Oct 1st UPS class
09-15-2007, 06:47 AM
#31
Line Holder
Joined APC: Dec 2005
Position: UPS/747-400
Posts: 84
Originally Posted by ChinsFive
I know RJ drivers that went (in the last year) to Cathay, Atlas, Kalitta, and one turned down a Polar job. How can they put newhires in the whale but Brown can't?
09-15-2007, 09:57 AM
#32
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: DC-8 756/767
Posts: 1,144
Originally Posted by FliFast
.
I'm not sure I follow the logic that bringing the -400 to Louisville would make the FAA happier from a safety standpoint.
FF
I'm not sure I follow the logic that bringing the -400 to Louisville would make the FAA happier from a safety standpoint.
FF
09-16-2007, 05:45 PM
#33
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2006
Position: I was acquired, Not Hired
Posts: 1,784
Ok, I'll bite, how will bringing the 747-400 to SDF make the FAA happier from a safety standpoint ?
Some, not all, of the ANC newbies are previously typed -400 drivers with time in type. And there are how many UPS pilots in SDF with the same credentials....zero.
UPSFO, I'll give you the last say, but I'd think any FAA inspector would say someone with time in type and a type rating is more experienced than someone who has never flown the plane.
FF
Some, not all, of the ANC newbies are previously typed -400 drivers with time in type. And there are how many UPS pilots in SDF with the same credentials....zero.
UPSFO, I'll give you the last say, but I'd think any FAA inspector would say someone with time in type and a type rating is more experienced than someone who has never flown the plane.
FF
Last edited by FliFast; 09-16-2007 at 06:01 PM.
09-16-2007, 05:54 PM
#34
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2006
Position: I was acquired, Not Hired
Posts: 1,784
Originally Posted by 767pilot
Isn't the point to not have them parked but keep them flying?
767,
Your point is well taken , and I do know what you're saying. Unfortunately, we're not Southwest where we can turn widebody jets in 20 minutes.
Throw in a few more variable variables...deicing, maintenance reliability of the MD11, complications involved with a ramp made for 10 aircraft that has 12-14..I greatly respect the fact that you have more experience thru ANC than I, so I know you know what I'm getting at. Boiled down, it will be great to expand ANC, but where are ya going to park the airframes, how are you going to sort the boxes thru a sort facility that's pretty small, how will you increase operations while most operations usually involve the use of one landing runway and one takeoff runway. AND, in some cases the runways can only be used in one direction...how often do you land on the 25's or 32. How often do you depart on 14...etc.
I received a pm from another UPS-er that says the ACPs and mangement read these boards and take what is said to heart...well..here's my two cents. Expand the airway facilities at ANC ! Buy more ramp space !
Ok, back to my igloo,
FF
Last edited by FliFast; 09-17-2007 at 06:45 AM.
09-17-2007, 06:07 AM
#35
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: DC-8 756/767
Posts: 1,144
Originally Posted by FliFast
Ok, I'll bite, how will bringing the 747-400 to SDF make the FAA happier from a safety standpoint ?
Some, not all, of the ANC newbies are previously typed -400 drivers with time in type. And there are how many UPS pilots in SDF with the same credentials....zero.
UPSFO, I'll give you the last say, but I'd think any FAA inspector would say someone with time in type and a type rating is more experienced than someone who has never flown the plane.
FF
Some, not all, of the ANC newbies are previously typed -400 drivers with time in type. And there are how many UPS pilots in SDF with the same credentials....zero.
UPSFO, I'll give you the last say, but I'd think any FAA inspector would say someone with time in type and a type rating is more experienced than someone who has never flown the plane.
FF
Why do you think UPS started the overwater requirement for newhires? For the hell of it??
Also, if you had an SDF base, you are correct by saying that nobody would have 400 experience, but you sure the hell would have plenty of 74 classic experience. To me, that goes a lot further than an FO with "some" 400 time and a type rating.
09-17-2007, 07:12 AM
#36
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2006
Position: I was acquired, Not Hired
Posts: 1,784
UPSFO,
Excellent points. I welcome your difference of opinion. Just a few questions, if i may...
Why would the FAA prefer to watch a senior pilot (let's say a senior displaced 727/DC8/747 Classic pilot) over a newhire that used to be a -400 Capt at Atlas/Polar/NCA, etc. ? I did talk with the "FAA" during their proving runs thru Hong Kong and I did not get the impression that seniority was preferred over time in type. Maybe a stretch on my part to keep in line with the thread, but this ties in with UPS' hiring practice to hire those with experience in type.
UPS started the overwater requirement as a bandaid for the chinese firedrill of staffing ANC (IRO position from Capt to F/O). The FAA suggested this requirement to UPS, to avoid increased scrutiny, not for the hell of it.
Finally, maybe I didn't understand your post....but how does having experience on the Classic translate to flying the -400 ? I flew the classic as a Capt before UPS and in my humble opinion, it's like comparing the 727 to the 757. Specifically, two diff. type ratings, two man cockpit, automation, nav systems, etc.
Flying the -400 is not a space shuttle launch and can be done, but in my opinion the glass-cockpit folks in SDF will transtition to the -400 easier than the steam gauge, Litton-93 folks...just my opinion..not flame bait.
For laughs, go to a Classic Capt and say "VNAV" to him, and he/she will give you the "steak and lobster" look
I appreciate your opinions, all good points...maybe if I re-read your post I wouldn't have so many questions
It will be interesting to see the future of the aircraft.
Excellent points. I welcome your difference of opinion. Just a few questions, if i may...
Why would the FAA prefer to watch a senior pilot (let's say a senior displaced 727/DC8/747 Classic pilot) over a newhire that used to be a -400 Capt at Atlas/Polar/NCA, etc. ? I did talk with the "FAA" during their proving runs thru Hong Kong and I did not get the impression that seniority was preferred over time in type. Maybe a stretch on my part to keep in line with the thread, but this ties in with UPS' hiring practice to hire those with experience in type.
UPS started the overwater requirement as a bandaid for the chinese firedrill of staffing ANC (IRO position from Capt to F/O). The FAA suggested this requirement to UPS, to avoid increased scrutiny, not for the hell of it.
Finally, maybe I didn't understand your post....but how does having experience on the Classic translate to flying the -400 ? I flew the classic as a Capt before UPS and in my humble opinion, it's like comparing the 727 to the 757. Specifically, two diff. type ratings, two man cockpit, automation, nav systems, etc.
Flying the -400 is not a space shuttle launch and can be done, but in my opinion the glass-cockpit folks in SDF will transtition to the -400 easier than the steam gauge, Litton-93 folks...just my opinion..not flame bait.
For laughs, go to a Classic Capt and say "VNAV" to him, and he/she will give you the "steak and lobster" look
I appreciate your opinions, all good points...maybe if I re-read your post I wouldn't have so many questions
It will be interesting to see the future of the aircraft.
Last edited by FliFast; 09-17-2007 at 07:30 AM.
09-17-2007, 10:00 AM
#37
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: DC-8 756/767
Posts: 1,144
Last post on the issue. I do not think there is a safety problem with the whole ANC thing. Like I said many posts ago, this is what I have heard straight from the FAA. Ask them to explain it to you. I don't fly Int. I don't fly the 74, and will, God willing, never have to go to ANC. Don't shoot the messenger.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
