SQ Pilot Rosters - A340 and A330

[sunnyday]

Pilots can maintain their currency by doing their takeoffs and landings in the simulator.

Capts need to do 1 takeoff and landing in 35 days while FOs need to do 3 takeoffs and landings in 90 days.

For the A345 crew, the FO usually has trouble maintaining his currency and therefore may need to go to the simulator once in a while. Also, they usually move fleet after a couple of years so that they can accumulate their sectors elsewhere for their command.

[flyguy]

Greetings jjpb3 - yes CAAS allows for pilots who hold cross aircraft types' qualifications. It is up to the airline concerned ie SQ or any other airlines that decides whether it wants to do that. Presently SQ dont seem to to do that and stick to one aircraft type for its pilots and hence we do not see its A330 pilots flying the A340 and vice versa - likely bec SQ have only a small fleet of 5 A340s.

[jjpb3]

bobtheplaneguy: for pointing out the financial factor.

altho there are advantages too for pilots cross qualifications on more than one type of aircraft - but some airlines do not see it as such. However unions can be an issue but usually is not as the understanding has been there that the pilots will be paid based on the higher aircraft type hence ie if a pilot who is qualified on the A330 and A320 - and if he flies the A320 - his base will be based on the A330. A few of the arilines that flies into Changi have pilots who are qualified on more than one aircraft type. This will allow the airline for more flexibllity in airline/type schedule; but on the other hand some airlines do not feel its necessary bec then it also involves additional costs and some pilots also will give up his cross qualifications. This is mainly bec then these pilots must have the required flight time on the different aircrafts to maintain their proficiency and to keep their licence and also they have to do their bi yearly and yearly SIM for the aircrafts types that they hold.

I'm afraid the mass of run-on constructions have taxed my comprehension. Could you help me out?

To allow me to compare what you said with what boing and bobtheplaneguy brought up, it would help if you clarify which points you are making:

(1) CAAS does / does not allow [choose one option] SQ (the airline in this thread) to cross-qualify pilots to fly both the A340 and A330 concurrently

(2) If allowed by CAAS, SQ (the airline in this thread) does / does not [choose one option] choose to maintain separate pilot rosters at any one time for the A340 and A330

(3) SQ (the airline in this thread ) does / does not [choose one option] take into account the financial consideration created by differential pay grades for pilots




Thank you.

My terminology might be all mixed up, unfortunately. This old dog is learning all the time.

[flyguy]

altho there are advantages too for pilots cross qualifications on more than one type of aircraft - but some airlines do not see it as such. However unions can be an issue but usually is not as the understanding has been there that the pilots will be paid based on the higher aircraft type hence ie if a pilot who is qualified on the A330 and A320 - and if he flies the A320 - his base will be based on the A330. A few of the arilines that flies into Changi have pilots who are qualified on more than one aircraft type. This will allow the airline for more flexibllity in airline/type schedule; but on the other hand some airlines do not feel its necessary bec then it also involves additional costs and some pilots also will give up his cross qualifications. This is mainly bec then these pilots must have the required flight time on the different aircrafts to maintain their proficiency and to keep their licence and also they have to do their bi yearly and yearly SIM for the aircrafts types that they hold.

[boing]

CAAS do Allow Cross techcrew qualifications ie pilots being able to fly 2 types of aircraft wither within the "same family" as in like A330/A320/A340 and even 744 and T7 with some requirements/conditions. Its up to the individual airline to roster its pilots or if allow their pilots to be cross qualified.

I think you are mistaken with the fact that some pilots may have more than one type-rating, but they are not valid concurrently. Basically, they can have multiple type ratings but only one is valid at any given time.

[bobtheplaneguy]

Interesting thread, gentlemen. Don't forget that even if the airline and the aviation authority both allow cross-qualifications, there is still one more hurdle to overcome - the pilot union.

Pilot unions may demand that cross-qualified pilots be paid a lot more, and force the airline concerned to consider if it is more economical to maintain separate pools of pilots for the various aircraft types.

[flyguy]

CAAS do Allow Cross techcrew qualifications ie pilots being able to fly 2 types of aircraft wither within the "same family" as in like A330/A320/A340 and even 744 and T7 with some requirements/conditions. Its up to the individual airline to roster its pilots or if allow their pilots to be cross qualified.

[MAN Flyer]

Good grief, I pop on for a minute as it's raining in the Bahamas and someone seems to have found a supplier who can get large spades to them in 3 days now instead of 5.

I've been wrong before and I'll be wrong again. However, I wouldn't trade my record of prediction for anyone else's here.

I suppose if you try and tell the world everything an airline will do next the law of averages says you'll get some right.

I have four sources at SQ (pilots and management)

However, what I can't quite understand is how someone with 'four sources at SQ' can get so many (or should that be any) things wrong. My personal favourite remains the claim that gates at Changi close 20 minutes before departure.

Now, where's that Pina Colada....

[Kyo]

I also would like to say I have no idea about who's right or wrong, but nonetheless, a highly entertaining thread

[sqdazz]

Can I just say, I am really enjoying this thread thus far.

[jjpb3]

I have four sources at SQ (pilots and management) that say otherwise, so I hope you'll forgive me for believing them over you.

Of course, I understand. While you're at it, though, why don't you check with them about the core part of your argument, which is that SQ has an identical roster for A345 and A333 pilots or shuttles their assignments between the two rosters, producing a hybrid? I'd be interested to hear about their views, particularly as it might modify or add to what my sources have told me.

If you're accusing me of selectively ignoring some established facts, then I would appreciate it if you would be specific enough that I might defend myself.

