B737 to the A300??
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Hull
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
B737 to the A300??
Good Evening everyone,
Just wanted a few opinions from people who may have had to do this themselves.
My current employer is asking current B737CL flight crew to join the A300 freighter fleet due to expansion.
I have mixed feelings about changing from a popular type to an aircraft which isn't really used much in todays world apart from the freighters.
On one hand the A300 is a heavy aircraft, would this look good on a CV?
It is also a very old aircraft and with most airlines now asking for glass cockpit experience such as the A320/B737NG where would the A300 fall? Would size and weight overcome the need for a full glass cockpit?
Any opinions would be very much appreciated.
Just wanted a few opinions from people who may have had to do this themselves.
My current employer is asking current B737CL flight crew to join the A300 freighter fleet due to expansion.
I have mixed feelings about changing from a popular type to an aircraft which isn't really used much in todays world apart from the freighters.
On one hand the A300 is a heavy aircraft, would this look good on a CV?
It is also a very old aircraft and with most airlines now asking for glass cockpit experience such as the A320/B737NG where would the A300 fall? Would size and weight overcome the need for a full glass cockpit?
Any opinions would be very much appreciated.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Hull
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good Morning,
The particular aircraft concerned is the A300-600F.
I believe they are conversions, old Korean Air. The MTOW is around 170t from what I have read.
The A300 isn't any more "Glassy" than the B737 CL with EFIS.
My biggest concern is that some airlines do not recognise Classic time regarding the 737 so would they recognise another aircraft which is just as old.
I would only log 300 hours per year on the A300.
I am still at the beginning of my career and only logging 300hrs a year i think could maybe be damaging when you see how many guys RYR throws out with thousands of hours and also command experience after a few years of service.
The particular aircraft concerned is the A300-600F.
I believe they are conversions, old Korean Air. The MTOW is around 170t from what I have read.
The A300 isn't any more "Glassy" than the B737 CL with EFIS.
My biggest concern is that some airlines do not recognise Classic time regarding the 737 so would they recognise another aircraft which is just as old.
I would only log 300 hours per year on the A300.
I am still at the beginning of my career and only logging 300hrs a year i think could maybe be damaging when you see how many guys RYR throws out with thousands of hours and also command experience after a few years of service.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: IRS NAV ONLY
Posts: 1,230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course widebody looks good on every CV, but forget about applying to jobs like x hours on 737 or y hours Airbus FBW. What you'll get is jet hours above 50/60 tonnes (it seems nobody cares about weights above these), and not particularly a lot of them.
It all comes down do T&Cs: if you like where you are, the money is good, roster is great and don't care about fast(-ish) upgrade, go for the old freighter. On the other hand, if you want a fast upgrade, chance to progress to a better/bigger company faster, fly new aircraft, long-haul, see the world or whatever floats your boat - stay on 737, build hours and look forward to a change of scenery.
It all comes down do T&Cs: if you like where you are, the money is good, roster is great and don't care about fast(-ish) upgrade, go for the old freighter. On the other hand, if you want a fast upgrade, chance to progress to a better/bigger company faster, fly new aircraft, long-haul, see the world or whatever floats your boat - stay on 737, build hours and look forward to a change of scenery.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: AMS
Posts: 374
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is a dead end.
I did just that years ago and am back on the 73. the 306 does not lead to a 330/340 job as you would apply non rated like everyone else. Heavy hours on an obsolete type does not look better on your CV than the 73.
This is probably not even long haul?
From those who flew with me, most are now on the 73, one on a 75 (all of them had these ratings before) and some are with EAT now.
If you can get your employer to let you fly both at the same time, that would be different. Or at least negotiate to keep you current on the 73...
Very nice to fly, though.
good luck!
I did just that years ago and am back on the 73. the 306 does not lead to a 330/340 job as you would apply non rated like everyone else. Heavy hours on an obsolete type does not look better on your CV than the 73.
This is probably not even long haul?
From those who flew with me, most are now on the 73, one on a 75 (all of them had these ratings before) and some are with EAT now.
If you can get your employer to let you fly both at the same time, that would be different. Or at least negotiate to keep you current on the 73...
Very nice to fly, though.
good luck!
