787
How long would it realistically take to work your way onto the 787 dreamliner?
|
Originally Posted by stfoley23
(Post 2532410)
How long would it realistically take to work your way onto the 787 dreamliner?
|
Originally Posted by emersonbiguns
(Post 2532426)
9.378625 years.
|
Originally Posted by fartsarefunny
(Post 2532434)
9.378626....you’re too optimistic...
It’s a very senior plane. If the retirements really kick in, things could change fast. |
Lowest in LAX are 2001 hires (with 05’ from AWA also mixed in that seniority range). They can all hold NB CA. So we’ll probably have 2014 hires on it in 2.5 years, just looking at my seniority calculator, and standard disclaimer about economic events etc.
|
Junior LAX 787 guy is about 3750 from the bottom. Based on retirements a pilot hired today would be looking at right at 5 years to get to that seniority. There are 8 more deliveries planned between this year and 2019, so that might drop a little bit.
|
The really, really cool thing about the 787 is that it has a yoke to stare at for 14 hours.
|
Originally Posted by Al Czervik
(Post 2532579)
The really, really cool thing about the 787 is that it has a yoke to stare at for 14 hours.
|
Originally Posted by saabs
(Post 2532629)
hey you need that mechanical advantage with a big yoke to power the hydraulic actuators.
|
Originally Posted by Saabs
(Post 2532629)
Hey you need that mechanical advantage with a big yoke to power the hydraulic actuators.
But Airbus has a side stick and Boeing can’t admit someone has a better mouse trap. |
Because that’s how Boeing has always done it. Seems appropriate for AA too...
|
787 forecast
Jun Vacancy bid shows junior man at LAX 787 at 10,7xx, ORD at 9,7xx, and DFW at 8,3xx. Considering that we receive 6 more 787-900s by EOY 2018 and 2 more 787-900s by EOY 2019, I'd say the junior man number will go even lower as the category expands. I believe the company has mentioned that the DFW fleet may shrink more while the ORD fleet continues to expand. Best bets to hold it quickly would be LAX and ORD...I imagine the junior man at LAX will be around #11,500 to #12,000 once the fleet is complete by EOY 2019. We have 14,800 pilots on property...the retirements listed on APC are pretty close to what's listed on internals but don't take into account the extra 10-15% that leave early. I'd agree 4-5 years is a safe bet.
|
Originally Posted by jcountry
(Post 2532445)
WHEN the retirements really kick in, things WILL change fast.
|
Originally Posted by TallFlyer
(Post 2532916)
Fixed it for you.
|
Originally Posted by Sliceback
(Post 2532746)
Head smacking truth!!!! What a waste of space.
But Airbus has a side stick and Boeing can’t admit someone has a better mouse trap. Same with Airbus not admitting moving thrust levers when using auto throttles are better. 🤦🏻*♀️ |
Originally Posted by mainlineAF
(Post 2532943)
Same with Airbus not admitting moving thrust levers when using auto throttles are better. 🤦🏻*♀️
|
Originally Posted by Al Czervik
(Post 2532985)
Looking for something to guard?
|
Originally Posted by Sliceback
(Post 2532746)
But Airbus has a side stick and Boeing can’t admit someone has a better mouse trap. I have zero rat's a----s left to give over whether there's a yoke or not |
Originally Posted by TQ Nola
(Post 2542190)
As some bard on this very website said years ago, I'd fly an intergalactic garbage scow if the pay was right.
I have zero rat's a----s left to give over whether there's a yoke or not Filler |
Why are moving auto throttles better?
|
Originally Posted by DarinFred
(Post 2545991)
Why are moving auto throttles better?
Never had an aircraft throw in some extra power on you when you did not want it or vice versa? |
In a year of flying the 737 and almost four in the bus, The Boeing did just that way more often than the Bus. In my experience, the bus has the power where it needs to be petty much all the time. The damn 737 needed my (admittedly slight) input.
Originally Posted by Thedude
(Post 2547349)
Tactile input, plus if the airplane is doing exactly what you want you can override it with just a little pressure.
Never had an aircraft throw in some extra power on you when you did not want it or vice versa? |
Originally Posted by Thedude
(Post 2547349)
Tactile input, plus if the airplane is doing exactly what you want you can override it with just a little pressure.
Never had an aircraft throw in some extra power on you when you did not want it or vice versa? |
Originally Posted by DarinFred
(Post 2547694)
Nope. The AB power management is pretty spot on.
