Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Regional
Fastest way to the regionals??? >

Fastest way to the regionals???

Search
Notices
Regional Regional Airlines

Fastest way to the regionals???

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 02-17-2008, 03:38 AM
  #41  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: E145 Gear Swinger
Posts: 102
Default

Originally Posted by Piston6565 View Post
I agree with your statement but would like to add an interesting point. You also have to consider what the applicant did to achieve those hours in the logbook. Would you prefer a banner pilot with 3000 hours (no disrespect to you fellas) or a military guy/gal with over 1500 hours in a F-18? It's not always about the hours. Quality (in my opinion) is more important than quantity.
Quality over quantity is VERY true. I've argued that before on here. I think this becomes more prevalent when you get up to the hours you compared though. It's hard to compare the quality of 250 hours coming through training to 1000 hours of doing anything else though. Like TD said, nobody is trying to be mean here. Someone else mentioned that we shouldn't dislike the guys getting hired with such loq time because we'd have done it. I don't dislike them, I just think they could've made a better decision for their career. Maybe I'm weird, but I wanted to fly some, instruct, hunt forest fires and do whatever else I could find to get some experience. That way, when I got to the regionals I would have a decent understanding of what I was doing and have at least seen--albeit maybe once or twice--some things like weather, turbulence, a few equipment malfunctions, etc..., scared the hell out of myself a few times, made decisions on my own without anyone there to rely on, and survive to tell the story. You gotta remember you're carrying people in the back.
145Driver is offline  
Old 02-17-2008, 08:19 AM
  #42  
Prime Minister/Moderator
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,253
Default

Originally Posted by CloudSailor View Post
Bond, Rickair7777, I appreciate your responses and insight. Close to the information I have been obtaining.
Good luck.
In my original post I just addressed the abstract question of how to get to a regional as quickly as possible.

But I agree with all these other folks that 1000 hours as a CFI will do wonders for you...and it'll be a lot more fun than mesa.
rickair7777 is offline  
Old 02-17-2008, 09:58 AM
  #43  
Gets Weekends Off
 
de727ups's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: UPS 757/767 Capt ONT
Posts: 4,357
Default

Like I said, there are no absolutes. The system has always been about hours. Ironically, the F18 guy wasn't qualified to be an ATP at 1499 hours while the banner tow guy was. I'd not argue with you over who would probably make a better RJ F/O, though. I don't discount quality over quantity. I just don't think 300 hour RJ F/O's are, generally, a very good idea. There are exceptions. I met one yesterday. But I'm not impressed with the trend of the lowering experience levels to be an airline pilot.
de727ups is offline  
Old 02-17-2008, 11:07 AM
  #44  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Position: 320
Posts: 709
Default

Originally Posted by Senior Skipper View Post
I'll try not to take sides in this discussion, but I'll say maybe it's a good thing this person doesn't want to instruct. The simple fac is that not everybody should instruct. An instructor is a teacher. And like all the teachers we all had at various levels of education, some were good and some were bad. The best teachers I had were the ones who really loved their jobs. They weren't just doing it because they were just out of college and needed a job fast.

I think the same principle holds true in aviation. The majority of CFI's use the gig as a stepping stone. Fine. But what if you really hate the job, or you're just not a good teacher? He may learn a thing or two from it, but it may not be beneficial for the student. The student may learn a lot of bad habits, or may just have a problem learning because CFI John Brown doesn't know how to impart knowledge.

Bottom line, don't say that everybody should instruct. It's not for everybody. Everybody should gain experience in low and slow airplanes where mistakes are easy to correct.
This is very true. I dont think everyine should be an instructor because if they are there only to build hours then most of the time they dont care about your flying. I guess a pos of this is that there will be one less instructor so less pilots can be trained which means maybe someday we will get paid like 2 or 3 cents more.

I am glad i instructed but change is happening and heck i am part of the change i may not be the 300 or 400 fo but i am lowwer then the old 1000 hours.
tom14cat14 is offline  
Old 02-17-2008, 11:35 AM
  #45  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: DD->DH->RU/XE soon to be EV
Posts: 3,732
Default

Originally Posted by de727ups View Post
"Because one has more hours or "experience" than the other doesn't always make them the better candidate."

Actually...it does.

As a baseline, that's how our system works. No absolutes, but that's how the system has worked for years. More experience equals better pilot.

I'm still not seeing the problem with that....

I guess, but at your shop for a while it was about the type of experience, not the TOTAL experience was it not?

At one time, if some guy had 10,000 turbine PIC but had never been across the ocean, he wouldn't even get looked at, while a guy with a fraction of that time who had could get hired. So is your statement ALWAYS correct? Highly subjective and conditional if you ask me, depending on what is asked of the candidate.
dojetdriver is offline  
Old 02-17-2008, 12:45 PM
  #46  
Gets Weekends Off
 
atpwannabe's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Math Teacher
Posts: 2,273
Default

Originally Posted by Slice View Post
Wow, 2 inexperienced guys agreeing with each other? Has hell frozen over? Change is good when it is positive. Lowering the experience levels of cockpit crews is never a good thing. It drives down safety and lowers pay.
I may be inexperienced when it comes to the actual flying....for now....however I will not enter the profession naive and driving at the hood ornament. Having a good field of vision while trying to minimize the potential pitfalls no matter what route one chooses to take is always a good thing.

As far as lowering the experience level of cockpit crews, well, I don't set the standard. Whether or not if a pilot is proficienct enough to fly a jet or turboprop a/c at 500 hrs as oppose to 1000 hrs is a judgment call. It's not mine to make about anyone else other than myself.


atp

Last edited by atpwannabe; 02-17-2008 at 12:50 PM.
atpwannabe is offline  
Old 02-17-2008, 04:16 PM
  #47  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,803
Default

What I find interesting is how all those on here advocating the CFI-route don't look at the individual. Lots of people weren't made to teach - just think about how many lousy teachers you had in school, and how many lousy CFI's you've come across.

