I wonder how much the difference between attitudes of corporate jet pilots and Airline trained pilots comes more from where our backgrounds are different.
A corporate light jet pilot often comes from the route of flying light twins, often single pilot, often off airways down in the weather. He is used to dealing with situations on the hoof and on his/her own.
Airline trained pilots often progress through training straight into the controlled invironment of the airline where the pilot does not think but has to fly to set rules and procedures.
The light jet pilot again tends to have more hands on experience often from having flown dated equiptment which requires more involvement by the pilot.
Where do you suppose airline pilots come from?
Over the course of my career I've flown more than my share of corporate and charter turbojet flights, special missions flights, utility flights, cargo flights, freight flights, fractional flights, etc. I find that training received from the airline flight training department meets the same standards and procedures and logic that is received from FSI or Simuflite. I was never trained at FSI or simuflite in a type course or recurrent to reject a takeoff after V1, nor would I do so.
Of course, how could a pilot flying for an airline or cargo freight company possibly have the advanced wealth of understanding of how to take an airplane off the ground like a corporate pilot could, right? I started flying ag airplanes and crop dusting as a kid, before finishing high school...and yet by your own assertion, that's probably all been washed away by the evils of the airline training I may or may not have received. You make assumptions aplenty...assumptions which aren't founded in experience to know the difference, or to even know one's target audience.
The truth is that most airline pilots come from one of two routes; military, or civillian. Military training and experience is well known, well documented, and a known quantity. Civillian backgrounds vary, but most civillian trained airline pilots have come up through the ranks instructing, flying freight, some corporate, generally charter, and eventually ended up where they are now.
Among those posting in this thread, for example, are pilots with varying backgrounds including military and civillian. You have experts on performance, aerodynamics, maintenance...all of whom have a very in-depth background in their field as well as a good grasp of aviation knowledge and experience. You have somewhat of a tainted image based on your own imaginings, and your expert background as a Cessna Citation pilot. What you seem to lack is a broad background or experience level. You may find that as your experience and background grows, your attitudes may change. You may also come to realize the ignorance of the statement quoted above.
The light jet pilot again tends to have more hands on experience often from having flown dated equiptment which requires more involvement by the pilot.
I don't know about you, but I learned to fly in a 1947 piper cub. I've flown 60 year old airplanes in a hard, working environment, and brand new airplanes with but fifteen hours on the airframe. Again, as you gain more experience you may find that your statement somewhat smacks of ignorance.
Then there is the nature of the two animals/or birds. A light jet like a citation is still a light aircraft with slow takeoff and landing speeds.
Perhaps your citation. A Lear, for example, uses speeds very near that of most Boeing equipment. It's not slow, it doesn't behave like a light airpalne, and it doesn't simply settle down and land like a 172. I flew the Piaggio Avanti...which lands and takes off at similiar speeds to the lear or other corporate aircraft...not a 172 either. Your straightwing citation doesn't necessarily equate to other corporate and business swept wing equipment. Never the less, it's time to learn to fly it like a jet, and not a 172; this includes coming to understand V1 marks the boundary between driving the car and flying the airplane.
A heavy has to be different as you are driving tons of hardware down the runway with tons of power.
Tons of power is relative. Slow acceleration, more mass. A comparison you might understand is the difference in a Cessna 206 between empty, and full. A large airplane when heavy, like most airplanes when heavy, can go from being quite capable to somewhat of a dog. Flying a light airplane is about mass management...which should be the same philosophy applied to a 18,000 lb learjet, too.