Captain on ATR or SFO on Boeing 737?

[flying_fish]

Hi, I have 3000hours of experience on light turboprop and now at a point of career transition. I've been offered captian on ATR on a start up airlines and another LCC is offering SFO which will consider me for command upgrade after 500 hours of flying. I'm in a dilemma weather to collect PIC hours on ATR (3 years bond) and post that transit directly to Boeing 737 as a transition captian or Fly for about one/two year as SFO with bit less pay (financially i don't have any liabilities as such) and get command upgrade on 737?

[Prob30Tempo TSRA]

Captain on ATR may be nice now but I’m not sure it’s expandable ? In other words would any company offer DEC to an ATR capt to something more useful ? I doubt it , it’s a dead end - capt or not .

Get the Boeing

[EC-KIY]

Quite difficult to make the "upgrade" from Capt in ATR to Capt in a medium jet. There's no technical difficulty per se (some people will say the speed of events, but the operational environment is usually way less challenging), however you will find such a career switch quite difficult, most likely will need to fly the jet as FO for AT LEAST another 500h even after your PIC time in the ATR.

Thus go for the jet, just remember that promises are dreams unless they're written down. But at least if you don't get the upgrade, you will have a type and hours on jet to make easier jumping to another company.

[Oddball77]

Hi, I have 3000hours of experience on light turboprop and now at a point of career transition. I've been offered captian on ATR on a start up airlines and another LCC is offering SFO which will consider me for command upgrade after 500 hours of flying. I'm in a dilemma weather to collect PIC hours on ATR (3 years bond) and post that transit directly to Boeing 737 as a transition captian or Fly for about one/two year as SFO with bit less pay (financially i don't have any liabilities as such) and get command upgrade on 737?
I speak from experience here, no employer respects turbo prop time - despite it being an arguably a harder aircraft to operate; with 737 time - it just opens doors, with 500 on type your can apply for other companies; with a couple of thousand on type you can apply to major carriers. Just go jet ASAP don't waste your time on turbo prop.

[n77]

Go for jet.
The older you get the more difficult is to get rid of props. I did that mistake and wasted my career time LHS on ATR. I was lucky enough to finally get to LHS heavy metal WB. But it took me almost 2 decades to be where I wanted.
cheers

[a350pilots]

Go for the Boeing and upgrade on Jet.

[A321drvr]

I can only second the posts made above. Got out of the TP game just in time. Some colleagues felt cushy, didn't make the change when i did, for various reasons: giving up left seat, sched and just their general comfort. I've been in the left seat on the bus for about a decade now. Fmr colleagues are still bashing around in wx and icing in a TP making less than half i do. Go figure.

[ICEHOUSES]

TP time is rubbish for career progression in Europe, doesn’t matter how many hours you’ve got on it.

[clvf88]

Unless you want to spend your career flying props - and I'm not knocking it - go for the SFO 737. 'Better be at the bottom of a ladder you want to climb, than half way up one that you dont...'

[Sam Ting Wong]

I find it really bizare that prop time isn't as highly regarded as jet time. If it was my airline I would happily take on TP guys.

[A321drvr]

Couldn't agree more. I remember at some point having a chat with someone from HR who was at the time vetting applications before presenting them for the team responsible for calling individuals for interviews. When i showed her a photo of the aircraft (Saab 340) i flew before the bus she proudly said, oh, it's like a cessna! Need to say more?

[Uplinker]

......someone from HR who was at the time vetting applications......


That says it all to me. HR in my experience often don't seem to have much idea about what abilities and experiences make a good pilot. Or whether the abilities and experience of a turbo-prop pilot are worth having in order to fly a jet - (of course they are, very much so). As well as the stupid psychometric tests which bear very little relation to the abilities required to fly big jets, they ask you to write about your feelings and motivations etc,


I once happened to see my own application for a certain operator of light blue passenger jets. It had been scribbled on by HR, and where I had written that '....freight operations [which I had flown for a season] was a strangely empty experience without passengers.....', HR had written "nice !", and they meant it ! In other words they seemed to be concentrating more on how applicants wrote about flying than actually doing the flying, which I found bizarre in a system that is supposedly choosing the best and most experienced pilots. I had a similar experience with a significant Gatwick based long-haul jet airline, during initial phone call vetting. "How did I feel about xyz", etc.


Would you employ a person who can write a good essay about flying, or a pilot who can actually fly and has relevant experience ? I think HR would choose the former.


As far as the OP's dilemma; I went for the jet RHS, but then got held back when two airlines I worked for went out of business, because I had no LHS PIC time when I was applying for new jobs. But I would imagine that jet time in whichever seat would be more transferrable than turbo-prop LHS time, while you have these sort of non technical HR staff vetting applications - people who think that small turbo-props must be simple and easy to fly compared to the impressive big shiny jets.

[spiffolo]

That says it all to me. HR in my experience often don't seem to have much idea about what abilities and experiences make a good pilot.


to be fair, does HR know anything about anything? :E

apart of jokes, i agree, they are stuck in a standard type of questions and have no background about aviation most of the times and have a CPT there for the technical interview. i would say in a perfect world we could change the "whats your biggers achievement?" questioning with some more related to aviation(or related to whatever field they are hiring for) like "whats a flight you are most proud of?" looks similar as its a pride and notice how a pilot think about objectives or his life and all that HR fluff but is worded to at least make sense in our world

[Count of Monte Bisto]

I am a former turbo prop training captain who, many years ago, faced exactly the same dilemma. I had the choice at the time of going on a Boeing 737 or an Airbus A320 as an FO. After a lot of heart-searching, I took the Airbus. Anyway, the rest is history. I have now been an Airbus training captain for many years.

Basically, I can only second and third all the comments made here. However unfair it may be, no one cares about turboprop time – it is essentially time in the lay by of your career. Without a Boeing or an Airbus on your licence, you are extremely vulnerable to the ups and downs of life. It is terrible to say this, but you’re basically considered a pilot who has not quite made it. You will find, much to your horror, that a young guy or girl with 300 hours medium jet time, and 500 hours total time, will be considered way more valuable than you will be with 10,000 hours on turboprops. That is just the way the system works. Get out now and do not look back!

[speedrestriction]

Having done both and having been through two big down cycles in the industry - jet, jet, jet all day long!

Turboprops are too niche and very few turboprop operating regional carriers have deep enough pockets to comfortably weather big economic storms. Don’t get me wrong - TP skipper is some of the most fun flying I have done but in terms of making a sensible career decision it has to be SFO on the jet. The only downside for you is that it is a 737 and not an Airbus :E.

[BraceBrace]

Not sure if this group can be more clear... If you want left seat high performance commercial jet, the closest/quickest deal is the right seat. It's not about right/wrong, it's about your life and getting your goals done.

However, to counter speedrestriction 's remark, the upside of the 737 is that everything else you pass in your career will be a lot easier to handle. It's front seat class to the left seat, and anything else that will cross your path afterwards will only make you bored with aviation. On Airbus they installed a table to eat and watch movies. Boeing installed an in-house game called Pilot Response EICAS.

[maximus610]

Don't listen to the naysayers and take ATR PIC for 3 years (at least 1000h) and then DEC to B737, as it could be an option you mentioned in your post. In India aviation market is different from Europe...

[Prob30Tempo TSRA]

Are they in India or Europe or elsewhere ?
That plan wouldn’t work in Europe

[ZFT]

Are they in India or Europe or elsewhere ?
That plan wouldn’t work in Europe
This is very much a regional issue. Within Asia many operators start on ATRs and move up to Airbus.
In Europe, unusual.