A Fleet Question

[KALB2]

As work groups merge down the road how will the fleets be merged? HP Airbus A320 are IAE powered whereas the (old) US fleet are CFM powered. US 737 classics are analog instrumentation, but I believe HP 737 are EFIS. What sort of additional training will pilots and mechanics have to undergo in order to operate or work on aircraft of the former entities?

 

[B737 MECHANIC]

As work groups merge down the road how will the fleets be merged? HP Airbus A320 are IAE powered whereas the (old) US fleet are CFM powered. US 737 classics are analog instrumentation, but I believe HP 737 are EFIS. What sort of additional training will pilots and mechanics have to undergo in order to operate or work on aircraft of the former entities?

[post="306569"][/post]​

hp has only a couple of EFIS 737-300 the rest are analog instrumentation

 

[PHX-F/A]

B737 Mechanic, where did you get your avatar pic? Is that an HP engine? Looks like a bus engine.

 

[B737 MECHANIC]

B737 Mechanic, where did you get your avatar pic? Is that an HP engine? Looks like a bus engine.

[post="306617"][/post]​

you got mail

 

[BoeingBoy]

What sort of additional training will pilots and mechanics have to undergo in order to operate or work on aircraft of the former entities?

[post="306569"][/post]​

I can only address the pilot part of that question.....

The first thing that has to happen is coming up with a single set of manuals and checklists - the airplane manual, flight operations manual (the latter is what we call it on the US-East side, don't know about US-West), normal & abnormal checklists. Once the FAA signs off on all that, then the training begins - first with the check airmen (instructor pilots) and then the line pilots.

How the final manuals & checklists are developed - use one current version or combine the two versions - determines to some degree how & who needs training.

If one side's manuals & checklists survive intact (other than additions to cover such things as engine differences), the pilots on that side will need little or no training while the pilots on the other side could get a couple days of ground school and a couple of simulator sessions.

On the other hand, if the final manuals and checklists are a combination of the previous versions, some training could be required for both groups of pilots.

Of course, this whole process is carried out for each fleet type plus ETOPS operations. That's why it'll take a while to actually combine operations. The US/PI merger took a year or so, with the line pilot part of the training taking about 6 months since you can't just shut the airline down to train everyone in a short time.

Jim

 

[phllax]

If the US/PI operational merger took a year or so with 4 fleet types (727, 737-2/3/400), with the engine commonality, then this is going to take a lot longer.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Oh, there were a lot more than 4 - F28, Bac-111, Bae-146, F100, DC9, 737-200, 737-3/400 (separate bid type from -200), 727, MD80, B767. {Edit - add that only 3 were common to both fleets - 737-200, 737-3/400, and 727, which is probably what you meant. Jim]

But the fleet types that only existed on one side didn't involve much training since anyone from the other side bidding it had to go thru complete initial training.

From a purely cost standpoint, it would make sense to just adopt the US-East manuals & checklists - fewer pilots would need training.

Having said that, though, I hope they really do look at adopting the best of both even though it could involve more training cost. The "Not Invented Here" syndrome ended up costing a lot more in the long run in previous mergers if you ask me.

Jim

 

[Justme]

Oh, there were a lot more than 4 - F28, Bac-111, Bae-146, F100, DC9, 737-200, 737-3/400 (separate bid type from -200), 727, MD80, B767. {Edit - add that only 3 were common to both fleets - 737-200, 737-3/400, and 727, which is probably what you meant. Jim]

[post="306651"][/post]​

Now that's what I call FCTI job security! 😀

 

[a320av8r]

Having said that, though, I hope they really do look at adopting the best of both even though it could involve more training cost. The "Not Invented Here" syndrome ended up costing a lot more in the long run in previous mergers if you ask me.

Jim

[post="306651"][/post]​

The designated equipment check airmen in CLT are currently working with their counterparts in PHX and physically reviewing the manuals and procedures. They are reading them via computer in real time and editing as they go, really neat system. That being said, they actually are taking the best of both worlds. "We have screwed it up twice, we won't do it again", actual quote from the equipment manager.
There is hope...

 

[BoeingBoy]

That being said, they actually are taking the best of both worlds. "We have screwed it up twice, we won't do it again", actual quote from the equipment manager.
There is hope...

[post="306706"][/post]​

Thank God.....

Jim

 

[EricLv2Fish]

That being said, they actually are taking the best of both worlds. "We have screwed it up twice, we won't do it again", actual quote from the equipment manager.
There is hope...

[post="306706"][/post]​

Actions speak louder than words. US Airways folks have been hearing the words now you'll be experiencing the actions. Glad we (Old AWA) can share 😉

 

[exB717Flyer]

Back at TWA it took like five minutes to do the Before Start Checklist ("it worked on the Connie"). AWA has just a handful of items (the way it should be). Let's hope the best of both comes through. (AWA never has to pull over to wait for the "numbers". OTOH if the dispatcher's guess for which runway we'll be taking off on is wrong we have to call it in to ops. WTF!)

 

[aquagreen73s]

I've heard the U types like the HP flows. I don't, but then again my 737 experience is limited to one airline. I suspect most of the U stuff will survive and that the 737 fleet will be the first integrated. Hp has approximately two-thirds EFIS fleet and a third hardball fleet. What's ironic is that there are four or five hardballs which came from US Air so they are exactly what you have. The remaining hardballs are single FMC which really sucks for the F/O. Personally, I'm looking forward to having a nearly uniform hardball fleet because that's what flying is all about. It escapes me how the Airbus pilots can actually enjoy "flying" a computer. I hope the 737s stay for a while.

 

[Pacemaker]

As someone who has experienced both operations, I agree they should take the best from both.

HP definitely has shorter checklists that save time. Keep the flows and the checklists. OTOH our operation is awash in unecessary paperwork that they don't seem to need at US. Takeoff data cards, trim sheets, F/A name list, F/A passenger count sheet, tedious loogbook entries every leg, not to mention requiring the already-overloaded F/O to make a radio call to company to report any variation on the above. Scrap it all and go to the US system. And please get rid of all the wacky fuel requirements - you can have this much but only if you have this and if you don't have this then such and such has to equal such and such.

Biggest difference I see between the two - at US Airways I was always the youngest one around, here I'm always the oldest!