this and I doubt that we minions will ever know the true reason but I don't see it lasting long in a practical sense, so enjoy it while you can.

You are giving the muppets too much credit. They have no freaking clue why they changed it. You have seen them try and work out manning numbers, do you really expect this to be any different?
This isn't our train set. If it breaks we don't get paid any extra to fix it. Sit back, stay safe and watch with amusement. I am sure there will be plenty of more things on the way.

Are they going to adjust schedules to reflect shorter flight times?

Whatever CI is on the flight plan, who cares? Fly the most appropriate speed, as many of us have done for some time now. It's called situational awareness, something they have lost a long time ago.

As for schedules, again, who cares? The duty time starts at the same times as before, as does discretion that should not be given by responsible airmen in such an environment.

Finally it is up to each and everyone to determine when enough is enough in the name of safety. The pressing 2 with insistence on 'sick fatigued' should pop up big time if we dare to continue to call ourselves responsible and competent airmen.

Moaning is fine, but you have to do the safe thing as well.

Are they going to adjust schedules to reflect shorter flight times?
 

Block times are based on statistical flight and taxi times.


They've increased the CI to compile the statistics. Once new shorter block times are in place, we revert back to old CI.

I disagree that the motivation is to reduce block times - they're overly optimistic as it is, reducing them further then going back to slow CI doesn't add up. I call crew shortage, my rough calculation is it will save about 30hrs per pilot per year. My guess, but it would be nice to be better informed.

I was astonished at the volume of EK traffic in the Desdi hold the other night all with conflicting and similar call signs. Much kudos to all you EK professionals and ATC for keeping cool and amazingly error - free. If ever there was an example of systemic and corporate set up for potential serious error there it is. TEM in action.

I know 95h rosters for 777 FOs have become more common this last couple of months but just spoke with a mate who was rostered 99.8 in 28. Not much slack left in the system, regardless of overtime threshold. Everyone must be hitting 900.

Yorkshire Pud - that's why I think it's crew running out of hours, or, in other words not enough pilots to cover all the flying - 'if we can't make them work longer, make them work FASTER!'

TOGA, think your missing the drift here; do a comparison of CI400 to CI40 on your next flight and then do the math. I stand by my claim - it's about 4 hours per month and 30 hours per year faster.