Cathay
02-24-2008 | 01:18 AM
#103
Line Holder
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
I HAVE heard of problems. Not problems I guess, just "issues" to be aware of. US companies are required to allow time off (i.e. dropped trips) for military duty - foreign companies are not. I don't work at Cathay, but have spoken with reservists who do - all of which work their military schedule around the airline schedule (ENTIRELY- i.e. no mil leave). I have been told though, that if a reservist's unit were activated, then said reservist would be put on leave without pay, rather than being fired.
I'm interested in Cathay, but am somewhat hesitant for this very reason.
I'm interested in Cathay, but am somewhat hesitant for this very reason.
02-27-2008 | 06:10 PM
#104
New Hire
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
From: In Transition
What kind of quality of life would have folks doing their final flight for the pickup of their brand spankin new 777 out of Paine? Makes for an eventful way to end your career I suppose.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=00a_1204000744
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=00a_1204000744
03-02-2008 | 08:16 AM
#105
New Hire
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Capt X,Y, & Z 11th Edition, possible typo on technical quiz
Does anybody else have the book Capt X, Y, & Z 11th Edition? I have a question about a couple of questions in the technical quiz.
#22 states "A takeoff with more than normal takeoff flap setting will result in:"
The book answer is "longer takeoff distance." But the correct answer should be "shorter takeoff distance."
#67 states "What are the factors taken into account for a RLW (regulated landing weight):"
The book answer is "weight, altitude, and temperature". But the other 2 choices are "engine out overshoot performance" and "both a and". The last choice appears to be a typo because it should read "both a and b" and this should be the correct answer. #43 is pretty much the same question stating the factors for RLW are "engine out overshoot performance (weight, altitude and temperature)."
If anybody else has this book could you take a look at these questions and let me know if you came up with same thing or let me know if I have no idea what I am talking about. Thanks.
3holer
#22 states "A takeoff with more than normal takeoff flap setting will result in:"
The book answer is "longer takeoff distance." But the correct answer should be "shorter takeoff distance."
#67 states "What are the factors taken into account for a RLW (regulated landing weight):"
The book answer is "weight, altitude, and temperature". But the other 2 choices are "engine out overshoot performance" and "both a and". The last choice appears to be a typo because it should read "both a and b" and this should be the correct answer. #43 is pretty much the same question stating the factors for RLW are "engine out overshoot performance (weight, altitude and temperature)."
If anybody else has this book could you take a look at these questions and let me know if you came up with same thing or let me know if I have no idea what I am talking about. Thanks.
3holer
03-02-2008 | 12:10 PM
#106
Bored
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 445
Likes: 0
From: Grumman Torture Device (weekends only)
I think you're right for #67, but #22 is correct in the book. "Normal" would be your approved takeoff flap settings (10 or 20 degrees in the 747-200). You are correct about the difference between 10 and 20 degrees. However, in most "heavy jets" an increase in takeoff flaps beyond (again in the 742, 25 or 30) that results in significantly increased drag and a huge hit in acceleration. Very similar to the reason for setting flaps to 20 degrees immediately on a go-around.
HTH
Spongebob
HTH
Spongebob
03-02-2008 | 03:53 PM
#107
New Hire
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Spongebob,
Thanks for the reply. I always thought a greater flap setting (up to max allowable for takeoff) will decrease takeoff roll, but reduce climb gradient. Looking at the flap section of the CFL chart for the DC-10, CFL goes down as flaps increase to max takeoff flaps (25 degrees). I assumed "normal" to mean the situation where you are attempting to optimize between takeoff roll and climb gradient. But if you are climb gradient limited, this will drive a lower flap setting. If you are runway available limited, this will drive a higher flap setting to reduce CFL. I am probably stressing to much about this interview.
3holer
Thanks for the reply. I always thought a greater flap setting (up to max allowable for takeoff) will decrease takeoff roll, but reduce climb gradient. Looking at the flap section of the CFL chart for the DC-10, CFL goes down as flaps increase to max takeoff flaps (25 degrees). I assumed "normal" to mean the situation where you are attempting to optimize between takeoff roll and climb gradient. But if you are climb gradient limited, this will drive a lower flap setting. If you are runway available limited, this will drive a higher flap setting to reduce CFL. I am probably stressing to much about this interview.
