Why is it that...

[JJflyer]

Why is it that after flying as Citation F/O, Cheyenne Captain for Corporate ops and the As VIP B737 F/O And now for the second company as VIP B727 F/O I cannot seem to be able to break out of the Corporate/ VIP world. I get offered jobs in this line of flying, but I don´t actually want to do this. Airlines thats where I want to go. Anybody experienced similar. I have heard that VIP market is hard to break in but hard to break out ... hahahah, never realised that this could be the case.

JJ slightly intrigued

[Loc-out]

With a job like you have got, why the hell would you want to break out?

[ANTI-ICE ON]

JJFlyer, when I read your message, I felt just like you. Have been in the VIP corporate world for "only" 3 years now, and amazingly have the feeling that I won't get out of it.
I have flown Falcon aircraft before and have just been offered a job on a Challenger 604.

Thought about joining the airlines, but the opportunity came up and I didn't turn it down.
Like yourselves wasn't what I really intended to do. Is it gonna be that way forever or what? Anyways, the grass always seems to be greener on the other side, huh?
Lots of people think that corporate flying is way nicer than airline but since I haven't experienced it, can't be so sure.....
Enjoy your flights and happy landings.

[JJflyer]

Oooah... I am sad... Well I could be a lot worse. I have been working to get a BBJ contract but same thing don´t really want it. Did not really want to fly this B727 either but since I didn´t have anything else to do took it. It does beat working in the garden though.

To answer the question why do I want to get out. Well, No schedule, no rotation, no vacations, no privileges, no job security, no ID90´s. Standby for 24h a day 365 a year, on a pager and mobile all the time. Salary oh not all that good at all.

This new contract I have seems to be a lot better than the one before. But all the details are still in the air so to speak and I know from experience that working for people from Middle-East on VIP airplanes has some serious shortcomings.

Reasons enough ???? :)

Oh yes and I want to fly more, a lot more. 120h a year just does not cut it for me !

JJ

[This message has been edited by JJflyer (edited 01 May 2001).]

[JJflyer]

Still looking... Including bizjets, if pay is on time and there is around 500 hours a year of flying :)

JJ

[JB007]

Where you based and what licence (FAA/JAA)have you got JJ ?

I would have though you'd get snapped up with a decent Uk airline..Air2000/Monarch etc etc...lots of flying!

------------------
Regards JB007!
[email protected]
Flight Ops,Crewing and Dispatch Moderator

[Flanker]

JJ

Joining any of the low cost crowd will get you a lot more flying, you'll be wanting less again soon enough! I don't know how the money would compare but at Easy its not the usual complaint.At least in the airlines your days off are not normally interfered with and you can do some planning.

It's horses for courses but I will almost certainly be sticking with airline flying(and its problems)from now on.At least I gave corporate a go so I would recommend that you try it in the other direction,you will have options either way.Try not to get bonded if at all possible(difficult I know),I have personal experience of the possible difficulties you may encounter if it doesn't work out.

There can be some difficulties transferring easily between these two types of job I think.Take your time and research your options carefully, people tend to ignore bad news once they've made their mind up.(eg The image Emirates has versus the reality seen elsewhere on pprune).

The upside is if you can't get an airline job now- you never will!

Good Luck

[JJflyer]

Thank you Flanker. Nice post and had some very good points in it.

I have actually apllied to several airlines and I am going throught the system as I write. Also a couple have put me in their pilot pool after interviews,and will put me in school once vacancies open.
As you know It does take quite some time to complete a hiring process for a respectable airline and you can´t really expedite it.

So meanwhile I am waiting for a position or an answer to my papers and interviews... hahahah It is just SOOOOOOOOOOO boring. Instead of sitting around I decided to go and get a type rating. won´t hurt you know. Thanks to the VIP jobs I can afford it as well.

JJ

[Flight Safety]

To JJflyer and anyone else...

I expect to be hiring pilots for corporate flying in the not too distant future, and this particular thread is troubling me. I always feel a responsibility to see to it that employees are always happy with their jobs, and I always feel motivated to do whatever is possible to help with this.

To the corporate (or VIP) pilots, what you would like to see in corporate flying jobs that would help you to feel satisfied with this type of work?

To JJflyer, would a job at a fractional jet operator give you the flying hours and other benefits you're looking for?

------------------
Safe flying to you...

[This message has been edited by Flight Safety (edited 15 June 2001).]

[JJflyer]

Let me shortlist a few things.

