|
I have worked for four 737 operators including EZY and RYR. Those two were the most awful for how they treat their crews, but they had the best operational standards. RYR is surprisingly high quality operationally, whatever you feel about their customer relations. They're certainly a lot safer than EZY, in my opinion, but the ignorant seem to love them.
|
So, written technical, mathematics and English test, psychological profiling, hour long interviews and sim sessions on an unfamiliar type handling procedural instrument flight and unexpected, unbriefed emergencies and attempts to overload candidates' capacity are worthless assessments then? Staring at inverted images of stick men with marshalling bats and playing computer games with simple cross hairs and circles is so much more relevant and indicative...:ugh:
Thank you gentlemen. You have confirmed my fears that many of the tankies and truckies will be an immature and arrogant bunch of fools with false preconceptions about their (probably more experienced) peers. I pity the wiser and more decent members of that fraternity who have to put up with you. I don't think Airtanker planned to have the civvy crews do the refuelling sorties, just the troop and cargo flights, given that there is no similar experience to be had in civilian aviation, but it would not be outside the capability of many of the better civil pilots if given the training, which is the group that Airtankers's assessments should be able to select. I think I'll give this a miss - there seem to be too many big headed kids amongst you to be worth the effort and the pay cut. |
Notwithstanding your operating skills and experience, Whippersnapper, which are probably considerable, given some of the aerodromes certain airlines use these days - but did you actually take pride in your work?
Or was it 'just a job'? I really cannot imagine anyone being proud of flying for one 737 operator in particular... Tough times in RAF training aren't new - you should have seen the late 1970s! |
"Quote: Originally Posted by cornish-stormrider View Post Why do they buy new jets - less things to break and therefore less cost to maintain (for now) Yup, crap business model, large depreciation, frequent turnover of kit, need to maintain a large disposal sales organisation. Much better to buy outright and run for 40-50 years; corner the world market in spares as sole user and get them cheap." So, we get brand new, reliable jets, to our own specification, guaranteeing fleet commonality, run them for several years and then sell them at a profit before they start getting expensive to maintain or having tech issues that disrupt the schedule. Yeah, bad business model... Sorry PN, I didn't spot the ironic tone in your post when you wrote the part I quoted - we're singing from the same sheet. |
"Notwithstanding your operating skills and experience, Whippersnapper, which are probably considerable, given some of the aerodromes certain airlines use these days - but did you actually take pride in your work? Or was it 'just a job'? I really cannot imagine anyone being proud of flying for one 737 operator in particular... Tough times in RAF training aren't new - you should have seen the late 1970s!" I don't know exactly what went on in the 70s, but I imagine with the cuts and economy of the time, it must have been comparable to the present. |
Originally Posted by cornish-stormrider
(Post 5891717)
I think we ought to settle this one here and now - on one hand we have Beagle, old, a bit doddery, possibly getting a bit chubby and going mutton. On the other hand we have Mikey the ***** "evil empire".
Who would you rather fly you home??? Despite not having the pleasure of meeting him, Beags gets my vote every time. Even though he's an old fart. Flown Ryan Air and Easy Jet on numerous occasions and provided you can get your head round the "you get what you pay for" notion as we have then they are fine and dandy. Ryanair pushes the limit of every law they think they can get away with - with an attitude like that how much do you want to bet maintenance is cost/benefitted out as thinly as possible. Go read the Chinook thread and you will quickly see that we in the Armed Forces seem to have been some what negligent when it comes to airworthiness for years. Wny do they buy new jets - less things to break and therefore less cost to maintain (for now) |
Why not a reserve system like the Yank "associate" program? Get ex-RAF pilots to do their airline job and part-time AT flying. If you want, you could "grow" pilots like our system does, send them thru RAF selection process, flying training and then they get an airline career but are committed to a mini,um amount of RAF flying. Winners all 'round!
Oh, wait a minute, an outside idea that works? PREPOSTEROUS GF |
Jeez - can esploded, Wurms everywhere!
Sorry whip, I was bringing a flight safety point to a business model - thanks for proving my point. So you sack pilots who make an honest mistake and own up? not very human factors friendly is it? Coz the last guy in the world who will forget wheels is one who slid a herc down the runway isn't it. Wheels? am I sure? one more for luck? Keep going down your business case model - we don't need the kit, it costs money. can we slip that 50 bazillion hour check (or whatever) Once an airline (like any business) has trimmed all the fat out of its operation and has started to trim the muscle then pain and failure will inevitably follow. Oh and Sleezy is on my **** list too. |
Moving away from the LoCo good/bad pilots compared to QSP argument, I reckon there is a double standard with regard to medical requirements.
