Airlines Vs Fractional

[WileE]

A2B

Besides your making everyone wonder if you have actually flown any of the aircraft you are talking about outside of Microsoft Flight simulator, you are also truly demonstrating your complete lack of any sense of humor. You are replying to a joke post that was in reply to another joke post as if complete serious, making you look even more like a fool than you already do. I bet people you know hate it when they have to explain all the punch lines to you.

 

[FracPilot]

More Airplane?

Which one of those RJs cruises at up to FL510 or at Mach .92? LAX to MIA 4.0 Block to Block?

I'm sure you're joking here, but I just want to be sure. You are not claiming that the higher and faster an airplane flies the harder it is to fly, are you?

 

[FracPilot]

Most of the passengers on business jets are frequent, experience flyers, and are really easier to deal with. I find when there is a weather problem etc and it is explained to the passenger it is much better understood and appreciated by the business jet passenger.

What do the airline pilots know about dealing with the pax? They sit up front, make announcements, and sometimes stand at the door as everybody is deplaning. They don't deal with the pax - the FA's do. Of course it is going to be better understood by somebody that flies more often - but many times the airline crews keep the pax completely in the dark.

 

[Aspiring to be]

From some of your post (WilliE) it is easy to see that you do not think highly of 121 pilots. I am guilty of not thinking of commuter pilots as 121 but rather as 135 as they were when that type of flying started. If you like to think that doing your own wx, flight planning is a big deal then continue to do so. Yes, we use to do much the same at the airlines. Long-range flights require much more in wx planning than what you do from TEB to PBI. The type of airplanes I flew the last 25 years with the airline had much more than 15 minute turn times. It is almost impossible to load one in less than 20 minutes. Average load times for a wide body are about thirty minutes. Most wide body flights require about one hour for turn. Minimum turn times for the small ones like the DC-9 was about 30 minutes at small stations and maybe 45 minutes at places like Atl, ORD, and LGA etc. The larger the aircraft the more time involved in turning one. Flight plans are canned now to make the system faster and more efficient. That fact does not hinder the PIC in anyway of changing the flight plan or fuel load etc in any way. The fact that flight plans are canned does only one thing and that is to give the PIC more time to do more important things than trying to reach FSS to file flight plans. I like using the JEP flight planning service as I get most of the information that I did at the airline. The fuel burns and options available make for a better and safer flight. It is also easier and less time consuming, more accurate, etc.

I do wonder if the reason for your bitterness toward the airlines is because they do not give much if any credit for your rotor time. I can assure you that I do not have say less than in excess of 25000 hours. I have flown aircraft that has minimum trip departure fuel that exceeds the weight of anything with wings that you have flown. Make me a better pilot? No, but it does give me a lot more experience than you have. I have never flown and really have never had any desire to fly those things with rotors.

If you want to think that flying the small jets take more skill then go ahead and think. If you want to think that a major airline pilot Captain does not control his flight then you have a great deal to learn. Flying to some of the airports that we fly to is many times tougher than what most 121 pilots have to do and yes, it does take a different experience level. Most 121 pilots do not have that much recent experience flying small airplanes into small and difficult airports but they have done so in the past. I have worked for an airline that we had to do circling approaches down to 600 feet all the time. Peaces of cake in small airplanes but try it in a wide body. 600 feet in a wide body with say average speed of about 160 knots, you are very close. I would rather be down to 300 feet in a Hawker than 600 in a wide body. I have made many circling approaches in a wide body down to minimum in mountainous terrain. I made a statement and one that I believe through my experience is true. You cannot say with any authority or knowledge that flying small jets are more difficult or the same because you do not know. You could teach me many things about helicopters but you lack the experience to tell me about the difference in the large as opposed to the small jets.

 

[Frac Daddy]

DIE, THREAD, DIE!!!!

Let's kill this stupid thread and move on to a more constructive topic; like military vs. civilian

 

[WileE]

A2B

I have nothing against 121 pilots, I was one for quite awhile before I got here where I want to be. Just because I was an "Airline" pilot it didn't give me a superiority complex about it as apparently it has given you. I just disagree with all your assertions about the bigger the plane is, the harder it is to fly. I think that is a very simplistic attitude and for the most part, wrong.

 

[Aspiring to be]

You should know. I have more time in small jets than you do and you have no PIC or time in any large type (wide body) airplanes. Just what do you base your assumption that I am wrong, did someone tell you? Been there done that! Case close! Another topic please!

 

[KeroseneSnorter]

I would have to agree with wilie. Bigger is not harder. And yes I do have widebody time.

Aspiring, I think you are confusing experience with skill. There is no more skill required for a bigger airplane, You just need the experience to think bigger so to speak. Size is alot like speed, you just have to think farther ahead. That is what IOE is for, to get you used to the sight picture required etc.

You mentioned v1 cuts and the like earlier. I would rather do 50 v1 cuts in any jet you choose instead of just one in any prop. Jets are easy, stand on the rudder, max power, and hold until safe altitude. Unless you are a pee-poor pilot you will live. Now lose one on a piston or a turbo prop that doesn't auto feather and you have your hands full.

Skill and experience are two different things. yes you have more experience than those RJ guys, Not necessarly more skill.

If you really want to see a skilled pilot, go find the poor slob flying that baron or 310 with one failed engine shooting a 200 1/2 ils with no flight director who is lucky if he even has an HSI.

I was the best Inst. pilot I will ever be when I flew a raggety light twin around every night. I am now like you, I have experience but have lost some of my skill. But thats the wonders of the modern glass cockpit. Could I still do what I did back then with a baron? Yes, but not without some single engine work first. Too much extra stuff to do in a light twin that I don't have to think about in a jet.

Fire away.

 

[Live4flyng]

Check Please!

http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/news/7716354.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp

Here is one for you, Aspiring to be.

 

[Astra Guy]

Snorter,

Very well said. There are lots of different types of flying jobs. Some, out of necessity, require more hands on skill than others. Doing a snap roll 50' above a runway in an aerobatic airplane, now that takes skill and precision. Think about the fighter jocks doing their thing with zip autopilot. Think about the helicopter guys who hopefully not only fly their aircraft but wear it as an extension of their body. There are numerous examples of this in all endeavors of aviation and way to many to mention here. The most mature thing one can do as a pilot is to be able to recognize and appreciate the skills that some of our brethren have in not only our own line of work but others. Cutting each other down sure isn't professional and in most cases it is an indicator of an inferiority complex.

 

[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?