400’ - idle. 100’ - idle . Start of flare - power advances to more than approach power... All dealing with the typical updrafts on a Florida day. Or the up, back, up, back, power changes on the entire approach. Automation is great but it has its limitations. |
What are you talking about? Are you on the AB?
|
I’m talking about the AB ‘auto thrust’ real world operations.
Does the AB have any stable power requirements below 1000’? |
Originally Posted by Sliceback
(Post 2547893)
I’m talking about the AB ‘auto thrust’ real world operations.
Does the AB have any stable power requirements below 1000’? But, as you said, in the real world ground speed mini sometimes has thrust constantly reducing. To guys who never turn the autothrust off, try it with a flaps 3 landing. You'll see how little thrust is carried. The book says consider full for tailwind landings, I think it should say approaches or landings. |
Originally Posted by R57 relay
(Post 2548319)
Yes, the wording is "At stabilized thrust (spoiled)"
But, as you said, in the real world ground speed mini sometimes has thrust constantly reducing. To guys who never turn the autothrust off, try it with a flaps 3 landing. You'll see how little thrust is carried. The book says consider full for tailwind landings, I think it should say approaches or landings. |
Originally Posted by R57 relay
(Post 2548341)
Errrrr...."spooled"
|
How often do you mess with the auto throttles on the 777?
Seriously, I’ve never had any issue with the AB FADEC on either engine. Spool up time is plenty quick, even from “idle”. |
And what Slice speaks of is much more likely at flaps 3 than flaps full, simply due to the lower drag and resultant N1 nearer to 42% than 55-60% at flaps full. The bus is much more speed stable in gusty conditions with flaps full than with flaps 3.
|
Originally Posted by DarinFred
(Post 2548754)
How often do you mess with the auto throttles on the 777?
Seriously, I’ve never had any issue with the AB FADEC on either engine. Spool up time is plenty quick, even from “idle”. |
https://www.investors.com/news/boeing-ge-winners-american-airlines-order/
I wonder how true this is... |
Rumor is we have agreed to order more 787-9’s. Those along with the 20(?) -8’s we already have will replace the 767/330 fleets in the coming years. We have 58 787 options left, I would expect a majority of those will be firmed up as orders to replace the 55(?) airplanes currently making up 767/330 fleet. I would guess the -10 will be looked at to replace older 772’s as well based on how well they perform. 100 787’s would be nice and provide a lot of fleet reliability as far as basing/crewing options across the system.
Boeing must have cut a heck of a deal to get us out of the A350 commitment! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
Originally Posted by Cheddar
(Post 2561962)
Rumor is we have agreed to order more 787-9’s. Those along with the 20(?) -8’s we already have will replace the 767/330 fleets in the coming years. We have 58 787 options left, I would expect a majority of those will be firmed up as orders to replace the 55(?) airplanes currently making up 767/330 fleet. I would guess the -10 will be looked at to replace older 772’s as well based on how well they perform. 100 787’s would be nice and provide a lot of fleet reliability as far as basing/crewing options across the system.
Boeing must have cut a heck of a deal to get us out of the A350 commitment! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
Originally Posted by Cheddar
(Post 2561962)
Rumor is we have agreed to order more 787-9’s. Those along with the 20(?) -8’s we already have will replace the 767/330 fleets in the coming years. We have 58 787 options left, I would expect a majority of those will be firmed up as orders to replace the 55(?) airplanes currently making up 767/330 fleet. I would guess the -10 will be looked at to replace older 772’s as well based on how well they perform. 100 787’s would be nice and provide a lot of fleet reliability as far as basing/crewing options across the system.
Boeing must have cut a heck of a deal to get us out of the A350 commitment! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk I get the impression if Parker was doing the orders for both carriers we'd be a 319/320/321 and 787-8/9/10 carrier. |
Originally Posted by Name User
(Post 2562018)
I get the impression if Parker was doing the orders for both carriers we'd be a 319/320/321 and 787-8/9/10 carrier. |
Me too. Except I wish Boeing would embrace the sidestick/tray table.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
Originally Posted by Cheddar
(Post 2562592)
Me too. Except I wish Boeing would embrace the sidestick/tray table.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
Momentary Thread Drift: Going forward, would taking a type ride in B777, or B787 come with a common type rating ? If so, I don't see any indication of interest for mixed fleet operations like some airlines do with B757/B767 fleet. Thanks, returning to original thread subject reading.
|
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:28 AM. |
User Alert System provided by
Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Website Copyright ©2000 - 2017 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands