I'm not mainline, so I can't really answer with authority (see USMC's post above) - but my best answer is everyone's desires/circumstances are different. Each mission has it's pluses and minuses in pay and QOL, and many variables that dictate what people bid. Often it's driven by where they can be based and either live in base or have an easy commute. Also, what seniority will they have on any given fleet/seat position so they can attempt to have some control over their schedule.

At least at one juncture, pilots would bid the highest paying A/C the last few years before retirement, as their retirement pay would be based on the last 5 years earnings (give or take). Now that retirements have been trashed, I'm not certain that is still the case. Also, with mergers, there are often fences that prevent one group from bidding on a certain fleet or base for X number of years.

Some people like doing long haul and hate multiple up and downs without time to even eat lunch, others hate long haul and would rather do multiple short legs with fewer time zone changes (as you have already noted). Sometimes the trips on a particular fleet or base just suck and no one with any seniority wants anything to do with them.

Without having accurate inside knowledge about any particular company, it's really hard to say why. Perhaps there are some DelTaco pilots following this thread who can chime in with better answers for your specific example.

Addendum:

I just read another thread that provides a great example of what I am talking about experience wise:

http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/fl...ml#post1232558

You won't have experiences like this in a well run 141 flight school, but you need to face challenges such as this (there are myriad other examples, this is but one) for yourself to really "own" them and make them a part of your experience and character as a pilot.

Also, today is the 23rd anniversary of UAL232. I would submit that pilots such at Capt. Al Haynes, Dennis Fitch, and Chesley Sullenberger didn't cut corners and end up with the experience they had to accomplish what they did. Granted, the zero-to-hero model didn't exist when they were up and coming pilots, but that in no way diminishes the point.

 

Out of curiosity, can you think of an example of an emergency situation where one or more of the pilots did come from a aviation university background? Unless you have specific evidence, it's probably a bit inaccurate to say that pilots who come from the education background you're mentioning "cut corners," and to imply that they may not be as prepared for an emergency situation as they should be.

Also, by the way, ERAU and places like that have never been considered and aren't "zero to hero" schools. That's what places like "All ATPs" are. ERAU gets you to Commercial w/ multi and instrument, and then it's up to you to build those hours.

 

bcrosier wasn't implying that they could handle an emergency but using the phrase "cutting corners". He was using the phrase to talk about progressing to certain stages of a flying career without the *usual* experience.

If you think that graduating from ERAU one day and sitting in ground school for a regional airline is the *norm* then you once again have shown that you really haven't studied much history of the airline industry (or even read many threads on the subject or the posts in this thread). Just because it has happened in the recent past, or back in the early 60s, doesn't make it the normal route. Until that route becomes the majority, it will be considered 'cutting corners' on gaining experience.

USMCFLYR

 

The "norm" is still just training at your local flight school.

But (and this is a FACT), one quarter of pilots who sit in US airline cockpits today come from Embry-Riddle. I never said that's the "norm." That's quite a few pilots; I guess a quarter of US airline pilots cut corners too...

And since when does something that isn't the majority automatically get considered "cutting corners?" (What you said: "Until that route becomes the majority, it will be considered 'cutting corners' on gaining experience.")

 

You missed the point again
Do you have a chart showing that 1/4 of those pilots that you are using as your example went from ERAU right into a regional with NO OTHER EXPERIENCE?

USMCFLYR

 

Pls provide a reference for your "fact"

GF

 

It's pretty well known; here is one source:
Fla. University Quiet on Possible Student Link to bin Laden | CNSNews.com

 

Obviously they would have to flight instruct for some time, but yes, I'm guessing the majority did go through a regional, as that is the common path for an ERAU grad. I don't have a chart or anything though. Typically one goes from ERAU to flight instructing, either undergrad or a year or two after graduation, and then a regional.

What other experience are you talking about, other than flight instructing?

 

Any of the other common ways of building time that you see mentioned on nearly every thread on APC dealing with time building.

Personally - I think Aerial Surveying seems to be one of the best. I've seen them out and about during some of my work. That type of flying seems to deal with a variety of conditions like X/C, weather issues across a wide region (relative of course), working with ATC in Class B or C airspace (more than the regular coordination - work related tuff) at least until you can build some P135 mins and end up flying some feeder freight.

CFI'ing is good initial experience. As I posted earlier - an example of what people are calling "cutting corners" would be NOT flight instructing, or any other type of time/experience building job, and going right into a regional.
Right now you think this is OK. Your opinion will likely change over time - especially if you are actually afforded the opportunity to biuld experience out of the P121 world. If you do end up going to ERAU and right into gorund school for some regioanl then you'll probably never know what you don't know

USMCFLYR

 

NO! I thought I mentioned this before - I plan on flight instructing a lot, actually! With the new ATP rule, it is impossible to not time-build in some way, since the ERAU curriculum itself only provides around 200-220 hours. It's up to the student to time build up to the ATP requirement. I thought that was established in previous posts?

I DON'T think it's okay to go right from flight training to a regional. And again, that ATP rule is eliminating that option anyway. When I say "go straight to a regional after graduation," I said that with the assumption that one flight instructed like crazy DURING college. I completely agree with people who say that "300 hours wonder pilots" shouldn't be in the cockpit of a regional aircraft. I've always been a believer that you don't really know something unless you can successfully teach it to somebody else.

If you're curious, I plan on actually becoming a CFI/II during the summer of my freshman year (ERAU has a summer program for that), flight instructing as an undergrad as a sophomore, summer of sophomore year, and junior year. Summer of junior year I plan on interning at a major.* I'll probably continue flight instructing during senior year. At the end of all that, I'll have well over 1,000 hours of flight time, and like you said, much more experience.

Did you think that the training process itself at ERAU prepared someone to jump over to a regional without ANY other kind of experience?!

*If my wildest dreams come true: if the internship at the major gives a guaranteed interview once minimums are achieved (like United), and the minimums are just ATP requirements (which I would have by the end of college anyway), there is a 0.000001% chance that would get me to a major and bypass the regionals.

I'll look into aerial surveying - I've never really heard of it before.