Originally Posted by
FlyJSH
My guess is the difference goes back to the days of the begining of pax jet operation.
If I recall correctly:
Convairs hauled up to 70 pax
B-337 Stratocruiser 50-90 pax
DC-7 100 pax
707 hauled up to 180 pax
DC-8 up to 250 pax
So when jets came on the scene, payloads doubled. Also, being a new technology with higher performance, pilots could demand much higher pay.
Just a guess.....
Yep, that answer was already given;
Originally Posted by
dojetdriver
More along the lines of the original question. When th RJ's started coming on line, most turbo props were the relatively low capacity, slow, relatively archaic type. The RJ was seen as more akin to "mainline" flying, as well as being faster, more complex, sophisticated, blah blah blah. Doesn't make it right, doesn't mean I agree with it. Because we all know the guy flying the 1900/J31/SAAB or whatever in most cases is working MORE/HARDER than the guy in the RJ.
Originally Posted by
kalyx522
Maybe they meant that it's more work to fly a prop than a jet. In which case I think it's true.. it's like when was the last time a jet driver had to track VORs or fly full ILS or VOR approaches with NDB transitions (into nonradar airports that jets dont fly into)? plus prop guys usually fly shorter, more legs.. which means more time in the terminal area when the workload/stress level is the highest... basically more work! then there's the whole weather deal.. having to fly in the soup the entire leg, versus jets that usually just pop in and out of it briefly. last week the plane I was flying was so damn loud even with my noise canceling headset and we were in bumpy soup for an hour straight.. I had a pounding headache and only when I added earplugs (in addition to my noise cancelling headset, mind you) did I feel a little better.
so yeah, I really don't understand the pay discrepancy either.
Yep, agree with ALMOST everything you say, EXCEPT one;
How much flying have you done in Mexico? There are times when I have gone there everyday of a four day trip. Of the 30 or so places my company flies there, I can only think of 4-5 that have radar coverage in the terminal area. And yep, most airports have use non precision approaches, often times a DME arc approach. Now, I ALREADY agreed that the turbo prop flying is more difficult. But saying that the RJ ALWAYS goes into a radar airports isn't true. And even though Mexico City has it, doesn't mean that it makes your life easier. MEX had the MATEO transition that was a much higher workload for a radar environment than non radar.
Also, when I based in CVG it wasn't uncommon to do 6 legs (I know, not THAT many) in and out in the FRJ. Never more than 50 minutes gate to gate, never getting above the low 20's.