Passing the time of day with the AME while at OASC for a RAuxAF commission, I enquired about whether all Air Experience Tutor pilot's had to be QSP's, and whether any Reserve personnel with FIC's could instruct. AME's response was that AEF medical requirements were getting stricter, and that a JAR Class 1 medical did not translate to a RAF medical pass, even for ground roles. So does this mean that the crew flying a tanker asset, in a potential conflict, with millions of euros of fast movers relying on them, will have a lesser medical requirement than the QSP taking an Air cadet up for a 20 min air experience flight? (Oh, and if I could, I'd want to be in that A330 crew, just need the A330 TR and a bit (ok an awful lot more experience....)) |
Yes, I do take pride in what I do, but I can't take pride in the company, and that is very disappointing, even demoralising after a long time. The same goes for many of my colleagues. That's why I want to get out of the low-cost sector and do something more challenging, important and psychologically rewarding - the guys in loco airlines that do the best they possibly can tend to get stomped on the most by managers that want to beat everyone down. It's the old "tall poppy syndrome I hope you will be able to find employment with someone you can feel proud to work for. |
course-profile - I would not compare the abilities of mil vs civ.
I just stated my preference to who I'd fly with. from the sounds of it the civ world has a quite in depth selection and training regieme - why don't we let them fly into the stan then? it sounds easier than some of your tricky approach airports. while we are on this topic Iam reminded about the headline from the flight to gay paris from the taffistan that had to turn back - reason being pilot not qualified to land in fog. poor planning wot? Seldom - I do follow the chinny. herc and nimrod threads - I never said the mob was perfect. Sadly in having leaders that have become business managers and cost of everything/value of nothing this s where we found ourselves. I bet Beags and some the other old guys saw the start if the changes with a sense of dread foreboding. I also think it temps the gods (who are fickle) to bang on about your 100% safety record, pride cometh before a fall. (and I hope its of Mikey down a flight of steps who ends up with a spilled drink and injured pride) rather than a full jet out of the big blue. fly safe - whatever takes your fancy. |
Iam reminded about the headline from the flight to gay paris from the taffistan that had to turn back "They had to turn back to Cardiff..... That's amazing. There's actually an airport at Cardiff?". Probably got him in the dwang, yet again.... |
Beagle, thank you.
Sp6, I can see no reason why Airtanker would need to restrict themselves to a JAA Class1 medical - they could set higher standards and I would have already expected them to do so. However, RAF medicine is not always the best and can be well behind the times, like many protocols within the services and public sector at large (and the airline industry too, in case anyone thinks I'm trying to be anti-service). There is no reason to apply the same medical requirements to a tanky or trucky as to a GR7 or Typhoon driver. Somewhere in between is a sensible compromise. C-S, that sort of thing does occasionally happen, but it's rare and is usually down to the rostering/crewing clerks messing up. It happened to me on a night stop in Madrid: I took a 737 300 (Classic) out. The next day, I walked out to the aircraft that had just come in with the next stopping crew, and they had brought a 700 that neither I nor the Captain were qualified to operate! Most airlines face such cock ups when they are replacing fleets, but issues like the Low Vis Ops example are rare - almost all European operators with Cat III equipped aircraft train all their crews for LVOs. Airlines like to have their fleets of aircraft and crew equipped and trained to a common standard for simplicity of scheduling, which is why RYR are all 737-800 and why EZY are going all Airbus 319. Galaxy Flyer, the "not invented here" syndrome is just as prevalent in the airlines, each of which claims to be Airbus or "Boeing standard" in its operating procedures, yet all manage to write markedly different Standard Operating Procedures, and all claiming their way is the only safe way...:rolleyes: |
I'm not a pilot, although I am "aircrew", and I don't want to get involved in a military vs civil p***ing contest.......
