Twin Time!

Here is a hypothetical: pilot is getting one hundred and ten hours of flight time, ten hours of which is twin time.

Scenario one he flies all 100 hours single engine time for pay, and then rents a twin for an additional 10 hours. Scenario two he flies for pay for 90 hours, flies an additional 10 hours in the twin for no pay, then rents a single engine for ten hours. Which scenario is better for the pilot?
 
Twin Time?

Am I the only one disappointed with the content of this thread?

Just saying...

kriskris2.jpg
 
jgheggie said:
You guys with higher time and full time flying gigs seem to forget the joys of flying. For some people, it's hard to build time
Click to expand...
Right. Nevermind the ass-busting and sacrifices I made to get that job. I DEPEND on that full time flying job and getting paid for all my time because that's how I pay the bills. Same thing when I was flight instructing and working another job. I get the "joy of flying" as much as anybody else, but I like the joy of food in my stomach and a roof over my head a little more.
I have a full time law enforcement job. I "volunteer" for our aero squadron. No pay. Just flying. I have a commercial license though, so perhaps they should pay me.
Click to expand...
Sounds like something totally different.

Theoretically what's going to happen if you did a bunch of flying for free in the twin, then there's maintenance problems on the single, or the weather sucks, then what? You had a bunch of work you didn't get paid for. It seems like if somebody is flying the twin out there for free that's work that somebody COULD have been getting paid for.
 
PositionAndHold said:
He's trying to help them in their careers.
Click to expand...

Well now I doubt he's doing it exclusively out of the goodness of his heart. He probably wants to keep pilots around who would otherwise go and find work flying a twin somewhere. But it's a smart business move AND it does help his employees get where they want to be. And, again, they can decide how much they want to make vs. how badly they want twin time. If it were exclusively "fly my twin for free!" I'd frown on it, too. But it's not.
 
Id happy flying the Cherokee making $40/hr to then get to put that money back into the Apache's fuel tank to fly it where and when I want.

Seems like a good deal to me.
 
Boris Badenov said:
Well now I doubt he's doing it exclusively out of the goodness of his heart. He probably wants to keep pilots around who would otherwise go and find work flying a twin somewhere. But it's a smart business move AND it does help his employees get where they want to be. And, again, they can decide how much they want to make vs. how badly they want twin time. If it were exclusively "fly my twin for free!" I'd frown on it, too. But it's not.
Click to expand...

I know Brian, the fellow who owns this operation (as well as his whole family). You won't find a better bunch of people. He has other business ventures, and has earned a reputation for being a 100% standup guy. He really did buy the Apache with the explicit objective of helping his pilots obtain twin time. And coincidentally, I know the fellow who sold him the plane: another standup guy.
 
Plata said:
You won't find a better bunch of people.
Click to expand...

Hence why I said "not EXCLUSIVELY" out of the goodness of his heart. Being a good guy and needing to make some money to feed that nice family of his can live together comfortably. From what's been posted here, I think he's doing a good thing, and I hope others do likewise.
 
How is it structured, legally? When you are flying the twin, you are working for free. Where is that legal?

Don't get me wrong, I think it's an attractive option, just can't get my head around the details.
 
I'm in @JordanD 's camp on the issue. If you're making revenue for the boss, then that revenue generating piece of equipment's operator should be compensated in more than just flight time... Many of my students are multi students, and I don't have a lot of single-engine students. If I didn't get paid to fly the multi that would be a huge hit on my ability to do the whole put a roof over my head and food in the belly thing Jordan was talking about.
 
jgheggie said:
You guys with higher time and full time flying gigs seem to forget the joys of flying. For some people, it's hard to build time.
Click to expand...
Given my interface with folks who want to have my job, and how recently ago it was that I was scraping along desperate to get my hands on airplanes, nope, I haven't forgotten this salient fact. I can understand @JordanD's point, too. Guess what, y'all are both right!
 
Are any jobs being lost because of this setup? No. Is anyone taking someone's job under this setup? No. Does the owner have a differential revenue benefit associated with this setup? Doesn't seem like it. Is anyone losing pay because of this setup? Not unless they want to.

In terms of claims of employee abuse, this is not the hill I would choose to die on.
 
JordanD said:
Right. Nevermind the ass-busting and sacrifices I made to get that job. I DEPEND on that full time flying job and getting paid for all my time because that's how I pay the bills. Same thing when I was flight instructing and working another job. I get the "joy of flying" as much as anybody else, but I like the joy of food in my stomach and a roof over my head a little more.

Sounds like something totally different.

Theoretically what's going to happen if you did a bunch of flying for free in the twin, then there's maintenance problems on the single, or the weather sucks, then what? You had a bunch of work you didn't get paid for. It seems like if somebody is flying the twin out there for free that's work that somebody COULD have been getting paid for.
Click to expand...


My honest guess here is in the scenario you describe where one of the singles goes down and we NEED to get pictures taken, he will send up the twin for pay. Just an assumption, but from my interactions with my boss, he's a very fair guy and would pay who ever was flying the twin since that was the only tool left to do that job. I'm sure he'd also be busting his butt to get the single back in the air too...
 
Murdoughnut said:
In terms of claims of employee abuse, this is not the hill I would choose to die on.
Click to expand...
I think this is a rare win-win, multi time for (opportunity) cost of $40/hour and I can't see a current employee having much to complain about.

The problem for the owner is when a disgruntled former employee claims he wasn't paid for hours worked. The employee would win in most states.

Given a static pool of employees given a free choice between compensated single or free multi time, it sounds pretty fair. However, what if the owner starts recruiting pilots that only have an interest in flying the Apache?

Then, what if he finds willing bodies that will fly the single for free?
 
Last edited:
Pilot Fighter said:
How is it structured, legally? When you are flying the twin, you are working for free. Where is that legal?

Don't get me wrong, I think it's an attractive option, just can't get my head around the details.
Click to expand...
This is how guys got multi/total time since Wilbur put a second seat in. My dad waited around the flight school so he take airplanes to the maint shop for flight time (late 60's early 70's). They didn't give a crap if some Chief Council put out an interpretation, or what the FSDO thought about it. They built some time and the flight school got their airplane fixed. Now we have to have an F'n lawyer just to build time. They knew who was trying to screw them and they stayed away. They also knew the guys that were just trying to help out a low time guy. The owner in this scenario doesn't have to own or maintain a twin. He does because it can help out his employees.

Edit to add: I think @Pilot Fighter are on he same page after reading his last post.
 
PositionAndHold said:
This is how guys got multi/total time since Wilbur put a second seat in. My dad waited around the flight school so he take airplanes to the maint shop for flight time (late 60's early 70's). They didn't give a crap if some Chief Council put out an interpretation, or what the FSDO thought about it. They built some time and the flight school got their airplane fixed. Now we have to have an F'n lawyer just to build time. They knew who was trying to screw them and they stayed away. They also knew the guys that were just trying to help out a low time guy. The owner in this scenario doesn't have to own or maintain a twin. He does because it can help out his employees.

Edit to add: I think @Pilot Fighter are on he same page after reading his last post.
Click to expand...
My take was more "no good deed goes unpunished these days" than anything else. Beyond that, change a few dynamics in this example and the owner quickly loses his Robin Hood status.

A couple of guys risked their careers to give me free multi time, so I'm in the "no blood, no foul" camp.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top