SQ Pilot Rosters - A340 and A330

[sqdazz]

Actually, I posted facts, logic, and a tentative conclusion in the form of a syllogism. There are people who actually know but none of them seem to be participating here. We have here a wonderful mixture of facts, rumours, hearsay, and speculation -- none of which seem to be in violation of the forum rules.

relax mate...

[zvezda]

No. You're speculating, but there are people who actually know.

Actually, I posted facts, logic, and a tentative conclusion in the form of a syllogism. There are people who actually know but none of them seem to be participating here. We have here a wonderful mixture of facts, rumours, hearsay, and speculation -- none of which seem to be in violation of the forum rules.

I found this on page 340 of SQ's PDF schedule:

To NEWARK EWR GMT-4:00
1 . . 4 5 6 7 1040/1750 SQ22 Non-Stop 345 Disc. OCT25
1 . . 4 5 . . 1215/1845 SQ22 Non-Stop 345 Eff. OCT26

I guess they must have made a mistake, cos I also found Sat and Sun to be available for booking.

The Star Alliance timetable shows 145 only from 26 Oct to 30 Oct with X67 returning from 1 Nov.

[stargold]

It is incumbent on anyone asserting separate rosters to then explain how the A340 pilots are getting enough takeoffs/landings. It is not enough to say they are getting them by coincidence.

No. You're speculating, but there are people who actually know.

If reliable first-hand sources say that they are on separate rosters, that is that. I don't think that anyone "owes" you an explanation just because they are telling you the way things actually are.

Companies make plenty of decisions that are not always logical nor understandable, but those decisions still stand and represent the current state of affairs.

[jjpb3]

Sorry, mec, I forgot to acknowledge your contribution to setting the record straight on the way in which SQ does not roster the A345 and A330, despite what other airlines might do.

[zvezda]

SQ flew the A340-500s to CGK for years longer than "the initial period of EIS mainly for crew training/qualification."

It used to be that SIN-LAX/EWR was flown with five pilots onboard. That may have changed, but most jurisdictions permit four-pilot operations only up to 16 hours. CAAS are rather conservative, so I'm surprised to read that they are now allowing 19 hour flights with four pilots.

I was told a few years ago by three or four SQ pilots that the reason for the A340-500s flying to CGK was to give the pilots enough takeoffs and landings to keep their rating.

Majority of the A345 pilots moved to A330 fleet leaving only a small amount to clock sufficient landings on the A345. Or they could be inter transfered within a certain period of time.

I speculated earlier in this thread that one possible to solution to the landing/takeoffs problem would be transferring pilots back and forth periodically between the A330 and A340 rosters. Of course, that's something of a hybrid between single-roster and dual-roster systems.

[boing]

To add on, I think the main reason why CAAS is not allowing multi-fleet flying yet is could be because of the SQ 286 tail scrape incident in NZ a few years ago. In that incident, the Capt had just got his 744 type rating and was previously on the A343s. And he didn't notice anything was amiss when the a/c was accelerating slowly due to the low TOW input by his FO as he was used to slow acceleration speed on the A343s. It was one of the reasons in the official report by the NZ authorities.
Such negative transfer was also to blame for a BMI 734 crash in UK years ago by pilots who flew an earlier version of the 737.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kegworth_air_disaster

Cockpit commonality is one of the biggest selling points for the Airbus family and a lot of airlines do practice them. But I'm sure CAAS has compelling reasons not to implement it as the financial and labour factors are quite attractive for the airlines to implement them.

Wondered why they put such a long range bird on such a short route

TG flies their A345s into SIN from BKK.

[concept|infinit]

^ At the previous post

So that's why it flew such a short haul route.. Wondered why they put such a long range bird on such a short route

[Nick C]

Just to be clear on the issue and to reinforce boing's post.

1) SQ did fly regionally with the 345 during the initial period of EIS mainly for crew training/qualification.

2) 345 was pulled off CGK in Nov 08. 333 only entered revenue service in Feb 09.

3) Typical flight deck crew for SQ ULH is 4 not 5.

[jjpb3]

Very informative, boing (especially because the update is fact-based / non-speculative). Thanks for clarifying.

[boing]

Just got word from a SQ pilot that SQ does not practice multi fleet flying, which means that A345 are flown by a separate pool of pilots from the A330.
As to why the A345 went away the same time as the A330 intro, it could be:

The all J class config didn't have sufficient demand to be flown to CGK.

Majority of the A345 pilots moved to A330 fleet leaving only a small amount to clock sufficient landings on the A345. Or they could be inter transfered within a certain period of time.

[SINFJ]

I read in this board somewhere that the Leadership was flown to CGK in view of scheduling as well as the yield on the run being able to satisfy such a run

[zvezda]

It could be pure coincidence. Or SQ could have moved the majority of A345 pilots into the A330 group leaving only a small group to have sufficient logging of the flight hours.

Huh?

Co-incidence is not relevant to the question. Why did the requirement to fly short A340 trips go away?

Your second sentence doesn't answer the question -- unless you mean that SQ are moving pilots back and forth between A330 and A340 rosters (perhaps quarterly), so that they get enough takeoffs/landings while on the A330 roster.

The problem was that pilots operating A340s only to LAX and EWR don't get enough takeoffs/landings to maintain their rating (because there are five pilots onboard and only one can log a takeoff and landing per flight and because they only get about four flights (two trips) per month, so the average pilots gets an insufficient 0.8 takeoffs and landings per month). SQ can solve that problem either by flying short A340 trips (such as to Jakarta) or by jointly rostering the A330s and A340s. Clearly, SQ are not now flying A340s on any short trips. Perhaps there is some other way for SQ's A340 pilots to get enough takeoffs/landings, but I can't think of one unless the authorities reduced the number required. It is incumbent on anyone asserting separate rosters to then explain how the A340 pilots are getting enough takeoffs/landings. It is not enough to say they are getting them by coincidence.

[boing]

Most airlines with both A330s and A340s operate with one roster

A330s and A340 have cockpit commonality and can be flown by the same group of pilots with minimal training. But end of the day, it's still down to the aviation authorities of the respective to approve it. Some airlines do not allow common pool of pilots to fly both aircraft.

Why did SQ need to operate to CGK to give their A340 pilots enough takeoffs and landings before arrival of the A330s but not after?

It could be pure coincidence. Or SQ could have moved the majority of A345 pilots into the A330 group leaving only a small group to have sufficient logging of the flight hours.

Only a SQ pilot could answer this q correctly.

[zvezda]

I see Gut feeling again?

No, AFAIK the pilots are 2 separate groups and do not operate as one fleet on SQ.

Gut feeling? It's logical for two reasons:
- Most airlines with both A330s and A340s operate with one roster, and
- Why did SQ need to operate to CGK to give their A340 pilots enough takeoffs and landings before arrival of the A330s but not after?

[jjpb3]

I see Gut feeling again?

But an error with such exquisite precision, don't you think? Almost admirable, I would say.