I did a couple of thousand hours flying the J31 TP before moving onto the B757 in 1994 .. to me it was very useful experience and formed part of a recognised career progression, then.

I think it is a great loss to the industry that this stepping stone seems to be lost, as it all comes under the heading of airborne experience .. which cannot be taught in the classroom. Flying TP's sometimes places different demands on the pilot, but any differences are easily overcome in a mature training environment .. and a good TP Captain/FO would make a good Jet Captain/FO in the fullness of time.

Having worked for many companies over the last 32 years, it is the variety of experience that makes up a balanced airline. No one background should be exclusive, and no other ignored ... Ex Military, cadet and TP all have their place, as they all bring something different to the table .. and that diverse background of experience should be treated as an asset. Having flown with all of the above extensively I would have no preference for any group ... more their professional attitude and relaxed demeanour individually.

If I were to start again, my Military experience would be less in demand as would my TP time .. I would also need much deeper pockets. From the smallest to largest aircraft, I have enjoyed and respected the bonding system, never having paid for a type rating ... this sadly does not seem part of the general model anymore, and I think that a shame. I know I have been lucky with timings and opportunities ...

In precis, there are good and bad from all backgrounds .. it is the variety that is needed ..

Iron Duke,

Best post I have read on pprune, ever!

Iron Duke

With that post, you are no longer the Duke, you are the King :p

Spot on Iron Duke.

Just to clarify
 

Easy do not have a 'cadet' scheme, they can call it what they want but having candidates pay 100k out of their own parents pockets and mortgaging the house does not make one a 'cadet', also they receive no pay during integrated training.

BA have a cadet scheme, and Lufthansa etc
The other difference is the highly competitive nature of those schemes generally mean the final candidates are the most capable, while easy or ryan's candidates are generally the ones with the deepest pockets.

And while Easy apparently seem troubled at the transition training of these 'difficult' ex TP guys the training departments of BA, Monarch, Jet2, FlyDubai, Emirates and Qatar are currently hiring ex Flybe Dash guys at a rate of 20 a month by current reports.

Just because a Trainer tells you something, does not make it true ;)

[QUOTE]And while Easy apparently seem troubled at the transition training of these 'difficult' ex TP guys the training departments of BA, Monarch, Jet2, FlyDubai, Emirates and Qatar are currently hiring ex Flybe Dash guys at a rate of 20 a month by current reports.

Just because a Trainer tells you something, does not make it true /QUOTE]

Absolutely!

Certain people seems brainwashed by the Orange mist! JS is probably trying to butt wash his way into a certain third party training organisation.

There will always be certain hires that are more of a training challenge.

Bar 2 British companies on that list (and not suggesting BA unless you live in south east) the sad thing is if they go to the other companies Flybe will probably be the best time of their professional lives in retrospect when they're old and grey and realising chasing dreams only bought a bit more money but no extra smiles.

Cliff Secord, you`re absolutely right!

Like I said before, it`s the misconception that pilots feel they need to fly something heavier in order to "progress" their career. I`ve fallen into the trap myself in the past and continue to warn new guys of the pros/cons, (especially when they`re looking further afield such as ME or Asia). To be perfectly honest, I think moving from a regional operator such as Flybe or Aer Lingus Regional (Stobart) to an LCC can actually be a backstep in their career, never mind an LCC further afield.

I`ve seen many ex regional guys returning after only a short time within the LCC`s and I know many others want to come back but can`t get back into the regional industry (TP).

Seriously?

Interested to know also if orange have a seniority order for command? IE if higher hours DEP join and meet the achieve company min requirement, does it come down to seniority number?

Having moved from a UK TP job to LCC I would make the following observations:

Pros:
I now have more money, more days off, more variety of work, more challenging/stimulating/interesting route network, improved job security, better prospects, better staff travel, better company systems, better flexible benefits, a great share scheme.

Cons:
Earlier starts/later finishes.

No regrets here nor amongst any colleagues who have made a similar move.

With regards to the pros and cons of regional TP compared to LCC`s it does depend a lot on the operator, base & type. (Of course we are talking about the comparison of heavy glass cockpit TP operators).

Some of the issues with LCC`s:

It`s necessary to look at the rate of pay which can be about the same or even less than regional or long haul pay, you just have to work harder to earn that higher pay check.

The days can be extremely long resulting in the need for slightly more days off however you`ve still spent more hours at work. After a week of earlies, you really do need 3-4 days off to recover.