Sure thing, I'm happy to oblige. Here are two facts you seem to have screened out as you hold on with white knuckles to your inferences:

CAAS regulations prevent the use of identical rosters for the A345 and A330.

SQ does not, in fact, take the A345 and A333 pilots from the same identical roster.

You can check the records. SQ has not petitioned the CAAS to lift a restriction that, by your reasoning, might be have given the company a competitive disadvantage (by not taking advantage of the synergies in rostering, unlike their competitors). Glossing over the facts above and sticking to your original deduction or its mutated versions smacks of selective reasoning. IMHO of course.

As I have already posted twice above, if as claimed, that SQ are satisfying the landing/takeoffs requirement by periodically moving pilots back and forth between the two rosters, then SQ have essentially a hybrid between a joint roster and separate rosters.

Posting a third time isn't going to make the facts go away.

Let’s get this straight: the claim was that SQ does not pick the A345 and A333 pilots from the same roster. The claim was also not (as you said) that SQ “periodically [moves] pilots back and forth between the two rosters” (particulary the bit about 'satisfying the landing/takeoffs requirement' as a primary reason for doing so) -- that might mean an A333 or A345 pilot might find himself doing solely A330 flights one period, and then A345 flights another. Do you see the distinction? The reason why SQ hasn’t petitioned the CAAS might be the same one that destroys the business rationale for shuffling pilots back and forth the two rosters.

Pronouncements??? That's a stretch. Anyway, you might want to recheck the timeline. I have not held onto anything which has been corrected.

Erm, no. Morphing the initial conclusion that 'SQ has identical pilot rosters for the A345 and A330' into 'SQ periodically moves pilots between two rosters, creating a hybrid compromise' doesn't save the fact that the inference is just plain wrong. Statements that are protected from empirical refutation strike me as pronouncements.

As for holding on, see post 27 in this thread.

I've been wrong before and I'll be wrong again. However, I wouldn't trade my record of prediction for anyone else's here.

You have a very good hit rate , and a number of SQTers have indeed benefited from your deductions . I am, however, taken aback by your obstinate position in this instance. Check your trusted sources (pilots and management you said, right?) about the rostering issue (whether it is so or isn't so). Oroit? I have sources that say it isn't so, and it's against these sources -- sorry I do trust them more than I do your deductive powers -- that I evaluate your syllogism.

I haven't tried to reverse-engineer why it should be as I deduced.

It may be apposite to do the opposite -- why it is as you had not deduced.

[zvezda]

Perhaps. But sometimes a selection of facts, logic and syllogism can lead you to a conclusion that is just plain wrong.

If you're accusing me of selectively ignoring some established facts, then I would appreciate it if you would be specific enough that I might defend myself.

Remember your prediction about 2-3-2 seating for the 77A J cabin?

I certainly do. I've been wrong before and I'll be wrong again. However, I wouldn't trade my record of prediction for anyone else's here.

No, your pronouncements were corrected by two posters who have been reliable in all their past posts about SQ policy. I strongly believe they've corroborated their sources. I really don't understand the tenacity with which you're holding on to your conclusions, given how gracious you were in the past about admitting that there were limits to your powers of deduction.

Pronouncements??? That's a stretch. Anyway, you might want to recheck the timeline. I have not held onto anything which has been corrected.

It's a fact: A330 and A345 pilots are not from the same roster

As I have already posted twice above, if as claimed, that SQ are satisfying the landing/takeoffs requirement by periodically moving pilots back and forth between the two rosters, then SQ have essentially a hybrid between a joint roster and separate rosters.

and moreover, the CGK A345 flights were not purely for takeoff and landing requirements.

I have four sources at SQ (pilots and management) that say otherwise, so I hope you'll forgive me for believing them over you.

Might it not be, in this case, a more productive use of your intellect to reverse-engineer the conditions under which a business decision might make sense, rather than why it should be as you deduced?

I haven't tried to reverse-engineer why it should be as I deduced.

Are you sure about that, I thought it was a claim that the new 'F' on the A380 was going to be the same as the 77W ?

jjpb3 is correct on that point. I predicted both the Diamond Plus seats for F and 2-3-2 J for the 777-300s.

[LionCity]

relax mate...

Agree with sqdazz, just relax and take it easy.

[MAN Flyer]

There are people who actually know but none of them seem to be participating here.

Wrong, but you seem unable to grasp that fact.

Remember your prediction about 2-3-2 seating for the 77A J cabin?

Are you sure about that, I thought it was a claim that the new 'F' on the A380 was going to be the same as the 77W ?.

[jjpb3]

Actually, I posted facts, logic, and a tentative conclusion in the form of a syllogism.

Perhaps. But sometimes a selection of facts, logic and syllogism can lead you to a conclusion that is just plain wrong. Remember your prediction about 2-3-2 seating for the 77A J cabin?

There are people who actually know but none of them seem to be participating here.

No, your pronouncements were corrected by two posters who have been reliable in all their past posts about SQ policy. I strongly believe they've corroborated their sources. I really don't understand the tenacity with which you're holding on to your conclusions, given how gracious you were in the past about admitting that there were limits to your powers of deduction. It's a fact: A330 and A345 pilots are not from the same roster and moreover, the CGK A345 flights were not purely for takeoff and landing requirements. There were financial reasons before the all-J configuration.

We have here a wonderful mixture of facts, rumours, hearsay, and speculation.

'Rumours, hearsay and speculation' are not the ingredients when certain SQTers post about specific subjects. 'Speculation' remains the domain of those who prefer to rely on their inferences in the face of insider information, as stargold pointed out.

Might it not be, in this case, a more productive use of your intellect to reverse-engineer the conditions under which a business decision might make sense, rather than why it should be as you deduced?