However, I would say that Whippersnappers comment "I do take pride in what I do, but I can't take pride in the company....." struck a chord. It is how I have felt increasingly about the RAF, based on my personal experience of some of its senior leadership, for several years now. Just as well that I haven't got long left to do... |
Reply
Having re read your post BEagle you obviously have a very low regard of civil pilots- I find your attitude unwelcome and very turgid. The person who posted how difficult is it to fly straight and level with the A/P in also needs to refrain from offensive remarks. The reason I have posted is to clear up the idea that certain groups of pilots are better than others wrong- I've flown with some brilliant F15/16/18 pilots and I've flown with some crap Harrier/F4/F5 pilots - I've flown with brilliant pilots from BMI/ Virgin and yes Ryanair! I ve flown with crap pilots from other airlines- So you can't just make irresponsible remarks saying civil pilots don't have the capacity to run a complex tanker missions it's just not true- remember anyone can log into these forums and some guys take a real interest in what people post, so making wild remarks about capacity and ability when you really don't have a clue is irresponsible at least. If your ranting on about appitude tests etc perhaps you'd like to explain why tanker pilots were generally not top of the tree after basic flying training ? Also not every pilot is a born gifted natural - I know i wasn't it took me a VERY long time to develop spare capacity - one thing I learnt about trying to be a good pilot is being humble. I've screwed up at 90 kts in a chippy and I've screwed up at Mach2 in a shiny jet- never forgot your only as good as your last sector. So my point is don't knock civil pilots coz actually some or a lot of them are bloody good just as some military guys are- oh and for the poster who says how hard is it to fly straight and level auto pilot in ....think about this . When the military scrub because it's foggy and stack to the bar you average BA pilot gets airborne and completes his job. Also I ask you have you landed a 380 ton jet in a 35 kt crosswind on a snowy runway off a vor approach? Rant over give each pilot the respect they deserve what ever they fly
|
Biggus,
I concur fully with all you say :( |
However, I would say that Whippersnappers comment "I do take pride in what I do, but I can't take pride in the company....." struck a chord. It is how I have felt increasingly about the RAF, based on my personal experience of some of its senior leadership, for several years now. Just as well that I haven't got long left to do... |
AME's response was that AEF medical requirements were getting stricter, and that a JAR Class 1 medical did not translate to a RAF medical pass, even for ground roles. while we are on this topic Iam reminded about the headline from the flight to gay paris from the taffistan that had to turn back - reason being pilot not qualified to land in fog. poor planning wot? It seems this disillusionment is everywhere now, a sign of the times where managers/senior commanders talk about CRM, teamwork and loyalty to subordinates only as a hollow and cynical exercise. I had been hoping to go to Virgin, but that seems to be becoming more like the locos too. Friends in non aviation or defence related jobs feel the same way too. Perhaps that's what is most disappointing of all, knowing that you can't escape the culture to a place that treats people with the respect they have earned. Maybe it was ever thus? |
Having re read your post BEagle you obviously have a very low regard of civil pilots- I find your attitude unwelcome and very turgid. The person who posted how difficult is it to fly straight and level with the A/P in also needs to refrain from offensive remarks. The reason I have posted is to clear up the idea that certain groups of pilots are better than others wrong- I've flown with some brilliant F15/16/18 pilots and I've flown with some crap Harrier/F4/F5 pilots - I've flown with brilliant pilots from BMI/ Virgin and yes Ryanair! I ve flown with crap pilots from other airlines- So you can't just make irresponsible remarks saying civil pilots don't have the capacity to run a complex tanker missions it's just not true- remember anyone can log into these forums and some guys take a real interest in what people post, so making wild remarks about capacity and ability when you really don't have a clue is irresponsible at least. If your ranting on about appitude tests etc perhaps you'd like to explain why tanker pilots were generally not top of the tree after basic flying training ? Also not every pilot is a born gifted natural - I know i wasn't it took me a VERY long time to develop spare capacity - one thing I learnt about trying to be a good pilot is being humble. I've screwed up at 90 kts in a chippy and I've screwed up at Mach2 in a shiny jet- never forgot your only as good as your last sector. So my point is don't knock civil pilots coz actually some or a lot of them are bloody good just as some military guys are- oh and for the poster who says how hard is it to fly straight and level auto pilot in ....think about this . When the military scrub because it's foggy and stack to the bar you average BA pilot gets airborne and completes his job. Also I ask you have you landed a 380 ton jet in a 35 kt crosswind on a snowy runway off a vor approach? Rant over give each pilot the respect they deserve what ever they fly :rolleyes: |
Reply
BEagle - I bet those winter evenings crewed with you must have just flown by- with apologies to Capt E Blackadder
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 16:57. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.