waveflyer
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2005
- Posts
- 10,005
Dtw- I think you have my career timeline a bit skewed-
I too followed the career path- The difference is that while I was hired by my legacy in early 2000 after a 5 year turboprop gig and 1 year in transport charter, I was furloughed and my job replaced by large RJs. Within 8 months my family and I began our business, and after 18months cobra running out, and only expensive alternatives available, I needed insurance, a steady paycheck, and wanted to get back flying- I got myself current scrapping up odd flying jobs, and was lucky to get a good RJ job. Many of my peers with the scarlet F got turned down as those who were previously shunned by majors found themselves interviewing at regionals and taking out their venom on pilots who had nothing to do with their experience at the majors-
But this has little to do with my career as I've landed on my feet and don't need a flying income anymore (knock on wood, as things are volatile). I just simply disagree with the combination of outsourcing and seniority. The first subverts the latter.
The difference between 1992 and 2006 is that it was "feed" back then. And still mostly turboprops- the jets were a small scope threat in the eyes of most pilots. The mission of -900's isn't feed from rural towns- its supplemental on mainline routes. It's too big an airplane to do anything but.
The point of bringing up 1992, is that it should teach us how strategic mgmt is in the long term. It was feed in 1992- less than 15 years later, over 50% of domestic legacy departures were outsourced RJs.
50%+
That's an amazing number.
They laid the foundation- allowed us to get used to the idea of outsourcing and moved forward in their plan to employ less and less major airline pilots and get the job done by pilots chasing the carrot.
As for the next generation- would you recommend this career?
If you would, I think you're living in the past and need to update yourself on the economics.
I too followed the career path- The difference is that while I was hired by my legacy in early 2000 after a 5 year turboprop gig and 1 year in transport charter, I was furloughed and my job replaced by large RJs. Within 8 months my family and I began our business, and after 18months cobra running out, and only expensive alternatives available, I needed insurance, a steady paycheck, and wanted to get back flying- I got myself current scrapping up odd flying jobs, and was lucky to get a good RJ job. Many of my peers with the scarlet F got turned down as those who were previously shunned by majors found themselves interviewing at regionals and taking out their venom on pilots who had nothing to do with their experience at the majors-
But this has little to do with my career as I've landed on my feet and don't need a flying income anymore (knock on wood, as things are volatile). I just simply disagree with the combination of outsourcing and seniority. The first subverts the latter.
The difference between 1992 and 2006 is that it was "feed" back then. And still mostly turboprops- the jets were a small scope threat in the eyes of most pilots. The mission of -900's isn't feed from rural towns- its supplemental on mainline routes. It's too big an airplane to do anything but.
The point of bringing up 1992, is that it should teach us how strategic mgmt is in the long term. It was feed in 1992- less than 15 years later, over 50% of domestic legacy departures were outsourced RJs.
50%+
That's an amazing number.
They laid the foundation- allowed us to get used to the idea of outsourcing and moved forward in their plan to employ less and less major airline pilots and get the job done by pilots chasing the carrot.
As for the next generation- would you recommend this career?
If you would, I think you're living in the past and need to update yourself on the economics.
Last edited:
.
