Cathay Cargo Questions - Atlanta Base

[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.