cougar15 wrote:Antarius wrote:FlyHappy wrote:
you're being unnecessarily argumentative. you well know that he or she means that the freight cargo in back is less valuable than human cargo in back. The pilots lives are equally valuable.
but with only 3 pilots, trained professionals, in a dire situation - they may choose a different course of action hauling cargo than if hauling 300 pax. something as extreme as a water ditching, while never, ever desirable, is certainly something that might be considered with cargo, and utterly rejected with pax. don't get fixated on that extreme example (don't bring up Hudson/Sully), I'm sure there are more subtle scenarios, where different considerations may play into a situation - such as whether to make a specific diversion or not. Freight != pax in that case as well.
So, yes - I say there's a potential for different actions and outcomes between freight and pax operations in emergencies.
The poster making the original cargo comment was grasping at straws to go after the ME3, as usual. Its his/her MO. Next we'll hear that Sir Tim Clark assassinated JFK or something and half of a.net is being paid to cover it up yada yada.
I dont think the above is unnecessarily argumentative. The original point was silly. Tons of cargo aircraft operate safely above us every day. The concern of those pilots is their own safety, not just the cargo so if what they were doing was so horribly unsafe, it wouldn't still be going on.
I feel sorry for having opened this can of worms now! Do you think the pilots of 5X(UPS) 006 would have acted any differently if the Jumbo was full of pax? They would not. look at SR111! Having spent 75% of my time/working life in Airfreight, I found DTW2HYD´s comment highly insulting. Of course an Aircraft full of human life has more value than one filled with Lio Batteries.
But both operate by the same, stringent safety standards! We are discussing crewing on ULH´s. What is wrong with 3 crew on a 13 hr sector? These are 2 crew aircraft. Everyone gets to snooze for 4 hrs en route, everyone arrives happy & safe at the destination. having worked less that 8 hours since clocking on, with 2 guys at the pointy end at all times! Again, what is the issue?
3 crew on such sectors has been a common thing since the early 2000´s with multiple carriers, both European and US based.
But as this is another ´bash EK´ thread, it is suddenly an issue. Well, rest assured, that neither Qatar´s, nore EK´s Mid east - New Zealand flights have only 3 tech crew on them. Apart from QF into LHR (x PER) and a lit of LAO/AU, who really operates such Flights? Those that do have 4 crew.
Economic reality, regardless of the admitted and well defined (global) pilot shortage, means a 10-14 hour sector needs no more that 3 tech crew!
But for what is perceived here as ´ULH´, 12-13, 14 hrs... oh well, each Jockey had to work for 4 or 5 hours (add 2 hrs before departure) ...... what are we discussing?
I wish I could get away with only 7 hrs a day in ´my office´!
Cougar, whilst you speak of a can of worms, I don’t believe your comments are unfair, they are perhaps a little narrow in their scope, but we are all guilty of that.
With respect to 3 crew Ops in the 2000’s well there is a significant difference, back then FTLs were limits rather than targets, scheduling was driven more often than not on a collaborative rather than pejorative basis and of course crews were given significantly longer to recover from trips.
Yes you are correct in respect of the crewing levels on true ULR flights currently operating, but the QF rest and recuperation period after the PER-LHR-LHR is night and day compared to what EK require of their crews.
Ultimately this is about EK using a commercial imperative and expediency to solve a systemic problem borne out of their hubris and miss-management, along the way they are playing fast and loose with risk as well as continuing to alienate a key element of their human resource.
This is a reactive policy, it will be highlighted to the various jurisdictions EK operate into in the form of safety reports and it will I fear contribute to an incident.