Pre-interview details to clear up

[Blogsey]

Hi all,
Interview soon.

Trying to nut out the exact number of aircraft CX owns, as I have some conflicting info.

From the CX website:

Aircraft operated by CX

105

Boeing 777-300 12
Boeing 777-200 5
Boeing 747-400 24
Boeing 747-400BCF 6
Boeing 747-400F 6
Boeing 747-200F 7
Airbus A340-300 15
Airbus A330-300 27
Airbus A340-600 3
Orders
Airbus A330-300 5
Boeing 777-300ER 18
Boeing 747-400BCF 2
Boeing 747-400ERF 6
Can people confirm this is the most up to date info? If you click on the "our fleet" link and then individual aircraft, it comes up with different figures as does the recent "airline directory" information out of Flight International magazine (Apr 07). The numbers above (totalling 105) are on the "Fact sheet" link.
Also confirm Chris Pratt is Chairman, Tony Tyler CEO, so Philip Chan is out of the Cathay Management and into Swire?

Have heard one of the 742F's is retiring?
Cheers all.

[Blogsey]

Wikipedia differences:

A330-300 26
747-400 21 (17 standard, 4 premium)

and no figures on the Freighters....

Go ahead enthusiasts....

And I meant Philip Chen

[Blogsey]

Thanks mate. Great stuff.

[axeman1011]

Study more important material

You all crack me up: Studying and memorizing numbers like the exact specs of the 747 engines, and specific fleet numbers. I don't think those things are nearly as important as just being yourself and having a sound understanding of aviation knowledge.
Just FYI: I got through phase 1 knowing nothing at all about their fleet numbers or 747 systems (I was able to generalize, but I had no AFM material or the likes), so I think you guys are venturing into overkill territory.

[Blogsey]

so I think you guys are venturing into overkill territory.

To a certain extent I agree, however better to be prepared.....

Various questions from about half a dozen colleagues recent interviews:

• Do these aircraft have stab tanks (744/A343)?
• What type of engines do Cathay's 777 models have?
• What does the HT mean in RB-211HT?
• Explain how the RB211 works - use the white board to draw if you like?
• How many aircraft in the fleet?
• Can you give me the fleet breakdown?
• What was our 100th aircraft?
• What engines does the A340-600 have?
• What about this aircraft? (pointing to the B747-400 model
• Are they the only engines on CX’s 747-400s?
• Design features of the RB211?
• Disadvantages of RB211?
• Cathay fleet breakdown including orders?
• Differences between B777 and B777ER?
• Explain the fuel system of the B777?
• How is it different to the A330/340 and B744?
• Why GE engines on the A340-300?

[Wing Flex]

Why GE engines on the A340-300?

Good question, I thought they were CFM56-5C4's not GE's...

Maybe consider what CFM means? A few have been asked that.

I got through phase 1 knowing nothing at all about their fleet numbers or 747 systems (I was able to generalize, but I had no AFM material or the likes), so I think you guys are venturing into overkill territory.

Be prepared for phase 2 Axeman1011, Goodluck to you!

[axeman1011]

Well kudos to you all for your dedication!

Yeah, I'm sure phase II won't be easy, but I guess I'm not used to hearing such questions from an interview panel. If it was any other airline asking me, I would have to laugh in their face but I guess Cathay isn't any other airline. Good luck to you all, sounds like you're all preparing hard for this thing so hope it works out.

[YellowFever]

CFMs...

My understanding on the CFM engines is that a) CFM doesn't stand for anything, as it is the initials of the companies involved with the creation of the CFM (Snecma of France used it's M56 plans, and GE used it's CF6 plans to create the CFM56) and that the engine kinda blows, as it has a very high fuel burn per mile... From what I've read, the only reason the 340-300s have the CFM engines is because that was the only engine offered, and when it was new (and fuel was still relatively cheap) Airbus offered fuel concessions in order to make the aircraft more economically competitive with Boeing from an end-user's point of view. Now that the fuel concessions have expired, and the price of fuel is so high, I understand that there is very little good to be said about these engines. Is this more or less accurate? I hate to say anything negative in an interview, so I would love to know if there are up sides to this engine, in terms of maintenance costs or some such...

