Airline Pilot Forums

Airline Pilot Forums was designed to be a community where working airline pilots can share ideas and information about the aviation field. In the forum you will find information about major and regional airline carriers, career training, interview and job seeker help, finance, and living the airline pilot lifestyle.




View Full Version : 787


stfoley23
02-19-2018, 03:09 PM
How long would it realistically take to work your way onto the 787 dreamliner?


emersonbiguns
02-19-2018, 03:29 PM
How long would it realistically take to work your way onto the 787 dreamliner?

9.378625 years.

fartsarefunny
02-19-2018, 03:51 PM
9.378625 years.

9.378626....you’re too optimistic...


jcountry
02-19-2018, 04:01 PM
9.378626....youíre too optimistic...

IDK.

Itís a very senior plane.

If the retirements really kick in, things could change fast.

PRS Guitars
02-19-2018, 04:12 PM
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.

viper548
02-19-2018, 04:52 PM
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.

Al Czervik
02-19-2018, 08:04 PM
The really, really cool thing about the 787 is that it has a yoke to stare at for 14 hours.

Saabs
02-19-2018, 11:02 PM
The really, really cool thing about the 787 is that it has a yoke to stare at for 14 hours.

Hey you need that mechanical advantage with a big yoke to power the hydraulic actuators.

A330FoodCritic
02-20-2018, 12:53 AM
hey you need that mechanical advantage with a big yoke to power the hydraulic actuators.

That's funny :D

Sliceback
02-20-2018, 06:02 AM
Hey you need that mechanical advantage with a big yoke to power the hydraulic actuators.

Head smacking truth!!!! What a waste of space.

But Airbus has a side stick and Boeing canít admit someone has a better mouse trap.

DarinFred
02-20-2018, 06:36 AM
Because thatís how Boeing has always done it. Seems appropriate for AA too...

AFPirate
02-20-2018, 06:52 AM
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.

TallFlyer
02-20-2018, 09:09 AM
WHEN the retirements really kick in, things WILL change fast.
Fixed it for you.

jcountry
02-20-2018, 09:16 AM
Fixed it for you.

I sure hope so!

mainlineAF
02-20-2018, 09:33 AM
Head smacking truth!!!! What a waste of space.



But Airbus has a side stick and Boeing canít admit someone has a better mouse trap.



Same with Airbus not admitting moving thrust levers when using auto throttles are better. 🤦🏻*♀️

Al Czervik
02-20-2018, 10:22 AM
Same with Airbus not admitting moving thrust levers when using auto throttles are better. 🤦🏻*♀️

Looking for something to guard?

Arado 234
02-22-2018, 07:37 AM
Looking for something to guard?

That's what 121.5MHz is for! Duh!

TQ Nola
03-03-2018, 02:08 PM
But Airbus has a side stick and Boeing canít admit someone has a better mouse trap.

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

jcountry
03-08-2018, 04:11 AM
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

Ditto.

Filler

DarinFred
03-08-2018, 07:20 AM
Why are moving auto throttles better?

Thedude
03-09-2018, 04:56 PM
Why are moving auto throttles better?

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?

450knotOffice
03-09-2018, 11:33 PM
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.

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?

DarinFred
03-10-2018, 07:08 AM
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?

Nope. The AB power management is pretty spot on.

Sliceback
03-10-2018, 07:51 AM
Nope. The AB power management is pretty spot on.

Thatís funny. Which is why the AB has no stabilized power requirement?
400í - idle. 100í - 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.

DarinFred
03-10-2018, 08:59 AM
What are you talking about? Are you on the AB?

Sliceback
03-10-2018, 11:10 AM
Iím talking about the AB Ďauto thrustí real world operations.

Does the AB have any stable power requirements below 1000í?

R57 relay
03-11-2018, 05:55 AM
Iím talking about the AB Ďauto thrustí real world operations.

Does the AB have any stable power requirements below 1000í?

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.

R57 relay
03-11-2018, 06:47 AM
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.

Errrrr...."spooled"

Sliceback
03-11-2018, 02:06 PM
Errrrr...."spooled"

Same verbiage as the Boeing fleets. Right from the Advisory Circular. But on the Boeing you can prevent the throttles from making large thrust reductions. On the AB the schoolhouse answer was to just let the auto thrust do it's thing. Riding the jumpseat I've seen it go to idle, after previouslymaking large thrust reductions, because it got tired of being 8 kts fast due to summer thermals into MIA.

DarinFred
03-11-2018, 07:04 PM
How often do you mess with the auto throttles on the 777?