The issue of job security can be argued. LCC`s tend to have a huge fleet of either Boeing or Airbus aircraft. The issue is when the LCC suffers from an external shock (recession, fuel price,volcanic ash, accident etc) resulting in large cutbacks or even terminate completely. This obviously results in huge numbers of pilots fighting for a job on the same type. There`s a higher chance of getting a job if the type is in demand AND there are more "operators per type". Regional operators tend to operate smaller fleets however there are considerably more operators per type, especially for something like the ATR which is high in demand. Regional operators also tend to have more stability than other sectors throughout the ups and downs of economic fluctuations.

Benefits such as staff travel, pension etc depends heavily on the operator, e.g some regional operators have much better staff travel agreements e.g Aer Lingus Regional. Again, it really does depend which operators one compares.

There are many variables and everybody has a preference however it`s just something to think about.

Well, being "stuck" on a Dash 8 / ATR72 flying for a large operator from your home town is much different than flying a "light" TP in likes of Metroliner, Saab 340, Do-328, L410, etc. in a small company.

It's much more difficult to progress from a sub 20-ton non-EFIS TP to jet, especially to a normal airline (not charter airline with 2-3 aircraft), which offers stability. Especially if you want don't want to go to the right seat again for couple of years. Just look at the requirements of various jet companies in Europe and rethink...

I have been a Captain at the same company as JS for the last 8 years. I used to be relaxed about whether the individual came from the cadets or was an experience TP operator. However over the last few years I have noticed a distinct change in the quality of Cadet.

Once again you can not and I am not tarring all with the same brush. The reality on the front line is there are quite few F/O who are operating because of the size of there wallet not there ability to operate the Airbus. Many of them would not be up to the challenge of a Dash 8 on a dark stormy evening. Having flown many types for different Airlines no one will convince me that a modern day jet is more difficult to fly than a TP.

I can't agree with what you have said - I believe almost universally you will find that at an hourly rate of actually being in work ie. duty hours, LCCs pay more.

With regard to surviving economic shocks - just look around at which companies are expanding, which are contracting and which have disappeared over the last 20 years. The only way to survive economic shocks is to be cash rich and adaptive to market forces. Regional operators tend to be geographically constrained in the reach of their networks which severely limits their ability to redeploy assets into higher yielding markets.

I totally agree. An Airbus A320 is much easier to operate than a Dash 8, and I have many hours on both.

If I owned a jet airline, I would only recruit turboprop pilots, because they have experience of flying in all the weather below FL250, and of flying simpler aircraft with less automatics, so their basic flying skills have to be of a high standard. This is cruicial when it all goes wrong in a big jet - you need experience of that more basic flying and first principles.

Students find the ATR type rating to be much more difficult as it is more complicated than other medium sized turbofan aircraft for example. Despite avionics / automation is pretty much the same, turbofan pilots who are looking to progress on to heavy glass cockpit turboprop aircraft can find it a struggle. Hence why turbofan pilots can also be perceived as a training risk so it works both ways really.

With regards to the rate of pay I agree if you include the likes of the US then the regional pay is very poor in comparison. However Europe and other parts of the world the story can be quite different. I know from my own personal experience that my rate was a lot more than that of the typical LCC`s, it just depends on which airlines we`re comparing. I agree that an airline stands a fighting chance to survive any minor economic shocks if it is cash rich although any major shocks will certainly see major cutbacks with a lot of assets to redeploy. There is a very high dependence on seasonal demand with leisure routes being severely affected. Anyway, starting to diverge from topic here.

funny things...flown jet and T/P trying to be back in T/P and absolutely no chance...

Why would be a TP more difficult than a Jet? I've done some old fashion TP aircraft simulator and there was nothing difficult about it concerning the procedures, just the handflying was more sensetive to inputs. But then again it was sim so I don't know about the real in-flight handling. But it looks quite like any Boeing or Airbus cockpit of today with all required automated and fligth guidance systems.

It's all question of training and getting used to it, it's normal for pilots that fly a jet like an Airbus for thousands of hours and will give it a try again on a TP will struggle in the beginning. I never met any person who would love to go back from jet to TP... only vice versa. So if the TP is that great to fly for, why does it's pilots always look for a jet opportunity?


There is no such thing the one is easier then the other. I guess it's an way of expression by frustrated TP pilots towards jet pilots who realise that they made the biggest mistake ever of taking a job on TP with the goal to advance in their carreer onto jet...
Times changed, but it's not only now, I remember even like 10 years ago a lot of people who flew TP struggled a lot to get a job on a jet or even never got it till today...


It's funny to see that ATR for example are copying the airbus cockpit layout with their ATR72-600! Don't forget also that TP's are flying at lower approach speeds and so you have more time to anticipate, prepare and correct while in a jet everyhting goes fast!