Would a mainline narrow body CPT take double hourly pay to fly a MD11

[GON]

Just saw this MD11 touch down at SEA. Massive beast, the landing looked like work was involved.

Many stories imply the MD11 is more work than most aircraft to land. The question is, primarily for @Astro14 and @Just a civilian pilot , would you take double your hourly pay to captain a FED EX/UPS MD11?

 

[Jdeere562]

Just find another Richard Russell to steal it and fly it for free. See if he can do some barrel rolls in that big boy.

Never flew a plane before, but he played a few video games for practice.

 

[tbm5690]

Not unless their seniority numbers would transfer...

 

[GON]

Not unless their seniority numbers would transfer...

For sake of discussion, let's put in the condition seniority stays the same. Just trying to understand if the additional challenges of the MD11 would entice a 757 or 320 captain to captain the MD11 for double the hourly pay.

 

[Astro14]

For sake of discussion, let's put in the condition seniority stays the same. Just trying to understand if the additional challenges of the MD11 would entice a 757 or 320 captain to captain the MD11 for double the hourly pay.

It’s not that hard to fly. It’s an easy jet to fly, so, if my company had it, and my schedule was the same, and my flying was similar, I would consider flying it.

It is considerably smaller than the 747-400 I once flew. We have 777-300 about that size, so, no, I am not impressed or intimidated by the size.

But you’re ignoring so many of the variables - relative seniority, company seniority, destinations, schedules, that the question is meaningless.

There is a reason I turned down a FedEx interview in 1998. No regrets on that decision. FedEx guys I know age far faster, and live shorter lives, from the constant circadian rhythm disruption.

 

[Jetronic]

I think the convincing argument is no passengers....

 

[GON]

It’s not that hard to fly. It’s an easy jet to fly, so, if my company had it, and my schedule was the same, and my flying was similar, I would consider flying it.

It is considerably smaller than the 747-400 I once flew. We have 777-300 about that size, so, no, I am not impressed or intimidated by the size.

But you’re ignoring so many of the variables - relative seniority, company seniority, destinations, schedules, that the question is meaningless.

There is a reason I turned down a FedEx interview in 1998. No regrets on that decision. FedEx guys I know age far faster, and live shorter lives, from the constant circadian rhythm disruption.

There is a perception, apparently erroneous,that landing a MD11 is significantly more work for the pilots than a 747/777/787/767/757/737/a380a350/a330/a320.

Question was cockpit focused. Like a competent mechanic turning down certain work, simply doesn't want the hassle, even if offered a premium to do the work.

 

[mk378]

I think the convincing argument is no passengers....

Truck drivers like to tell bus drivers "Freight doesn't talk back."

I would think the flying is more routine since they only use these between a few big airports.

 

[Astro14]

There is a perception, apparently erroneous,that landing a MD11 is significantly more work for the pilots than a 747/777/787/767/757/737/a380a350/a330/a320.

Question was cockpit focused. Like a competent mechanic turning down certain work, simply doesn't want the hassle, even if offered a premium to do the work.

I’ve not flown the DC-10/MD-11. A good friend at United flew the USAF KC-10. He and I were new hire classmates and instructors together. My understanding of the airplane comes from him. He flew the 747-400 as well. I could be wrong, but I do not think the airplane is that hard to fly.

 

[GON]

This is an article discussing the MD11 being more complicated to land. The article is by a law firm, so that might point to the article trying to influence rather than inform or educate.

Crash Points Out MD-11s Vulnerability During Landing

When it comes to the 24 March crash of the Federal Express MD-11F in Tokyo, the expression “three strikes and you’re out” comes to mind. The MD-11 has an unfortunate history of landing accidents, and two previous wipe out’s featured the airplane striking hard on the tarmac, a wing breaking off...

www.nolan-law.com

 

[mk378]

They are indeed less safe than most other airliners, thus they're all in cargo service now.
* As with the DC-10, a bad explosion of the center engine is prone to take out all the redundant control systems and make the plane un-flyable.
* High stall speed requires more pilot skill in landing.
* Accidentally landing very hard can cause the landing gear to break through the wing spar, then the whole wing will come off. This ends up in fiery spinning and rolling over on the ground which is usually fatal to the occupants. The safer design is to have the landing gear made to collapse or break away and the otherwise intact plane slide on its belly, a more survivable crash.

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

I Have always loved the look of of the DC-10, MD-11, Lockheed, Tristar ( been in the jump seat twice ).

I haven’t heard that it’s harder to fly, or land. It just approaches/lands faster.

Sure, I would love to fly it.

I turned down Emirates in 2003 ( called in for an interview ) , so I don’t think flying Fedex all night appealing, operations wise.

I haven’t flown an airplane that is hard to fly yet. Some aircraft courses are harder than others though , but not too difficult if prepared.

One thing is for sure, double the pay wouldn’t be hard to like.