Yellow

[Kane Toed]

I'm not sure

A comparison between 2 CX types over the same route might be appropriate:

Lets use HKG – YVR.

A340-300 uses approximately 84,500 kg of fuel, and carries 287 pax.
Thus 84,500 / 287 = 294.4 kg burned per pax.

B744 uses approximately 127,000 kg of fuel and carries 381 pax.
127,000 / 381 = 333.3 kg burned per pax.

It must be noted that the 744 is in a 3-class fit, the A340 is a 2-class configuration over this route, so the increased revenue raised from the Boeing will offset the increased burn slightly. Naturally the -400 is much quicker too (assuming it can get its level)!

I know that there is more to aircraft running costs than fuel alone, but it is a pretty big one in the current climate. The 343 is actually pretty cheap to run. Now when the 777ER comes along that’ll be a different matter of course.

I’m sure that some will disagree with my argument!

[YellowFever]

payloads...

Sorry, Kane Toed, I know you are there, while I am just trying to get in the door, but I was using SFCs published by both engine manufacturers... Since most (at least in the states) airlines are making more profit on cargo than pax, even on pax flights, I think the numbers to look at are more payload/fuel burn... I don't know how realistic it is to take of with max payload and enough fuel to make the flight, HKG-YVR, so if you have better numbers that would be cool, but I googled and found 747 71000kg payload/127000 kg fuel whereas the A340 gets 43500 kg payload/84500 kg fuel, or .56 kg revenue per kg vs .51 kg revenue per kg fuel. Of course this assumes bulking out the aircraft, every flight, and I was surprised at how close they ended up, with the CFMs SFCs so low compared to all the other engines used at CX (can I throw any more initials in??).

I know I've drifted this off topic, but hell, I gotta learn somehow!

[Woof etc]

In both interviews for DEFO I was asked specific details on fleet numbers, no of pilots, 747 fuel system, engine types, key personnel etc. so I would definitely revise this sort of information. Ultimately it shows that you are serious about flying for Cathay and have done your homework.

[Blogsey]

no of pilots

??

Can you confirm how many?

[quadspeed]

This is bordering on insanity. I got through the interviews, as did most of the other "average joes" with me.

I had no idea of fleet structure or numbers; I just knew that they had about 100 aircraft. I don't have a TR on any of the aircraft operated by CX, and therfore have no idea how their systems work. What possible relevance could it have to know the engine types on the airbus 340 fleet? To show you're interested? Hardly... tells the interviewers more about your lifestile and lack of hobbies than enything else. Or memorizing the hydraulics systems of the 777? To start confusing them with my current type?

Know your current aircraft. That's what they expect. To make a broad general statement after trawling through this forum for a while, it seems that the keenest candidates (bought all the books, know every f()cking detal, spent a sh1tload on sim prep) are the ones who don't make it through. Anyone familiar with airforce screening will see this as no surprise.

For most of the guys I know who actually recieved an offer, none of them had bought any "sim-time". (It's all about pitch and power, which you either learned or didn't learn in flightschool. If you want to refresh, rent a LINK.) And none of them had bought "the books." As for the ones hyping on about "captain ABC" or "acing the interviews" and renting a 747 for 600 bucks an hour.... most of them are still where they were.

Be realistic. Do your homework, read the annual report, review your aerodynamics and performance, understand your current operations and procedures, and you'll do fine. Show an ability to learn, and show an ability to admit to the things you don't know. And it probably goes without saying, but do not "take a guess" at anything you're not sure of. Chances are you'll do the same thing in the cockpit one day, setting the stage of the ever present error-chain to develop.

And of course you'll be..

"asked specific details on fleet numbers, no of pilots, 747 fuel system, engine types, key personnel etc."

an interview is after all a conversation. It's your reaction to the questions that matters.


Just my two cents.

[Kane Toed]

Some good points but...

