Typical MIA 36th St sumbaggery.

 

Not even surprised. Not to mention the 3 runway/taxiway excurions that happened last winter within 2 weeks of each other. Poor training and putting primarily south-of-Florida experienced pilots in the northeast during their first snow storms are a less than winning combo.

 

Can anybody share some info on this company like QOL, schedules, benefits etc? I see the pay rates are staying the same but in this current market I think some 121 time and an Airbus Type might make me more competitive for the future. Currently working on the 135 side of the industry just over 1600TT

 

The old target for new pilots was 1000 ME Turbine PIC. Do you at least have 500 Turbine PIC SE/ME?

If a 121 major airline or 121 ACMI carrier is a goal of yours then, 121 Jet time should be viewed as more valuable then 135 SIC time. When deciding if you should move on, ask yourself how long it will take you in your current job to get close to 1000 METPIC. How many hours are you logging a year? Are you in a business jet going through formal CAE or FSI simulator training or are you flying a Caravan or BE99 and never seeing a simulator? Are you at least getting PIC time in your current job, or is it SIC in a market with no movement out of your company and therefore no prospect of PIC time in the near future?

Applying and taking the opportunity to "interview the Interviewers," may help make a decision to join, but all answers will have corporate spin.

If you don't apply, the answer is no. It is a smaller company, so there is not a great chance of finding an employee here in APC.

Move on for Bigger, Faster, and More Complex airplanes. Move on for better pay and conditions. And remember that loyalty in corporate America is asked for, but never given as revenue rules all decisions.

 

Are you still with them? What is the schedule like? Is it a home every night kind of job?

 

What's the story with this one?

https://youtu.be/3A4SciqtMCI?si=_2LK9pSU6Jt-yhG7

 

What a clown show. These guys just need to walk away from flying. I can't even begin to formulate an excuse for this.

 

Children of the magenta can't manage a visual approach without "more track miles".

 

My take on their traffic was that they were high and "more track miles" meant they wanted a longer final for a stable approach. They got high, and ended up with a high rate of descent. Couldn't follow vectors. Couldn't manage their pattern. Or energy, apparently. The "track miles" comment appeared to be due to being high in relation to the runway, and they were asking for a longer descent path. They stated unstable, apparently due to the rate of descent.

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/website-u...195144077.html