Originally Posted by
zondaracer
Because being a CFI might actually pay better (it has for me) and get you to ATP minimums just as fast (guys flying 900 hours a year at my school), plus being a CFI is valuable experience.
Last I checked, Great Lakes was asking for 600 hours TT.
The biggest problem people have with Great Lakes is that they lower the bar. If they came up to the same level as other companies or even raised the bar, people wouldn't be wishing for them to go away. It is definitely good experience, but at what expense?
Ultimately there are many ways to attack the problem. I do not disagree with the CFI approach at all. However, many on this board are saying that being a CFI is the absolute way to go. I am simply trying to present an alternate scenario which includes a poorly run company like Great Lakes as a viable career option.
In order to become a CFI it usually means taking on an even greater cost burden (10-15k). Furthermore, you may be one of the lucky ones with regular students. In my experience it is much more likely that an instructor does not fly that often. Also, are guys that are flying that much getting 10 or more days off a month?
As for Great Lakes lowering the bar; I really do not see it that way. Great Lakes plays in a different playground than other airlines. Once EAS flying is drastically cut (it will happen eventually) then the only option left for Great Lakes will be to close their doors. In the meantime they are operating aircraft no airline wants, into destinations no airline wants, with pilots no other airline can hire.
If they are hiring people at 600 hours (and not 250 like I was told) that does mean that most pilots will have to find a way to fill the gap between 250 and 600. This will more than likely mean being a flight instructor. My advice at that point would be to evaluate how long it took you to fly the additional 350 hours and project that out to 1500. Great Lakes may be a better option in the long term. Pay is horrendous tho.