Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Part 91 and Low Time
A great article on the "pay to fly" jobs >

A great article on the "pay to fly" jobs


Notices
Part 91 and Low Time Jump pilots, crop dusting, and other Part 91 jobs

A great article on the "pay to fly" jobs

Old 07-15-2017, 03:56 PM
  #51  
New Hire
 
Joined APC: Jun 2017
Posts: 9
Default

okay this is not related at all but please help me out. I'm trying to post in this form place generally but can't figure out how. can you write down directions on how to post a form by step by step any one?
Aidenboiii is offline  
Old 07-16-2017, 10:36 AM
  #52  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Mar 2017
Posts: 451
Default

Originally Posted by Aidenboiii
okay this is not related at all but please help me out. I'm trying to post in this form place generally but can't figure out how. can you write down directions on how to post a form by step by step any one?
Looks like you figured it out.
BravoPapa is offline  
Old 08-06-2017, 09:43 AM
  #53  
On Reserve
 
Joined APC: Aug 2017
Posts: 14
Default

Originally Posted by loganeich
...
My wife and I make a good living so hesitant to quit my full time job, but once I do, really need make a quick transition to making real money again. I'm fine with commuting for work and travel all over the world now anyway, but cannot move due to owning a business locally. However, finding multi time locally is very tough except for renting at $250 an hour....
The amount of knowledge and experienced gained would be very helpful to me as a pilot. The hourly rate is actually less than what I have to pay for my 182... I pay to fly my own plane now, so not much difference to pay less per hour for multi turboprop time...
So I would not be going into debt, using parents money, etc.. I would be using my previous hard work to gain a skill and achieve my goal. Overall I pay to fly myself around anyway, so really not much difference.
I'm in a similar situation and I tend to agree. I don't really see the distinction. It's OK to pay for your PPL, OK to pay for your Instrument, OK to pay for your commercial time-building hours, OK to pay for your CPL, OK to pay for your CFI/CFII/MEI, but suddenly it's a cardinal sin to pay for your ATP? ATP has become the default minimum standard to obtain reasonable employment; for some of us, time is a real issue. Would those of you who are against it be similarly against someone who happened to have used a Baron or Cheyenne as personal transport for a few years and paid for every hour?

Some of these places offer the opportunity to train on turbine equipment in a real line-flying environment with all the attendant operational challenges. Compared to 1200 hours of crash-n-dashes in a 172 the person who did p2p is FAR more qualified in every respect. To suggest that instructing, as fulfilling as it is, provides anywhere near the exposure to flying in real weather with real deadlines everyday, is ludicrous. That experience is what regionals, freight companies, and corporate flight departments need. When they look at an applicant that already has experience on complex equipment in an operational environment, they see a tiny fraction of the risk that their training dollars will be wasted on someone who can't pass indoc; they see someone who will have little trouble being immediately effective rather than needing 100 hours to get used to line flying.

If you have a lot of debt or will need to go into debt to make it work, p2p may not be for you, there is nothing wrong with that and the instructing/survey/diver/banner route is well established. There is also nothing wrong with folks paying for the training and experience required to get an ATP in the same exact way they paid for the training and experience to get a CPL.
Gasfiltered is offline  
Old 08-06-2017, 10:35 AM
  #54  
Line Holder
 
Joined APC: Dec 2015
Posts: 73
Default

Originally Posted by Gasfiltered
I'm in a similar situation and I tend to agree. I don't really see the distinction. It's OK to pay for your PPL, OK to pay for your Instrument, OK to pay for your commercial time-building hours, OK to pay for your CPL, OK to pay for your CFI/CFII/MEI, but suddenly it's a cardinal sin to pay for your ATP? ATP has become the default minimum standard to obtain reasonable employment; for some of us, time is a real issue. Would those of you who are against it be similarly against someone who happened to have used a Baron or Cheyenne as personal transport for a few years and paid for every hour?

Some of these places offer the opportunity to train on turbine equipment in a real line-flying environment with all the attendant operational challenges. Compared to 1200 hours of crash-n-dashes in a 172 the person who did p2p is FAR more qualified in every respect. To suggest that instructing, as fulfilling as it is, provides anywhere near the exposure to flying in real weather with real deadlines everyday, is ludicrous. That experience is what regionals, freight companies, and corporate flight departments need. When they look at an applicant that already has experience on complex equipment in an operational environment, they see a tiny fraction of the risk that their training dollars will be wasted on someone who can't pass indoc; they see someone who will have little trouble being immediately effective rather than needing 100 hours to get used to line flying.