1. Pay on time.
2. If a pilot is expected to be on call 24h / 365 a year it should reflect in the paycheck.
3. Rotation 2 on 1 off or something like that would be desirable. This would allow crew to go home or and plan ahead. Otherwise a schedule supplied atleast 2 weeks in advance. This does not usually work with VIP or corporate ops so a rotation it is.
. Benefits such as medicare, retirement, profit sharing etc.

For me. Well I consider flying important. The more flying and less sitting around the better. I can do that sitting around when I retire.

JJ

[Flight Safety]

Just so you'll know, it will be many months from now before I hire anyone (unless my circumstances change more rapidly than I expect). I'm posting this because I got a resume in e-mail already, and I'm not ready to offer anything at this time.

I do however feel close enough to this situation (the need will arrive before too long), that I'm interested in gathering the details of what pilots would consider a very desirable working environment. When the need does arrive, I don't want to make a mistake and create a work environment that would be distressing, because of a lack of understanding about what would make the pilots happy employees.

------------------
Safe flying to you...

[Flight Safety]

One issue regarding corporate flying that I'm not sure how to work out is the on-call situation. In most cases having at least one other person available solves the basic problem of an employee being able to count on uninterrupted time off when they're not on-call. When you're on-call, you're on-call, and when you're not on-call, you're not on-call.

As I see it for corporate flying, that would mean having at least 2 flight crews. That could work (the expenses could be justified) depending on how much flying has to be done. If there's more than one aircraft type being flown, then both flight crews could possibly be rated on both types. How would being type rated on both a GV and a 757-200 executive for example work out, assuming the GV would be flown (often spur of the moment) about 3 or 4 times as often as the 757 (with most of its flights being well planned in advance)? Would this be a suitable work enviroment?

I generally understand the issues with trying to fly more than one type in a given time period, but would flying 2 types create a serious safety problem?

Also, I strongly believe in providing good salaries and benefits, so I don't see a problem there.

------------------
Safe flying to you...

[This message has been edited by Flight Safety (edited 17 June 2001).]

[411A]

Flight Safety--
I would recommend that you have dedicated crews for each type. IMHO mixing two completely different types (as in your example) does not promote safety of operations. This was tried many years ago in a large corporation that I worked for, and NONE of the crews liked it. In fact, come to think of it, we had three types, B727, GII and FH227. Guess which type generated the most flight hours and actually PAID for itself? Yes, it was the FH227, based in Teheran. We averaged 145 hours per month with two Captains and one (rated) First Officer, six days per week. Was much younger then so the pace was not noticed.

[Flight Safety]

I suppose having 3 flight crews would work, two for the GV and 1 for the 757. It would take 2 crews for the GV to solve the on-call duty issue, and with the 757 flights not being that frequent and mostly planned in advance, a fair amount of scheduled time off could be relied upon for that crew.

JJflyer mentioned his boredom at flying just 120 hours per year, which I understand. The 757 crew might fly twice that many hours per year, but that's all. The GV on the other hand would fly around 600 hours per year, but that flight time would have to be divided between the two crews.

So that leaves about 300 hours per year for each GV crew member and 200-250 hours per year for the 757 crew members. All three crews could enjoy scheduled time off, knowing that when they're off duty, they're off duty. Do you think this would be enough flight hours for each crew member to keep his or her skills up? It seems to me it would be.

Would this work?

[This message has been edited by Flight Safety (edited 17 June 2001).]

[JJflyer]

Having crews X-qualified can be both good and bad.
I flew at a time A CE525, B737 and some turbo-props for a year or so. I did not find it diffucult to keep up to speed. Requires a lot of interest from pilot to keep reviewing abnormal procedures. I don´t think that operating a B757 and G IV or V with crews that are qualified on both airplaes would be a problem.
Safety is an important issue, but with proper initial training and continuous recurrency training this would surely not be a problem. A proficiency check in each type every year. That adds up to a procheck every 6 months for any given crewmember. Now the question would be if it was cheaper to have separate crews for both types as training is not cheap.
I know for a fact that they send their crews for type specific recurrency training once every 2 years and have them obtain a type rating every year in another aircraft of the same category and class. What I remeber is that heavy iron bizjet types and recurrency is horenndously expencive. GIV @ over 30000 USD initial and 12000-15000 USD for recurrency. When a B747 type can be obtained for 7900 USD makes a big difference.

JJ

[Flight Safety]

OK, let's suppose that two total flight crews are hired and all 4 pilots are type rated on both aircraft. The cost of initial training and recurrency would be the same regardless for a GV. I haven't checked, but would assume that a 757 type rating would be in the ballpark of a 747 rating.