3holer
03-02-2008 | 10:03 PM
#108
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,001
Likes: 0
What kind of quality of life would have folks doing their final flight for the pickup of their brand spankin new 777 out of Paine? Makes for an eventful way to end your career I suppose.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=00a_1204000744
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=00a_1204000744
Cathay Pacific chairman in cockpit during low-flying stunt
Asia Pacific News.Net
Sunday 2nd March, 2008 (IANS)
The chairman of Cathay Pacific and a senior director were in the cockpit of a new Boeing 777 when it swooped about 10 metres above an airport runway in a stunt that cost the pilot his job, the airline confirmed Sunday.
Briton Christopher Pratt, chairman of the Hong Kong-based airline, and director of engineering Christopher Gibbs were in jump seats behind chief pilot Ian Wilkinson when he performed the 'fly-by' on the $200 million plane's maiden flight out of Seattle Jan 31.
Wilkinson, 55, was feted and pictured in the company magazine upon his return to Hong Kong but then sacked after pictures and video of the stunt circulated within the company and on websites, including YouTube.
Pratt and other VIP guests were initially believed to have been in the passenger cabin and unaware how close to the ground they came during the fly-by.
However, Cathay Pacific confirmed Sunday that Pratt and director of engineering Christopher Gibbs were in fact both sitting in jump seats behind the captain in the new Boeing 777-300ER.
Two other first officers were also standing, unharnessed, inside the flight deck to watch as Wilkinson circled after take-off to fly with landing gear raised above the Boeing plane maker's Seattle airport at more than 500 km an hour.
Neither Pratt nor Gibbs complained about the pilot's manoeuvre, which was only brought into question when other officials of the Hong Kong-based airline saw pictures circulated online of the stunt five days later.
Wilkinson was fired as 777 fleet captain with Cathay Pacific Feb 21 after an internal disciplinary hearing for performing the unauthorised fly-by. His co-pilot Ray Middleton, 47, was suspended from training duties for six months. Both are Britons.
Investigators discovered Wilkinson had twice before been involved in unauthorised fly-bys over Seattle in brand new 777s - piloting one flight in 2001 and allowing one of his fleet pilots to perform a similar stunt only last year, both times while collecting new planes.
The revelation is an embarrassment for Pratt, a senior director of Cathay's British parent group Swire and Cathay Pacific's chairman since 2005. 'It makes our airline look like a bunch of cowboys,' one company insider told DPA.
'Not only did they fly very low over the runway in a passenger jet that isn't made for those kind of stunts but they had two pilots standing up at the back of the flight deck while it all happened.'
However, a Cathay Pacific spokeswoman said Pratt was on his maiden flight and had no reason to believe Wilkinson's manoeuvre had not been officially approved.
'The chairman is not an aviator and he was fully aware that the captain was in full command of the flight,' she said.
'There was no request or suggestion from anyone in Cathay Pacific for the fly-by to take place. The decision was entirely that of the captain in command.'
She called the stunt 'inappropriate and regrettable' and said the previous two fly-bys involving Wilkinson only came to light in the course of the investigation into the Jan 31 incident.
The spokeswoman dismissed suggestions that the pilot's dismissal was sparked by the images on YouTube.
'The YouTube video only confirmed what was already becoming known. The internal investigation was well underway prior to the video appearing online.'
Wilkinson, who was sacked with three months' pay and retains his full company pension, was on holiday in Thailand, according to the maid at his Hong Kong home.
Asia Pacific News.Net
Sunday 2nd March, 2008 (IANS)
The chairman of Cathay Pacific and a senior director were in the cockpit of a new Boeing 777 when it swooped about 10 metres above an airport runway in a stunt that cost the pilot his job, the airline confirmed Sunday.
Briton Christopher Pratt, chairman of the Hong Kong-based airline, and director of engineering Christopher Gibbs were in jump seats behind chief pilot Ian Wilkinson when he performed the 'fly-by' on the $200 million plane's maiden flight out of Seattle Jan 31.
Wilkinson, 55, was feted and pictured in the company magazine upon his return to Hong Kong but then sacked after pictures and video of the stunt circulated within the company and on websites, including YouTube.
Pratt and other VIP guests were initially believed to have been in the passenger cabin and unaware how close to the ground they came during the fly-by.
