Equipment definition
12-10-2012, 04:30 AM
#11
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Posts: 215
Originally Posted by Sunvox
Absolutely not.
We all have a number in our head that we like to fly. For some of us it's max we can and for others it's the least we can. Pilot utilization is all about work rules and has nothing to do with what you can fly. At least that's my opinion, but you see there it is. I understand that what you are arguing has never been carefully studied either by management or ALPA, but it sure makes headlines when you tell everyone on the forum that such a move would be "manpower negative". Just because they change the rules doesn't mean I or any other pilot will fly more hours.
We all have a number in our head that we like to fly. For some of us it's max we can and for others it's the least we can. Pilot utilization is all about work rules and has nothing to do with what you can fly. At least that's my opinion, but you see there it is. I understand that what you are arguing has never been carefully studied either by management or ALPA, but it sure makes headlines when you tell everyone on the forum that such a move would be "manpower negative". Just because they change the rules doesn't mean I or any other pilot will fly more hours.
Originally Posted by Probe
I could see it is slightly manpower negatives, but only slightly. A huge positive for pilots is that are current and qualed on two aircraft types. Easier to get a contract job if the economy takes another dump.
I know the systems are vastly different but in the case of these two aircraft I would say it doesn't matter. Boeing doesn't really require you know squat to be rated on the 777 and I would bet the 787 is the same or easier. so you don't have to know nada about two airplanes vice one. I believe Boeing has approval for a common type with 2-5 days differences training. Can't remember if it was 2 or 5.
757/767 was much more difficult IMHO. They land much different, especially banging the tale on the 763 vs pounding the nose gear into the ground on the 752. And don't get me started on smoke and avionics cooling. I think I had it all memorised correctly for all variants, once, for 5 minutes. Luckily that was the one time I was asked about it on my first type rating oral. LOL. I have done the course three times during my yo yo up and down UALs financial debacles.
I know the systems are vastly different but in the case of these two aircraft I would say it doesn't matter. Boeing doesn't really require you know squat to be rated on the 777 and I would bet the 787 is the same or easier. so you don't have to know nada about two airplanes vice one. I believe Boeing has approval for a common type with 2-5 days differences training. Can't remember if it was 2 or 5.
757/767 was much more difficult IMHO. They land much different, especially banging the tale on the 763 vs pounding the nose gear into the ground on the 752. And don't get me started on smoke and avionics cooling. I think I had it all memorised correctly for all variants, once, for 5 minutes. Luckily that was the one time I was asked about it on my first type rating oral. LOL. I have done the course three times during my yo yo up and down UALs financial debacles.
Besides the safety argumement for not allowing these two to be combined, it is hugely manpower negative. Put aside the efficiency argument Horrido already made, if you lose and entire category of reserves, you lose big. For every 787 Reserve Captain that doesn't need to be staffed becasue there is a 777 reserve captain to cover for him, that is one less widebody captain position. Which means that guy will be a narrow body captain. And for every narrow body captain that doesn't get the upgrade, there is a widebody First Officer that gets stuck in his right seat. The trickle down effect is huge.
Does no one remember the 737-200 737-300 postion that the UAL pilots made a stand on and won? They refused to allow them to be one category because of the safety implications.
Anyone that is advocating combining these two is a management proxy and carries no respect!
12-10-2012, 05:04 AM
#12
Don't say Guppy
Joined APC: Dec 2010
Position: Guppy driver
Posts: 1,926
The required reserves for all fleets are in the contract. If you have 100 777 captain line holders you need 16% reserves you have 16 additional reserve captains. add the same number of 787 and their 16% and you end up with 200 combined captains and the same percent of reserves. 16% of the combined number is the same, as far as I can see. Maybe some additional instructor jobs and maybe more fleet jobs in the training center. Maybe not.
In the past, when wide body guys flew 500 hours a year I might see the manpower advantage, but in the new and improved high manpower usage Environment I see little if any manpower change.
There are lots of things to fight over with the company. if this tA passes we get a lot of pluses in work rules, IMHO unbanding the two fleets is pretty small.
And for me personally I would prefer to be qualed in both at the same time. More job opportunity outside UAL.
In the past, when wide body guys flew 500 hours a year I might see the manpower advantage, but in the new and improved high manpower usage Environment I see little if any manpower change.
There are lots of things to fight over with the company. if this tA passes we get a lot of pluses in work rules, IMHO unbanding the two fleets is pretty small.
