Cathay Cargo Questions - Atlanta Base

[skyward80]

Capt U:

So, what's the "special ingredient" that a few years on the pax fleet as an FO will give you in order to succeed in upgrade? Or is it just a box the training department likes to see checked?

Also, with regard to the folks that are failing, what kind of stuff are they failing for? Do you know how high the failure rate is? If you're willing to risk the fail, is it possible to upgrade without basing out of HKG?

Thanks for the info!

Skyward80

 

[Cpt. Underpants]

I've never looked at it that way, but exposure to more regional destinations and ports other than ANC and points East will do you a world of good. Moreover, you'll see more legs (not a bad thing), more complex RT, more exposure to different nationalities and a more demanding operation overall. If all you've flown is in the US and A, then your exposure (for Cathay) is limited and you'll need a lot more in your arsenal to deal with a command course here. I would suggest that with 2200+ hours you're: 1. Not in the running for a command (you're short of time) and 2. Not likely to have what Cathay needs at this time. It's not an appointment into a seat at CX. You're carrying the company's AOC and they take it seriously.

There are always three sides to a fail - the candidates story, the checkers' story and finally - what really happened. Failures are always justified, but no-one wants to see it happen. There's too much invested in your time and training to fail you on a whim.

Don't look at the upgrade process as something you'll just try and see if it works out. That's a sure passage to a failure. To boot, a failure is a huge monkey on your back and stays on your training file for ever, and will haunt you for years later. Very few who flunk the upgrade actually make it through the second time - due to (self-induced) psych pressures. Numbers? Probably a 10% to 20% failure rate on the pax fleet, dependent on the type (777 is lower, A330 is higher) but the freighter would average 40% or more at times. It seems to be improving about now, but turnover on the F is high, due to long patterns, inadequate salary and the training/upgrade issues.

 

[Trash8Mofo]

How do you guys pick your trips and day offs? Are the line pilots pretty laid back, or run an intense cockpit in general? (I know its different from person to person, but there are some companie's cockpit philosophies that are more intense than others.)
Are there notable differences b/w the frighter and the pax as far as how the cockpit is ran? Thx

 

[Little Bubba]

Capt U,

Why is the failure rate higher on the Airbus than the 777?

TrashU,

No, most guys are very laid back, even Capt U.

 

[skyward80]

Cpt U:

Thanks for the detailed response! That fills in a lot of blank spots for me. Without a doubt, the CX threads seem to be the most informative on this forum.

Skyward80

 

[Cpt. Underpants]

Bubba

Having flown all the types currently in CX, IMHO the Airbus is by far the most complex technically and operationally. The issue is complicated by the fact that most of the guys attempting command courses are unfamiliar with the type (switching from a long haul type to the 777 and A330), the seat (and all that entails) and the area of operations.

It needs a lot of work on the conversion itself, total familiarity with the aircraft and systems, SOP's and a thorough knowledge of the Vol 1 and Vol 2 Pt 2. (FOM's). Again, in my opinion, it's just too much for some guys and they implode under pressure.

Shame, really.

 

[Little Bubba]

Capt U

Don't think you are typed on the 777...

 

[FreightGod]

but the freighter would average 40% or more at times.

One would think that a 40 % failure rate indicates a flaw in the training department, or the wrong profiles in the recruitment process...?

Instead of failing folks, why not give them extra time or training?
Some airlines make the pre-test, or the "day-before" harder and more demanding: easier on the candidate as there is no pink slip involved and the real test or check-ride the next day will not be as nerve wrecking since "yesterday" went fine.

Have seen that kind of thinking a few places, but not in the Far East.

 

[ERJdca]

flaw in the training department,.

Geez, i wouldn't know where to start on this one. I do agree with Capt Undies that it is the intent to see most guys succeed but......

 

[skyward80]

I think to say it's a flaw might be an American way of trying to understand an Asian way of thinking (with British military influences). I agree that the 40% rate is quite high, but if they're the ones signing the paycheck they can pretty much do it how they want. Chances are nothing will change unless it starts to undermine their bottom line. Judging by what I've read, their bottom line is not really a concern right now.

Skyward80

 

[FreightGod]

but if they're the ones signing the paycheck they can pretty much do it how they want

Sure they can do whatever they want, and they are surely doing it..

The point I was trying to make is that something must be wrong somewhere if their carefully screened and highly trained candidates experience a failure rate of 40%.

I have done a similar training course in Japan some years ago and those guys are also trying to pump up the "difficult level" to the point of us having to memorize the check lists.
(Sort of defeats the purpose of the check lists if ya have to do it from memory.. )

 

[Dumb Pilot]

Indeed the training is very hard abroad (or too easy here in the States, depending of how you look at it) but the argument of "it is the training departments fault" in CX or companies in Japan is simply not a viable argument (not saying right or wrong, just stating the way it is) because companies like CX, NH, JA for example. They are convinced because of their safety records that their system is correct and that it produces results further down the line. They do interview a lot of folks and very few make it to training and once there the failure rate is high, seems that on average the folks that go through training in Japan for example two-thirds make it to the line. Again, right or wrong is on the eyes of the beholder because to them their system works and is at the core of their safety record.

 

[Bjammin]

Attention!!

Starting Jan 08 there will be no more frighter DEFO's!

All new FO joiners will be able to fly PAX and freight.

The new pay scale is combined, but provides the same compensation over a 10 year period as the old freight to PAX conversion. Basically alot more money up front compared to the old scale, but not the big jump going from the freighter FO to PAX FO as it is now.

No one currently hired will be required to change to the unified pay scale.

The retirement age is also raised to 65 across the board.

All good stuff from my point of view, but i'm sure someone will find something wrong with the new agreement.

 

[FreightGod]

"it is the training departments fault" in CX or companies in Japan is simply not a viable argument

Well, I am not really saying IT IS the training departments fault, rather I am asking if the failure rate is due to a flaw in the training or the hireing?

Train to proffeciency seems to be the norm in most airlines, but of course if a candidate keeps flunking the check rides he is in the wrong job, which is why screening is part of the process.

Not saying CX is doing the wrong thing, just wondering where the problem lies..?

 

[ERJdca]

All good stuff from my point of view, but i'm sure someone will find something wrong with the new agreement.

I would say the Majority finds something wrong with it. If the G.C. doesn't recommend it for a vote and the company imposes it anyway its not exactly all good stuff.