Airlines Vs Fractional

[rajflyboy]

WOW

What Kind Of Mess Did I Start with this post???


1st >> No matter how big the plane is >> They pretty much all fly the same >> Some are more finiky than others!

2nd >> An RJ is more of an Airplane than anything in the Corporate fleet with the Exception of a Gulfstream and a Global Express! Its just basic math >> which one weighs more! You guys appear to want "Pay By Weight" in the contract >> so apparantly you all do believe that bigger airplanes are worth more pilot pay/more responsibility >> or if you don't believe it then you can squash the "Pay By Weight" part of the contract when it comes out!

 

[flyfish]

I have flown with many retired airline guys and none of them seem to agree with A2B. In fact, one gentleman retired from 30+ at AA said his hawker type was his hardest yet. Due to all the memory items...But big deal anyway. I wasn't flattered. My several years in Alaska make this kind of flying seem like a cake walk. I still think it's the mission that makes the challenge.

The pay by weight issue that has been brought up is related to the percentage of the management fees, which are higher in the larger aircraft. No suprise... Has nothing to do with one being "more airplane" than the other. It will never fly though as the voting majority are flying the smaller aircraft.

 

[rajflyboy]

If the Union lets the CE 560XL guys in on the Money >> It probably will pass!

 

[flyfish]

pay by wt.

I doubt their going to put the Excel in the higher pay category.

 

[flyfish]

Gunfyter

I wouldn't bet against you on that.

 

[niteflyr]

PBW

PBW is fine with me, as long as the 400XP hits 100K at year five. Can't try to negotiate pay for larger aircraft when the business seems to be moving towards smaller planes, that would screw us all.

 

[CatYaaak]

I knew I would catch some flack on my original post. My main purpose was to expose the BS of Catyaak when he said

“(" Deplaning, I queried the crew as to what the problem was....wx?..mech?. "No problem whatsoever" they said, and went on to explain to me that with so many pax the safest thing to do was to not fly at all.").

I do not believe there could be any truth to that statement.

"Expose"??? Oh gee, Aspiring, ya got me!

Frankly, I'm stunned that anyone (that means you) took my ludicrous little made-up "story" as anything more than intended, which was of course to be ridiculous in the vein of the post just prior to mine, which in turn was intended to correctly highlight the absolute B.S of the "bigger airplane = more skill/responsibility"... you know, that nonsense, psuedo=equation that you seem to hold dear.

It's scary you actually, honestly believe this. Personally, I hope neither my family or the senior management of a company I own stock in ever sits in the back of a 'smaller' aircraft you're flying. You've got a serious case of complacency with regards to them.

It's also a little troubling to find that you think planning a descent, applying maximum braking during and RTO, fuel management (I thought everyone knew the maxim re: every airplane ever designed needs 100 nm more range) or managing a crew of F/As requires "more skill" just because it's done in a heavy. There's definitely an ego thing going on there I don't care to address.

Here's a question for you: Which requires more of your vaunted "skill and experience", landing and taxing your heavy to the gate with a garden-variety 20kt x-wind, or doing the very same thing in my Pitts?