If the limit of type ratings for each pilot is held to only 2 types, would this overburden the pilots with training, systems study and emergency procedures? The examples given by both of you guys (JJ and 411) include at least 3 types, which I imagine would be difficult and no fun.

I'm looking at roughly 800 hours total per year for both types, which is about 400 hours per year for each crew member. Would 400 hours per year be a good balance of time spent flying, and time made available for system study and procedures familiarization, plus some time to relax with the family?

Looking at costs only, I'd prefer to hire only 2 crews, but if it comes down to safety issues and crew satisfaction, I'll hire 3 crews. With 4 pilots, I'd still have a 3rd crew member available for the GV for the occasional long haul overseas, but these should normally be planned flights and not spur of the moment flights.

As a side note, I do wish that Gulfstream would fix the reliability issues with the GV. That aircraft will need to have a very high dispatch reliability for my needs, plus I'd hate to see the pilots having to deal with constant MEL situations and schedule changes because of the aircraft's unavailablity due to maintenance issues.

[411A]

FlightSafety--
Would a GIV-SP work for your needs? From reports that I have received from the NBAA the -IV is a much more reliable aircraft.
As for the pilots....with two ratings/qualifications at the same time, have you considered the insurance angle? Your underwriter may have objections. Seems to me that you would also increase your training costs big time.

[Flight Safety]

411A, agreed on the training costs, however it looks like training costs for one more type are less than another salary (plus benefits). So that's 4 salaries with benefits plus 8 training costs vs. 6 salaries with benefits plus 6 training costs. I'll have to check the insurance.

From reading the above posts, it seems there are two major issues flying corporate-
VIP (excluding the salary and benefit issues) that I'd like to solve. These are the on-duty issue (pager, cell phone, on-call 24/7/365, no planned time off, etc), and the low flying hours issue.

So one possible solution is to have 3 flight crews rated on one type each, with about 300 annual hours for each GV crew member, and 200-240 hours for each 757 crew member. The other solution is 2 flight crews that are dual rated, with about 400-450 annual hours. I'm sure there are other possible solutions.

A solution that does not appear acceptable, is 2 flight crews single type rated, with 600 annual hours for the GV crew, and 200-240 for the 757 crew. This solution would be fairly easy on the 757 crew (except for the low annual hours), but pretty hard on the GV crew (because of the spur of the moment flight needs).

The closer I get to these needs, the harder I'll work the numbers, but at this stage I like the 2 crew dual type arrangement the best, followed by the 3 crew single type arrangement. I think either would work, but feel the 3 crew arrangement would be somewhat more costly (excluding the insurance considerations).

The GIVSP will not make Europe from Texas, especially flying west, without a fuel stop. But then again I think those flights would be fairly rare. Reliability will be very important, so by the time these things start to happen, if the GV isn't fixed, I guess I'll have to look at the GIVSP (or a Falcon).

------------------
Safe flying to you...

[411A]

FlightSafety--
Would seem to me that:
One dedicated crew for the 757....
One dedicated crew for the GV...(or GIVSP)
plus another Capt for the GV...
The third Captain would be the "swing guy" Captain or First officer, as the need indicates.
Noted last year in SNN a GV parked on the ramp, and the handling agent mentioned that the OWNER was beside himself because...the number one engine had seized at 30 West...on a brand new aircraft.
Think the GIV-SP would be your best bet, the GV has MANY problems (according to NBAA, and I am a member).
The Falcon is a good aircraft but, if you ever have to buy parts, prepare to pay BIG TIME.

[fokkerjet]

Flightsafety and 411A.

I've been a corporate pilot for about 20 years and have always been crossed qualified on our aircraft.

As far as how many pilots to hire for two airplanes, the NBAA recommends 3 pilots per aircraft as an average. Our department, a major U.S.corporation, has 5 GV's and 2 F70's. We currently have 26 line pilots and 5 managers flying our fleet worldwide. All pilots are dual qualified and we have no problems handling 2 different aircraft types. Several pilots in our "country club" also fly in the U.S. Air Force Reserves, so they are actually flying 3 types.

What you need to look at is how many hours you plan on flying per year and what kind of trips (duty/flight hours) you plan on doing. With the GV's, we frequently add a third pilot on long flights (12+ hours) so our pilot/aircraft ratio is higher than the average.