Good for you quadspeed, your approach obviously worked in your case, but it might not be appropriate for everyone. Certainly as far as the sim prep is concerned, I would guess that some people who have neither flown a very large aircraft nor have your level of natural ability will feel more comfortable if the assessed interview is not the first time that they experience this environment.

You clearly have exceptional piloting skills which you will have ample opportunity to exhibit throughout your time in CX. Again however, many of us (definitely including myself) are significantly further towards the only-just-average at flying! In these cases, some dollars spent before the big event might buy peace of mind - I know that it did in my case. As you well know, if you fail the simulator evaluation, CX do not invite you back...

Finally, as you are already well established at CX, I think that you should be careful about suggesting that applicants should not

know every f()cking detal (sic)

I completely agree that you should not get tied up in trivia, but as always, prior preparation prevents p'ss poor performance. Or so someone told me once.

Finally, if you are in fact involved directly in recruiting and/or interviewing for CX, then thank you for your input!

[quadspeed]

Sir

You clearly have exceptional piloting skills which you will have ample opportunity to exhibit throughout your time in CX.

Why the need for the sarcasm? Where in my post did I make any reference to my own flying abilities? An assesment is just that; an assesment. When assessing a SO/FO candidate, you look for several things, one of them being the ability to make progress during training. Just for the sake of argument, it could be said that spending 600 dollars on a 742 simulator, thus elliminating the "normal" errors a novice jet pilot will make in regards to spool up time and a/c momentum at this stage (without the assesment team present) will leave the candidate with less of a chance of passing the assesment then if he never did so in the first place. I am of the opinion that if your basic scan is weak, your time is much better spent in a basic ELITE or computer based professional instrument trainer than it is with a 4-hour 747 sim block. The assesors will have seen enough candidates through their career, most of

who have neither flown a very large aircraft

and do just fine.

The sim-briefing given by CX is accurate and extensive, and provides the candidate necessary numbers both when it comes to pitch, EPR and configuration changes. Keep your eyes locked on the ADI, fly the thrust settings, and you'll do just fine. If the numbers don't quite match the targets, make the necessary corrections on the second time around and you'll be fine.

I completely agree that you should not get tied up in trivia, but as always, prior preparation prevents p'ss poor performance. Or so someone told me once.

I hope I didn't understate the need for preperation, that was not my intention. But it is a matter of priority. I would recommend you rather spend the extra minutes on your own a/c systems than on some widebody you may or may not fly at some point in your furture career. Like I said, review your aerodymanics (especially if you already operate on jets), operating procedures and performance; and don't underestimate meteorology and navigation. It all comes down to a question of motivation.

[Mink]

"It all comes down to a question of motivation."

And comfort level.

Generally, I agree with your points. However, if doing sim prep and studying other facts and figures helps ease the interview jitters, then it's money and time well spent, I say.

I have not interviewed with CX, but did a 1/2 dozen "major" airline interviews pre-9/11, back when an airline pilot career was worth pursuing, and I spent the time and money on sim prep and all sorts of other stuff, just to put me more at ease for the big day. It paid off in terms of job offers, at least in my case.

Of course, those jobs are long gone now but that's another story...

[Blogsey]

So a post asking Company fleet and pilot numbers in a wannabes forum "borders on insanity". riiiight......

Anyway, how many pilots does cathay have.

Personally when asked the question, I'd prefer to say "xxx" rather than I don't know. Just me.
As for the sim - I've got mates from heavy lift to fighter backgrounds all saying the same thing. "Do the practice sim".

Anyway, back to working out how a bloody Typhoon forms......

[nike]

quadspeed....completely agree.

[capt_einz111]

2153 cockpit crew according to Discovery magazine June 2007

[quadspeed]

So a post asking Company fleet and pilot numbers in a wannabes forum "borders on insanity". riiiight......

Best of luck to you. There's no hidden agenda in my post, and you're of course free to bang your head against whatever suits your needs. I was trying to help you.

As for the sim - I've got mates from heavy lift to fighter backgrounds all saying the same thing. "Do the practice sim".

Wonderful. Then we agree to disagree.

Best of luck with the selection process.