And for me personally I would prefer to be qualed in both at the same time. More job opportunity outside UAL.
12-10-2012, 07:56 AM
#14
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2011
Position: A Nobody
Posts: 1,559
The Ual 737 fleet was flow together until there were enough airplanes -300s to justify separate domiciles. It was an economic decision and Alpa did not "win" or force the issue.
I was there and flew both the -200s and -300s both as a f/o and cap.
I was there and flew both the -200s and -300s both as a f/o and cap.
12-10-2012, 08:05 AM
#15
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: A320 Cap
Posts: 2,282
Originally Posted by Coach67
Neither of these two statements recognize that if these are allowed to be combined you lose one entire category of reserves. That is much more than just "slightly manpower negative." It also has nothing to do with how much flying an individual pilot wants to fly!
Besides the safety argumement for not allowing these two to be combined, it is hugely manpower negative. Put aside the efficiency argument Horrido already made, if you lose and entire category of reserves, you lose big. For every 787 Reserve Captain that doesn't need to be staffed becasue there is a 777 reserve captain to cover for him, that is one less widebody captain position. Which means that guy will be a narrow body captain. And for every narrow body captain that doesn't get the upgrade, there is a widebody First Officer that gets stuck in his right seat. The trickle down effect is huge.
Does no one remember the 737-200 737-300 postion that the UAL pilots made a stand on and won? They refused to allow them to be one category because of the safety implications.
Anyone that is advocating combining these two is a management proxy and carries no respect!
Besides the safety argumement for not allowing these two to be combined, it is hugely manpower negative. Put aside the efficiency argument Horrido already made, if you lose and entire category of reserves, you lose big. For every 787 Reserve Captain that doesn't need to be staffed becasue there is a 777 reserve captain to cover for him, that is one less widebody captain position. Which means that guy will be a narrow body captain. And for every narrow body captain that doesn't get the upgrade, there is a widebody First Officer that gets stuck in his right seat. The trickle down effect is huge.
Does no one remember the 737-200 737-300 postion that the UAL pilots made a stand on and won? They refused to allow them to be one category because of the safety implications.
Anyone that is advocating combining these two is a management proxy and carries no respect!
As a safety issue, I agree wholeheartedly with you that it would be a collasally bad idea to combine the two fleets.
12-10-2012, 02:48 PM
#16
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Position: 756 Left Side
Posts: 1,629
I guess IAH is the only place to look at right now and compare staffing.
How many 777 crews do they have, and how many 787 crews?
If they were a combined BES.. would they still have the same number of crews or less?
Something tells me less.
Motch
How many 777 crews do they have, and how many 787 crews?
If they were a combined BES.. would they still have the same number of crews or less?
Something tells me less.
Motch
12-10-2012, 02:50 PM
#17
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Position: 756 Left Side
Posts: 1,629
PS> Found where it talks about Bases and Equipment.
8-A-1 Pilot assignments at a Base shall be classified in the Status of Captain and First Officer, as applicable, in one of the following Equipment types: A380, B747, B777, B787, A350, A330, B767/B757, A321/A320/A319, MD80/90, B737, CS300, CRJ900 and EMB190/195.
8-A-1 Pilot assignments at a Base shall be classified in the Status of Captain and First Officer, as applicable, in one of the following Equipment types: A380, B747, B777, B787, A350, A330, B767/B757, A321/A320/A319, MD80/90, B737, CS300, CRJ900 and EMB190/195.
12-10-2012, 06:35 PM
#18
Don't say Guppy
Joined APC: Dec 2010
Position: Guppy driver
Posts: 1,926
I really think wanting to be manpower positive is a thing of the distant past. All US carriers have become low cost carriers and ones that don't stay that way and continue to improve will be cast aside aka Pan Am and Eastern.
The first and best airline to understand this is obviously Southworst. The result? Despite hourly pay rates in the low 200's for Captains their work rules and rigs are so good they can make 300k easily and some make over 400k a year.
Would you rather be "manpower positive", and unemployed, or make 300k+ a year whilst still getting 16-18 days off a month?
And SW has never furloughed.
The first and best airline to understand this is obviously Southworst. The result? Despite hourly pay rates in the low 200's for Captains their work rules and rigs are so good they can make 300k easily and some make over 400k a year.
Would you rather be "manpower positive", and unemployed, or make 300k+ a year whilst still getting 16-18 days off a month?
And SW has never furloughed.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
grecoaj
Flight Schools and Training
2
06-02-2011 08:49 PM