However, Cathay Pacific confirmed Sunday that Pratt and director of engineering Christopher Gibbs were in fact both sitting in jump seats behind the captain in the new Boeing 777-300ER.
Two other first officers were also standing, unharnessed, inside the flight deck to watch as Wilkinson circled after take-off to fly with landing gear raised above the Boeing plane maker's Seattle airport at more than 500 km an hour.
Neither Pratt nor Gibbs complained about the pilot's manoeuvre, which was only brought into question when other officials of the Hong Kong-based airline saw pictures circulated online of the stunt five days later.
Wilkinson was fired as 777 fleet captain with Cathay Pacific Feb 21 after an internal disciplinary hearing for performing the unauthorised fly-by. His co-pilot Ray Middleton, 47, was suspended from training duties for six months. Both are Britons.
Investigators discovered Wilkinson had twice before been involved in unauthorised fly-bys over Seattle in brand new 777s - piloting one flight in 2001 and allowing one of his fleet pilots to perform a similar stunt only last year, both times while collecting new planes.
The revelation is an embarrassment for Pratt, a senior director of Cathay's British parent group Swire and Cathay Pacific's chairman since 2005. 'It makes our airline look like a bunch of cowboys,' one company insider told DPA.
'Not only did they fly very low over the runway in a passenger jet that isn't made for those kind of stunts but they had two pilots standing up at the back of the flight deck while it all happened.'
However, a Cathay Pacific spokeswoman said Pratt was on his maiden flight and had no reason to believe Wilkinson's manoeuvre had not been officially approved.
'The chairman is not an aviator and he was fully aware that the captain was in full command of the flight,' she said.
'There was no request or suggestion from anyone in Cathay Pacific for the fly-by to take place. The decision was entirely that of the captain in command.'
She called the stunt 'inappropriate and regrettable' and said the previous two fly-bys involving Wilkinson only came to light in the course of the investigation into the Jan 31 incident.
The spokeswoman dismissed suggestions that the pilot's dismissal was sparked by the images on YouTube.
'The YouTube video only confirmed what was already becoming known. The internal investigation was well underway prior to the video appearing online.'
Wilkinson, who was sacked with three months' pay and retains his full company pension, was on holiday in Thailand, according to the maid at his Hong Kong home.
Last edited by Sniper; 03-02-2008 at 10:11 PM. Reason: added text
03-03-2008 | 06:11 AM
#109
New Hire
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Is it correct that all of Cathay's freighter ports are outside of HK?
Is HK the only domicile for the passenger fleet?
Would it be possible for an American to get hired as a DEFO and get sent to a domicile outside of N. America?
Is it correct that the US domiciles are ANC, ATL, JFK, & LAX? Are DFW, ORD, & SFO freighter ports, but not domicles?
Is HK the only domicile for the passenger fleet?
Would it be possible for an American to get hired as a DEFO and get sent to a domicile outside of N. America?
Is it correct that the US domiciles are ANC, ATL, JFK, & LAX? Are DFW, ORD, & SFO freighter ports, but not domicles?
03-04-2008 | 08:07 AM
#110
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
From: Left Out
Some B744F pilots are now based in HKG but on local terms...no housing, education allowance.
PAX pilots are also based all over the world.
I believe that your initial basing assignment has to be in an area where you have the right to live and work, but once in the company you can go anyway with your seniority and a/c type.
Freighter bases: NYC, CHI, ATL, LAX, and ANC.
Passenger bases (NA): LAX, SFO, YYZ, and YVR.
01Jul08 all freighter FOs and Captains as well as new hires since 01JAN08 are getting pay raises. 6% for me and I am a 2nd year -400F FO. 23% total pay raise since I started in mid 2006.
FO
PAX pilots are also based all over the world.
I believe that your initial basing assignment has to be in an area where you have the right to live and work, but once in the company you can go anyway with your seniority and a/c type.
Freighter bases: NYC, CHI, ATL, LAX, and ANC.
Passenger bases (NA): LAX, SFO, YYZ, and YVR.
01Jul08 all freighter FOs and Captains as well as new hires since 01JAN08 are getting pay raises. 6% for me and I am a 2nd year -400F FO. 23% total pay raise since I started in mid 2006.
FO
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
