View Single Post
Old 07-08-2007 | 06:46 PM
  #14  
theskyisclear
Line Holder
 
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by FlyerJosh
Applicant A hired on at Pinnacle, 600TT. 4 months for training. Flies ~75 hrs a month for a total of 900 hrs per year.

Applicant B hired on at Eagle, 600TT. 4 months for training. Flies ~75 hrs a month as well.

Based on a snapshot of upgrades TODAY (which is also historical for the past 12-18 months), Applicant A will be able to upgrade when meeting company minimums of 2500 hours (1000+ in CRJ). I believe that there is also a new program that might allow these mins to be lowered to 2000TT (1500 in company CRJ). So after flying for about 1 year and 6 months, applicant A can upgrade.

Applicant B on the other hand waits 5 years to upgrade. In that same time, applicant A will fly 3+ years as a captain at Pinnacle, more than enough time to get 1000PIC and move on past the regional airline phase of their career. Additionally, in that time, applicant A will make significantly more money that the "career FO" who is waiting out the upgrade.

Not saying that either path is better than the other (I myself had 4+ years as a first officer without upgrade before I was furloughed), but IMHO, the less time you can spend at the regionals (particularly as a FO), the better off you'll be in the long run.
There are actually First Officers at 9E that could upgrade to Captain but do not do it. When you go for Captain you better be sure you will make it or you may not even be able to go back and work as FO in the company and also many do not do it because it would change their base, etc.
Comparing any companies one should also include salary, per diem, benefits, been able to choose base and if for any reason I cannot get to be captain in 2 years how will my salary look like?, what happends if the climate in the insdustry changes and the company looses contracts? Is the company independant or just flies for others?, etc. I would also include, student treatment and quality of training.
Reply