If you have a lot of debt or will need to go into debt to make it work, p2p may not be for you, there is nothing wrong with that and the instructing/survey/diver/banner route is well established. There is also nothing wrong with folks paying for the training and experience required to get an ATP in the same exact way they paid for the training and experience to get a CPL.
You're confusing paying to sit right seat in a metro with paying for flight training. The reason this is looked down on is because if there weren't people paying to be fo's then the company would pay a pilot to sit right seat in that plane. Paying for that turbine time is just letting everyone know what a sucker you are.
my6FOh is offline  
Old 12-18-2017, 04:32 PM
  #55  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Oct 2017
Posts: 925
Default

Originally Posted by Gasfiltered
I'm in a similar situation and I tend to agree. I don't really see the distinction. It's OK to pay for your PPL, OK to pay for your Instrument, OK to pay for your commercial time-building hours, OK to pay for your CPL, OK to pay for your CFI/CFII/MEI, but suddenly it's a cardinal sin to pay for your ATP? ATP has become the default minimum standard to obtain reasonable employment; for some of us, time is a real issue. Would those of you who are against it be similarly against someone who happened to have used a Baron or Cheyenne as personal transport for a few years and paid for every hour?

Some of these places offer the opportunity to train on turbine equipment in a real line-flying environment with all the attendant operational challenges. Compared to 1200 hours of crash-n-dashes in a 172 the person who did p2p is FAR more qualified in every respect. To suggest that instructing, as fulfilling as it is, provides anywhere near the exposure to flying in real weather with real deadlines everyday, is ludicrous. That experience is what regionals, freight companies, and corporate flight departments need. When they look at an applicant that already has experience on complex equipment in an operational environment, they see a tiny fraction of the risk that their training dollars will be wasted on someone who can't pass indoc; they see someone who will have little trouble being immediately effective rather than needing 100 hours to get used to line flying.

If you have a lot of debt or will need to go into debt to make it work, p2p may not be for you, there is nothing wrong with that and the instructing/survey/diver/banner route is well established. There is also nothing wrong with folks paying for the training and experience required to get an ATP in the same exact way they paid for the training and experience to get a CPL.
Because you paying for something that should be done by a commercial rated pilot is taking that job away from a commercial pilot who needed that job to feed his or her family. So in essence you’re a job stealer from your hardworking brothers and sisters in this industry. Here’s a tip if you did that never tell another pilot that or you will be outcast from the pilot group at your carrier.
terks43 is offline  
Old 12-21-2017, 08:37 AM
  #56  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Aug 2017
Posts: 120
Default

Several years ago early in my career I was in the right seat of a 1900 flying freight. And getting paid. Only about as much as flight instructing but it was still income.

One day all of us right seaters got a note from above stating that starting on the first of the month we will be expected to pay the company XX amount of dollars per flight hour if we wanted to stay with them.

Of course we all walked out that minute. The company came back and said alright, we will keep paying you until we get someone that will pay for your seat.

I was above 135 mins so I turned in my flight bag and walked to the next job flying overnight checks in a C-210.

I also had to take the former company to court to get my final paycheck.
MadmanX2 is offline  
Old 12-23-2017, 10:57 AM
  #57  
Gets Weekends Off
 
VIRotate's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,401
Default

Don’t pay to sit right seat just for turb time. You don’t need to do that. Companies should be paying you to sit there. End of story. Stop trying to justify it. Fly your 172 around the pattern, become a CFI then move on to 135 or 121.
VIRotate is offline  
Old 12-26-2017, 03:31 PM
  #58  
Gets Weekends Off
 
aeroengineer's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2016
Posts: 324
Default

Originally Posted by VIRotate
Don’t pay to sit right seat just for turb time. You don’t need to do that. Companies should be paying you to sit there. End of story. Stop trying to justify it. Fly your 172 around the pattern, become a CFI then move on to 135 or 121.
While I understand your point on not doing P2P. If for no other reason than the extra debt. Supply and demand is a fact of life in this country. Fortunately the market is turning in favor of pilots now and I see P2P will be less common as a result. That said as for the default answer of becoming a CFI to build time this means a lot of barely past students themselves are forced into becoming instructors and more than a few are less than stellar at instructing. Hell the military is p2p when you get down to it. Flight training in exchange for a 10 year ADSC.
aeroengineer is offline  
Old 04-21-2021, 04:25 PM
  #59  
Gets Weekends Off
 
meitnerium's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2019
Posts: 113
Default

What about Frontier making the ATP Flight School “pathway selectees” pay $18,000 towards the Airbus type rating. How is this going to change 121 hiring in the future? Curious to see if anyone caught this change in their program.
meitnerium is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
SkyyDesk
Hiring News
65
12-15-2013 10:20 AM
Pielut
Major
187
03-23-2010 06:20 PM
JoeyMeatballs
Major
1
12-23-2009 07:38 AM
par8head
Major
3
10-17-2009 06:10 AM
vagabond
Hiring News
1
09-15-2008 09:10 AM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Your Privacy Choices