Seriously, Iíve never had any issue with the AB FADEC on either engine. Spool up time is plenty quick, even from ďidleĒ.

450knotOffice
03-11-2018, 10:42 PM
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.

Sliceback
03-12-2018, 12:10 PM
How often do you mess with the auto throttles on the 777?

Seriously, Iíve never had any issue with the AB FADEC on either engine. Spool up time is plenty quick, even from ďidleĒ.

In gusty conditions, or summer thermals, itís very common on a/c with moving throttles to prevent the auto throttles from making large power reductions. In auto thrust mode on the AB that isnít an option. Active throttle lever intervention reduces the amount of power adjustments and the peak power levels excursions. Which is why Iím a big fan of auto thrust/auto throttles off unless weather conditions make a higher level of sutomation more prudent.

N10DJ
03-26-2018, 10:40 AM
https://www.investors.com/news/boeing-ge-winners-american-airlines-order/

I wonder how true this is...

Cheddar
03-30-2018, 02:23 PM
Rumor is we have agreed to order more 787-9ís. Those along with the 20(?) -8ís 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 772ís as well based on how well they perform. 100 787ís 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

sumwherelse
03-30-2018, 03:59 PM
Rumor is we have agreed to order more 787-9ís. Those along with the 20(?) -8ís 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 772ís as well based on how well they perform. 100 787ís 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

Thatís nice but damn I was looking forward to that 350. Oh well guess I gotta get used to ďthe canĒ as a table.

Name User
03-30-2018, 04:39 PM
Rumor is we have agreed to order more 787-9ís. Those along with the 20(?) -8ís 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 772ís as well based on how well they perform. 100 787ís 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
That is the inference I got from Vasu's talk as well. The 787-8 is a slight upgauge on the 767-300. But commonality would be nice, something they (finally) seem keen on.

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.

Floobs
03-30-2018, 07:00 PM
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.

I would be good with that.

Cheddar
03-31-2018, 06:27 PM
Me too. Except I wish Boeing would embrace the sidestick/tray table.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Pilot X
03-31-2018, 08:32 PM
Me too. Except I wish Boeing would embrace the sidestick/tray table.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How bout a stowable yoke?

vroll1800
03-31-2018, 09:41 PM
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.

Andy
03-31-2018, 09:53 PM
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.

I've flown the 757/767/777/787. While the 787 is (for all practical purposes) an updated 777, there are too many differences to justify common type. Sure, one could fly both the 777 and 787 at the same time, but there are enough differences to keep them different fleets. There are far less differences between the 757 and 767 than the 777 and 787. JMO.


By the way, I agree with a previous poster where he mentioned the optimal airline fleet would be 319/320/321 narrowbody and 777/787 widebody.

And yes, yokes suck. Sidesticks rule.

TallFlyer
04-06-2018, 04:30 PM
How bout a stowable yoke?
Which could be really great, right up until the A/P kicks off unexpectedly for some reason......

Pilot X
04-06-2018, 06:17 PM
Which could be really great, right up until the A/P kicks off unexpectedly for some reason......

Couldnít you then unstow it? Nice and fast like a tray table

Al Czervik
04-06-2018, 06:24 PM
Which could be really great, right up until the A/P kicks off unexpectedly for some reason......

Had a laugh thinking about the reaction to this.

TallFlyer
04-06-2018, 09:02 PM
Couldnít you then unstow it? Nice and fast like a tray table



Perhaps. Have to stow the hypothetical tray table first, which might be difficult if you might have hypothetical meal on the hypothetical tray table.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Cheddar
04-07-2018, 09:48 AM
Or you could just have a hypothetical sidestick with a hypothetical tray table that holds hypothetical crew meals.

If only a company could do this[emoji848]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

OVBIII
04-08-2018, 07:48 AM
While I know fleet total doesnít necessarily drive the total pilot count, what do yíall think this does to pilot utilization? Is this better for us or worse? (I donít know if I am asking the question correctly)

Sliceback
04-08-2018, 10:46 AM
In bases that see w/b consolidation, which reduces the number of w/b bid statuses, there will be a slight reduction in reserves needed.

A330FoodCritic
04-08-2018, 12:09 PM
While I know fleet total doesnít necessarily drive the total pilot count, what do yíall think this does to pilot utilization? Is this better for us or worse? (I donít know if I am asking the question correctly)

Less plane switching so less training needed so fewer pilots needed.

OVBIII
04-08-2018, 02:43 PM
Thanks yíall.



Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.1