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

They are indeed less safe than most other airliners, thus they're all in cargo service now.
* As with the DC-10, a bad explosion of the center engine is prone to take out all the redundant control systems and make the plane un-flyable.
* High stall speed requires more pilot skill in landing.
* Accidentally landing very hard can cause the landing gear to break through the wing spar, then the whole wing will come off. This ends up in fiery spinning and rolling over on the ground which is usually fatal to the occupants. The safer design is to have the landing gear made to collapse or break away and the otherwise intact plane slide on its belly, a more survivable crash.

We debunked that myth about the plane being designed , or more susceptible to the wing breaking off due to a crash landing ( well beyond a hard landing ).

Any pilot that has that same type of hard landing that MD-11 had in Japan, risks breaking off the wing in any plane.

Just like we corrected one member here saying the reason the landing gear went though the wing with the Air Alaska 737 , was because of a hard landing. The landing was NOT hard ( defect with landing gear was proven to be the cause, not bad pilots ).

 

[edyvw]

It’s not that hard to fly. It’s an easy jet to fly, so, if my company had it, and my schedule was the same, and my flying was similar, I would consider flying it.

It is considerably smaller than the 747-400 I once flew. We have 777-300 about that size, so, no, I am not impressed or intimidated by the size.

But you’re ignoring so many of the variables - relative seniority, company seniority, destinations, schedules, that the question is meaningless.

There is a reason I turned down a FedEx interview in 1998. No regrets on that decision. FedEx guys I know age far faster, and live shorter lives, from the constant circadian rhythm disruption.

My friend is captain on 767 at FedEx. I never understood how he stayed married etc. I can see those health issues in the future considering his schedule.

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

I know a few WB pilots who LOVE being away from home.

Paid vacations they say, plus, away from their wives/family responsibilities.

They would be divorced if they were home too much. Yes, some do get divorced because of this also.

Many pilots think I am strange not joining that lifestyle ( long layovers, "vacations" away from home,18 days a month ).

Just got an email from a former NB A320 CA asking me why I don't come over on the A330 and at least try it.

That said, most, not all, do admit they find it tiring. But they love it.

 

[wpod]

It’s not that hard to fly. It’s an easy jet to fly, so, if my company had it, and my schedule was the same, and my flying was similar, I would consider flying it.

It is considerably smaller than the 747-400 I once flew. We have 777-300 about that size, so, no, I am not impressed or intimidated by the size.

But you’re ignoring so many of the variables - relative seniority, company seniority, destinations, schedules, that the question is meaningless.

There is a reason I turned down a FedEx interview in 1998. No regrets on that decision. FedEx guys I know age far faster, and live shorter lives, from the constant circadian rhythm disruption.

MD11 pilots don't get the women . Bottom line.

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

Fedex pilots don’t have to deal with passengers, or flight attendants.

That’s a huge bonus in my books ( fewer issues to deal with ).

Most are good but it’s easier flying freight from my experience ( except night flying ).

 

[john_pifer]

They are indeed less safe than most other airliners, thus they're all in cargo service now.
* As with the DC-10, a bad explosion of the center engine is prone to take out all the redundant control systems and make the plane un-flyable.
* High stall speed requires more pilot skill in landing.
* Accidentally landing very hard can cause the landing gear to break through the wing spar, then the whole wing will come off. This ends up in fiery spinning and rolling over on the ground which is usually fatal to the occupants. The safer design is to have the landing gear made to collapse or break away and the otherwise intact plane slide on its belly, a more survivable crash.

The fact that no more tri-jets are operating in pax service has much more to do with economics than any perceived safety deficit.

RE: Engine 2: Yeah, a UEF can cause problems on engine 2 of an MD/DC. But UEFs have also killed several pax over the last 50+ years of widespread jet airliner use. If you’re worried, don’t fly. Or don’t sit next to an engine.

2 engines use less fuel than 3.

Maintaining 2 engines is cheaper than maintaining 3, especially when one is a PITA to get to.

 

[john_pifer]

I’m from Memphis (FDX HQ), and became friends with a couple of FDX pilots through riding motorcycles, one of whom used to fly the MD-11, and now flies the 777.

He‘s a former USAF C-141 pilot.

He loved flying the MD-11. But he also just loves flying and owns 2 private aircraft…one of which has a “PT-6ski“ engine - built in Czech Republic.

So, he loves to fly, and gets a lot of stick time.

 

[edyvw]

The fact that no more tri-jets are operating in pax service has much more to do with economics than any perceived safety deficit.

RE: Engine 2: Yeah, a UEF can cause problems on engine 2 of an MD/DC. But UEFs have also killed several pax over the last 50+ years of widespread jet airliner use. If you’re worried, don’t fly. Or don’t sit next to an engine.

2 engines use less fuel than 3.

Maintaining 2 engines is cheaper than maintaining 3, especially when one is a PITA to get to.

It has been some time, but I read somewhere article how Finnair stated that the A340-300 was 13% more economical than MD11, and A340 is a 4 engine.