CI400
 

Why has this NOTAM caused such uproar?

Correct me if wrong, is it not merely giving us the option to CI400 without to explain. Hence simply being a step up from the previous CI250-300 which was commonly planned to make up delays, protect connections etc?

Has anyone been dispatched with CI400 since the NOTAM?

Not quite uproar but rather a degree of amusement I would say.

Having the vast majority of EK flights now planned at CI400 makes a complete farce of the expectation to only use idle reverse and single engine taxy etc.

All EK flights (except ULR and Freighter), will now be dispatched with CI400.

CI400? As is, most flights are arriving long before schedule. Whats is the logic begind .845 Mach flights arriving that early when they are short of gates? What happened to "protect the gate"

First it was RTA, then it was dont depart early and slow down enroute, now it's CI 400. And you get to fly really fast to spend more time in the Desdi hold.

A certain person who used to fix planes, and hates pilots has been promoted so far out of his depth, that the "ideas' are now just silly.

Does anyone in the bouncy castle actually have any idea what is going on?

Considering CI400 is way over LRC on the john deer (B777 CI180=LRC=~.84) they are giving up 1.5-2% in fuel burn per sector. Is fuel really that cheap? Closest to that is Saudia operating CI500 outbound from RUH/JED tankering like crazy.

WTF is. EK doing? Burning away the bonus?

I don't think EK has any idea what they are doing anymore. As someone said on here a few weeks ago....It is like watching a drunk man tying to put out a fire with a rag soaked in petrol.......

So is it confirmed? Ever flight going forward is being dispatched CI400? Except for freighters and the ULRs?

Yes, it's what I've heard from network control.

The funny thing is having to submit a report every time you slow down for turbulence and atc!! Not to mention the embarrassment of over speeding in the climb and arriving over max landing weight due to the less fuel burn of having to slowing down.

How much man power is going to be needed to deal with all that paperwork?

I'm totally lost on this one, I've spent all my professional life trying to fly efficiently and now I have to throw that out the window! What next, taxi every where at 30kts! Speed up in the hold? CI450? TOGA takeoffs?

These planes are going to take a beating, and so are WE if we don't comply, or overspeed, or break something....

Yup CI400 is happening. Yesterday we were planned for a short mid-east turn at CI400. :ugh:

Nope, they only use 80. Although based on Saudi fuel costs, CI-500/600 would be appropriate, some powers that be, realised that burning extra fuel for the fun of it wasn't environmentally friendly.

Yep we did it, plus over a dozen level changes...

Hmmmmm, writing a CSR because you slowed down?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fy3rjQGc6lA

Super fast
 

Finally a cost index that makes sense on the Super. 👍

Do you think they are doing this for our benefit. We get paid "Rostered Block". CI400 will reduce that rostered block every month. Due to the usual environmental and ATC factors we will never be able to fly at that speed all the time. Your 95 hour month has just been reduced to 91 paid hours saving a shed load of overtime. They would rather burn the money than give it to us.
Now get back to work you lazy pilots.

J

My two penneth...

They are so short on pilots that they are getting the flight hours down to a minimum, by going faster across the fleet, so that they can get more productivity out of the pilot workforce....... = less shortage of drivers

Just a thought

J

And Jack wins today's prize.......you are spot on the money.:ok::ok:

Environmental vandalism in the name of greed.

It is totally about getting more NM per month out of us lazy pilots and the tucker chuckers in the back. Nothing else.


As far as the environment is concerned, its okay folks. One of the visionary dudes has a green vision.....so relax......


Why aren't you all resting for your next duty, and don't even think about having time for a BBQ!!!!! :zzz:

Speed up to the desdi hold , makes lots of sense.

Does any think this has anything to do with pilot numbers? Really!!

ci400
 

I wonder how the WSJ jumps into this new EK thing, CI400.

We all try to be a bit green, and EK pumps tons of gas extra into the air...
2tons extra on a 7 hr flight..... to be half an hour early.... bring it on!

This whole thing sounds like an impulsive reaction from top top top management.
Not even written down where this new rule came from.....

I feel a lot of panic on the top floor...slamming doors, pointing fingers etc.

Lets see where this goes....

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.