As far as training costs go, it's usually cheaper. At FlightSafety, if you have a training contract, it allows you to pay for training on the most expensive aircraft in your fleet, and the cheaper aircraft is "free". I know this is true with FlightSafety International but this may not be true if you also use FlightSafety-Boeing. I don't know about insurance costs being any higher, I think they are only interested in how, and how much, you train.

[Flight Safety]

Thanks Fokkerjet, that's what I needed to hear. Can you give me an idea of either the number of total hours flown by all aircraft, or the average number of hours flown by each pilot. I'd like to get some sense of how much time each pilot spends flying, training, and what kind of free time each one has.

BTW, how has your experience with the GVs been going lately? The last time we chatted it wasn't going very good.

P.S. I need to repeat that I don't have any jobs to offer at this time, and won't have for some time. I'm still getting resumes and e-mail requests for jobs. I've even heard from a head hunter. When I have anything to offer I'll be sure and post it here.

------------------
Safe flying to you...

[This message has been edited by Flight Safety (edited 19 June 2001).]

[con-pilot]

Sorry to just jump in here, but I have always flown more than one type of aircraft in every job I have had for the last 20 years.

Corporate flight department from 1977 to 1986: Company owned a Westwind 2, Jet Commander, DC-3 and a Bell 222. I was the chief pilot and was current on the Westwind, Jet Commander and the DC-3. The Bell 222 pilot was current on the 222 and the Westwind.

United States Marshal Service 1988 to 1998: The USMS operates B-727s and Sabreliner 80s. I was a line captain on the B-727 and the Sabreliner (75% on the 72). We attended recurrency training on both airplanes every year.

Corporate flying 1998 to current: We operate a Sabreliner 65 and will soon start operating a New Falcon 900EX. All pilots will be current in both aircraft.

I really feel based on my experience that pilots can stay current and safe on two different types of airplanes. I also agree that 3 crew members per aircraft is best.

[Flight Safety]

Thanks con-pilot. I like the idea of 3 crews (6 pilots) for these 2 aircraft, with all pilots being dual rated. 3 crew members per aircraft would cover nicely things like sick leave, vacations, long trips requiring a relief pilot, being on-call (and not being on-call) for both the GV and the 757.

However, with 6 pilots rated on the 757, no one would get a great deal of time on it (240 hours per year / 3 crew = 80 hours per year per pilot). That might be an issue. You could have only 3 pilots (or perhaps 4) for the 757 and thus dual rated. It seems to me that might keep those pilots more current on the 757 because they'd fly more hours on it. But that could create another issue, there being 2 tiers of pilots. I'm not sure I like that idea.

------------------
Safe flying to you...

[JJflyer]

You could try having 1 crew per aircraft and having some pilots on a retainer such as retired airline pilots. This would allow flexibility not to have a 3rd pilot on full slary , yet he would still be available for flight when needed. This would allow to cover sickleaves etc quite efficiently and will cost a fraction of having a person on full salary.

JJ

[411A]

FlightSafety--
Don't forget that pilots like to ah....fly. 80 hours per year would be very boring. I was offered a position years ago with Mobil Oil but turned it down when I found out there was not much flying available, stayed with SIA instead.

[Flight Safety]

411A, I was thinking about something you put in an earlier post, and that was to have 5 pilots total (instead of 6). I agree with you about hours, as I'd like to see the pilots get about 300-400 hours each per year.

I'd like to see the 757 pilots get at least 120 hours per year each on that aircraft, as I'd feel safer knowing that they were not only current in their training, but current in their experience. Consequently I might have to limit the number of pilots who are dual qualified for that reason. I'll just have to think about the 757 pilot situation further, as I think that aircraft will only fly about 20 hours a month.

You know I'm glad I'm taking the time now to work through the pilot issues, because it's gotten a little more involved than I expected, but I really want a very satisfactory arrangement for all concerned and it's been worth the effort.

On the GV, I like the parameters of the aircraft and feel that it's exactly what I need. However Rolls-Royce and Gulfstream are going to have to get their act together on this aircraft, or I'm going to have to make another choice. I'm not going to put up with the maintenance problems it's currently having.

I honestly don't understand the management at Gulfstream. If I owned Gulfstream, I'd have the engineers all over the issues with this aircraft. There are a lot reasons to take care of these problems now, but one main reason is the impact on future sales of the GVSP if these issues are not corrected soon. Gulfstream also has a direct competitor in the GLEX that they're going to lose market share to, if they don't deal with these problems. If I owned Gulfstream, solving the GV problems would be the number one priority, but they're distracted right now with the development of the GVSP, the development of an enhanced GIVSP, the acquisition of Galaxy Aerospace, and the market exploration of a supersonic jet. It's hard to have a future if you can't take care of the present, but I digress.