Why would ya'll say that it is absurd for a 500-hr guy to fly 50+ passengers around, but okay to teach somebody the art of flying? The only difference is that with CFI'ing, you will most likely kill only one other person in the process. In a Jet, however, you'll be the junior crewmember with a mentor in the left seat...

If somebody really doesn't want to teach, don't force them. It's dangerous and irresponsible. A lousy CFI can teach lousy habits, which can easily lead to a fatal accident. Would you want that on your conscience?

"But there are other ways to build time - like banner-towing," you say...Can you expect somebody to really spend many weeks or months hunting down a lousy-paying job in another part of the Country when a half-decent airline may be knocking down their door? Some just don't have the network of friends and contacts you may have enjoyed.

If we were all the same, this would be an incredibly boring world. Don't knock someone 'cause they're not your idea of the "right stuff."
ExperimentalAB is offline  
Old 02-17-2008, 05:21 PM
  #48  
New Hire
 
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: CRJ FO
Posts: 1
Default

In answer to the actual question, I have a friend that flies for the same airline I do who went to Regional Airline Academy in Arizona (Phoenix I think). I'm pretty sure it's 141. He got all licenses and ratings, went through the CRJ course there, and then instructed in the CRJ sim. Never got his CFI but knew that airplane like the back of his hand and has had no problems in training or on the line and we do not work for Mesa or GoJets. Long story short, there are ways to get to the airlines fast and still get a quality regional job.

Just my .02: you can get through training quick but don't be hasty when you decide what regional to go with. Personally, those people I've spoken to that work for Mesa are abused by the company and the quality of life sucks. Not worth it. GoJet pilots are regarded by a lot of pilots in the industry as on the same level as scabs. Definitely not worth it - the last thing you want to do in this industry is start out on the bad list.

If flight instructing is not for you, do try and get some experience such as doing a jet training course. It gives you something to offer the airlines and will give you a taste of what you'll experience in training with a 121 carrier.
GVineChic is offline  
Old 02-17-2008, 05:22 PM
  #49  
Line Holder
 
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Posts: 40
Default

Originally Posted by ExperimentalAB View Post
What I find interesting is how all those on here advocating the CFI-route don't look at the individual. Lots of people weren't made to teach - just think about how many lousy teachers you had in school, and how many lousy CFI's you've come across.

Why would ya'll say that it is absurd for a 500-hr guy to fly 50+ passengers around, but okay to teach somebody the art of flying? The only difference is that with CFI'ing, you will most likely kill only one other person in the process. In a Jet, however, you'll be the junior crewmember with a mentor in the left seat...

If somebody really doesn't want to teach, don't force them. It's dangerous and irresponsible. A lousy CFI can teach lousy habits, which can easily lead to a fatal accident. Would you want that on your conscience?

"But there are other ways to build time - like banner-towing," you say...Can you expect somebody to really spend many weeks or months hunting down a lousy-paying job in another part of the Country when a half-decent airline may be knocking down their door? Some just don't have the network of friends and contacts you may have enjoyed.

If we were all the same, this would be an incredibly boring world. Don't knock someone 'cause they're not your idea of the "right stuff."
I agree.......
Piston6565 is offline  
Old 02-17-2008, 08:34 PM
  #50  
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
 
CloudSailor's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,052
Default

Experimental, GVine,

Thanks for the responses. It's hard to believe that in 4 pages of responses, I've received about three actual answers to the original question. A lot of people interested in giving an opinion, which if informative, is appreciated. It seems that there is a lot of folks on this forum who resist the idea of an airline pilot not having been an instructor.

I can tell you I've flown with both Captains and First Officers who come from military, civilian with cfi, civilian without cfi backgrounds. From all three backgrounds I've flown with below average, average, above average, and excellent pilots. A lot of the excellent pilots I've flown with over the years were flying high-performance military jets within 200 hours. Many of the excellent pilots were guys/gals who had never instructed and were at the airlines at around 300 hours, and many of them were in also flight instructors.

What I've seen determine the quality of the pilot I've flown with is attention to detail, the ability/desire/capacity to learn, good ability to communicate and work well with others, a love for the job, and a positive attitude. Somewhere on that list is also hours flown, but not at the top of the list, and neither is whether the pilot has been a CFI or not.

I've flown with turbine pilots who have more than 10K hours who are nowhere as competent, safe or professional as some of the under 4K hours pilots I've flown with. Of course, at some point, hours are of importance. But again, from the first airline training I went through, flight instructors (and I mean no disrespect), who had been mainly flying around in the right seat of a C172 or similar for the past 2000+ hours were having a MUCH higher washout rate than the 250-500 hour pilots coming into the airline with airline-specific training in high-performance complex aircraft. This I say from direct experience as a sim instructor in turbine aircraft for pilots who were first exposed to turbine/high altitude flying. All my personal observations and opinion of course. It can be just as fun and rewarding of a career without the need to be a CFI.

Great pilots come from ALL different backgrounds... the CFI route is only ONE of the possible paths to being a safe, professional, above average airline pilot.
CloudSailor is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
TurbineTime
Regional
73
12-23-2007 12:41 PM
rustypilot
Regional
40
11-15-2007 06:21 PM
alpha23
Regional
9
08-30-2007 06:45 AM
UnlimitedAkro
Regional
1
07-11-2007 03:51 PM
supercell86
Hiring News
14
01-09-2006 01:07 PM

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



Your Privacy Choices