------------------
Safe flying to you...

[This message has been edited by Flight Safety (edited 21 June 2001).]

[fokkerjet]

Flight Safety.

I believe each aircraft is budgeted for a couple thousand hours per year, and as a pilot, last year I flew 490 hours. Training, which included going through GV initial, totaled about 30 days. Recurrents are usually 4 or 5 days each, once per year on each aircraft, plus travel.

Scheduling, you will find, is the biggest headache you will have. By dual qualifing everyone, you will never have a shortage of pilots when a GV or B757 trip suddenly appears. Grab two pilots and go, so to speak.

As far as the GV issues, Gulfstream is working on fixes and it's the GVsp. The engine issue is with all aircraft models with BR710 engines. Gulfstream just told me last week that the engine issue will be fixed soon and a program is underway to replace the fans.

Why are you looking at the 757? Have you looked into, say 2 BBJ's that could take the place of a GV and 757? (I might know of two coming up for sale soon)



[This message has been edited by fokkerjet (edited 21 June 2001).]

[mutt]

240 hours per year in a B757, shouldnt you really consider buying a Netjets BBJ fractional share instead?

Mutt :)

[con-pilot]

mutt, one problem with the fractional ownership airplane. You really don't own the airplane. The person that bought the share of the airplane cannot select the crew and they can't leave any personal belongings on the aircraft.

Therefore people that can afford to buy 75s or that class aircraft don't care if they only fly 200 to 300 hrs a year. You are 100% right that it makes more money sense. However, in the US the average corporate yearly flying time average per aircraft is around 300hr per year.

I realize that compaired to some some other type of aircraft operations 300hrs a year is not that much, I should know because for ten years I averaged 970hr a year. Damn near killed me. Now I fly around 250hr a year and LOVE it!

Anyway, mutt miss you in chat and hope someday to share a beer with you.

By the way the new 900 is GREAT!!!!!!

[Flight Safety]

Thanks fokkerjet. I'm also considering a BBJ, but like the available room in a 752 better. I'd still like a GV because it costs less to operate and you can get it into smaller airports than the BBJ. Plus it has speed and range.

Both aircraft will be work planes. The GV will be used for small groups while the 752 will be used for 20-40 (or perhaps 50) person sized groups. The frequency need for groups that large is not great, but it's the ultimate "conference call" when a larger group of people need to get together for a project. I want the aircraft fitted out for work with satcom, phone, internet, fax, conference areas, rest areas, etc. I just think a 752 is better sized for groups this large to work in, especially when you consider you'll be in the aircraft for half a day or more. I also want a very productive work environment in the aircraft while they're all together.

Con-pilot is right about direct ownership vs fractional. This aircraft will meet a special need and it needs to be outfitted in a specific way. I also want direct control over how it's being used. In summary I don't want a shuttle for a group this large, I want an office for a group this large.

I'd like a new airframe, but a used airframe (like mid-life for example) might be more cost effective, even though there are a lot of issues with purchasing an older airframe. The 752 can also fly into just about any airport that the BBJ can fly into.

------------------
Safe flying to you...

[This message has been edited by Flight Safety (edited 23 June 2001).]

[mutt]

Hey Con-Pilot,

I guess that I’m a terrible skeptic, I think that it comes with living in this part of the world, but I get very weary of people who talk about operating 2 large corporate aircraft and who don’t really have an idea about how to operate them. I was therefore wondering what sort of planning actually went into the aircraft acquisition.

Glad to hear that you are enjoying the 900, why are you keeping both aircraft?

I more or less gave up on chat when we started employing Asian flight attendants again. :)

Looking forward to that beer someday.

Mutt. http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/mica/FarSMutt.gif

[con-pilot]

mutt, you want to tell me the FAs? Please!

Just a joke, we are keeping the Sabreliner for a backup. Also for other officers in the company to use.

Some day on beer for sure.

[Flight Safety]

My thanks to everyone for responding to the questions regarding the creation of an environment that pilots would enjoy working in. I really appreciate your help.

FWIW, the average break even point between fractional and direct ownership is about 300-350 hours per year. Above this rate and direct ownership is more cost effective. Below this rate, fractional is more cost effective. So 240 hours expected annual utilization is not that far off in costs for the Boeing (either Boeing).

[This message has been edited by Flight Safety (edited 24 June 2001).]