Coporate vs. Airline

Jet said:
Most people who don't know anything about aviation jobs think that a Lear jet pilot is training to work his way up to an airliner someday, lol.
Click to expand...

What most people think about my career has once again failed to tickle my give-a-poop-meter.

All things on balance and just from a career expectation standpoint (because pressing buttons is pressing buttons is pressing buttons), I'd probably give the slight edge to corporate, provided you can find a good, stable, unlikely to to implode department. Zap's seems like the ultimate example of this.
 
Lots of good advice here, and I particularly like what TFaudree and Zap said. I've never worked for a major airline, but I have worked for a small corporate flight department and a regional airline. I'll summarize my experiences at both:

Corporate:
I came in with low time (about the same as you), and worked my way up to a PIC type and was allowed as much rope as I wanted to hang myself with when I first started. I flew with a couple of very good pilots, and they weren't afraid to let me dig myself out of whatever holes I might create. I learned a lot, and for the most part I had a lot of fun doing it. Nice hotels, awesome expense account, some pretty fun destinations, etc. Our passengers were great, and I really enjoyed the direct contact and customer service aspect. The drawbacks with this job were that I didn't fly much (just over 200+ hours/year), which made it VERY tough for somebody with low time to eventually move on. Also, my first chief pilot was a total dick and made promises to me that weren't kept, threatened me with my job, etc. He also did some questionable stuff sometimes with the airplane operationally, and basically created a culture of fear. I was VERY close to quitting when he got canned, and a very good guy took over and made the job fun again. But trust me, that kind of crap happens fairly often in corporate, even in some of the bigger flight departments.

Regional Airline:
Before I got much older, and in an effort to get my TT up, I decided to give the airlines a try. I'm working for what is considered to be one of the best regionals for QOL/Pay, and despite my initial pessimism it has lived up to that promise in my case. No doubt I work harder, as I now block 70 or more hours/month compared to the 15-20 I did in corporate. I still have a decent amount of days off, but nothing like the weeks of time off (even a month on a couple of occasions) that I had in corporate. But the training is significantly better than what you'll see in corporate, and you will be exposed to a lot more weather and abnormal situations as an airline pilot. Without question, my time over the past year has made me a much better pilot. Despite what the loudmouths at some (mostly other) forums suggest, the pilots I've flown with here are consistently very good, unlike corporate that tends to have a lot of variation in the quality of guys you fly with. The drawbacks here are I have absolutely no idea when I'll be able to upgrade, and observing how some of the major US airlines treat their employees and contractors is sickening. Some of the majors have nothing but contempt for their employees, and it really makes me wonder if that's where I want to be long term.

The best advice anybody ever told me is this: Keep your options open, and take advantage of whatever opportunities come your way. Some of the most bitter people I've ever come across in this industry are the ones that were deadset on being a major airline pilot, or flying a GV, etc. You have absolutely no idea what life is going to throw at you, so do a good job and just try to have fun with whatever you're doing - things will probably work out that way.
 
Like so many things, the answer is "it depends". Worse yet, in aviation, you can have a hard time predicting the future. Who would have ever dreamed that some of the airlines that are no longer with us would have disappeared. Similarly, I've had several friends who woke up one morning to find their corporation had just closed the flight department. So, while it is good to look to the future, I'd recommend putting most of the emphasis on what is best in the short run and deal with the future in the future.
 
Gyps...

"But the training is significantly better than what you'll see in corporate, and you will be exposed to a lot more weather and abnormal situations as an airline pilot."

Eh, I don't know if I agree with you completly regarding those two statements.

Granted I have not trained for an airline. But I fly in muchos weather, you name it, I fly in it, over it, under it, through it.. to some extent. And the training, well, Ive always found my initial and recurrents to be very in depth and well done. One thing I will add is the SIC training can be lackluster in 135/91 stuff.
 
Crockrocket94 said:
Gyps...

"But the training is significantly better than what you'll see in corporate, and you will be exposed to a lot more weather and abnormal situations as an airline pilot."

Eh, I don't know if I agree with you completly regarding those two statements.

Granted I have not trained for an airline. But I fly in muchos weather, you name it, I fly in it, over it, under it, through it.. to some extent. And the training, well, Ive always found my initial and recurrents to be very in depth and well done. One thing I will add is the SIC training can be lackluster in 135/91 stuff.
Click to expand...

I used to think the same thing, until I started working for an airline. I haven't talked to anybody that's done both that disagrees and relative to what I've done at SkyWest my part 91 PIC type at FSI was kind of a joke. But I'm sure that statement doesn't apply to the low ball 121 operators.
 
To spin off of what Crock said about the weather...

I fly for a guy that's an admitted white knuckle passenger. His mom and sister are the same way. When I started five years ago, it was blatantly obvious that he didn't trust me, and having 1000 hours total time, I didn't blame him. Over the years, as he gained faith in me, he subconsciously allowed me to push the limits a little further. Never to the point that I would scare him (and he finally understood that I didn't want to die either), but to the point that we could actually launch into marginal weather without him hesitating. I wanted to get him to the point that he was comfortable with letting me make the go/no-go decision, but not push it so far that I really did scare him and cause him to lose trust in my judgement.

Once that point was established, we had the opportunity to hire some new pilots. The challenge there is that you have to find the right guys that can manage his apprehensions, all the while earning his trust. Thankfully, we got the right guys and it wasn't an issue. Having him as a passenger in one of our single pilot planes, we were always under his scrutiny when the going got tough. After a couple hundred trips with him riding shotgun, flying the same routes, he knew exactly what you were supposed to be doing and when. To some, that would be excruciating, but we all looked at it as a way let him tap into our thought process, AS we were making the decisions. Having a guy that's interested and intelligent enough to comprehend it all really helps.

In the end, he and his family were more comfortable flying in a jet with any two of our three 28 year old guys that were relatively new to the whole corporate thing than two 50-60something year olds that have been doing it for decades.
 
Crockrocket94 said:
Gyps...

"But the training is significantly better than what you'll see in corporate, and you will be exposed to a lot more weather and abnormal situations as an airline pilot."

Eh, I don't know if I agree with you completly regarding those two statements.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I was going to say the same thing. I have done both and, in fact, went through training (initials and recurrents) at 5 different airlines on 7 different airplanes. I honestly feel that the training we get at FlightSafety is superior to the 121 training that I received. Not that 121 wasn't thorough, but rather because it was always the same. You knew precisely what to expect on every training event because it never changed -- which was actually a good thing since you were playing "bet your job" every time you went to the sim. Right about the time I left 121 they were starting AQP and more LOFT events so things may have changed.

The 61.58 training events we get do cover all of the routine stuff you would expect during any recurrent. Of course you'll do steep turns, stalls, unusual attitudes, engine failures, fires, and thrust reverser deploys etc.. but we also fly unique and customized loft scenarios at airports in deepest darkest central America. We select actual anomalies that occurred in our fleet (if not specifically in OUR aircraft) and simulate those anomalies so that crews can see how they would best address those situations. If we want to better understand some intricacy of a system, they go down the hall and get a maintenance instructor to explain it to us and, oftentimes, even bring the part with him.

As far as more weather and abnormal situations -- I'd have to give the point to corporate here too. Sure when I was part 121 I flew in and out of LaGuardia and Philly in the same snow-storm all week long, approach to minimums after approach to minimums. Airline pilots are undoubtedly more versed in flying approaches in all weather. That said, because of the unique nature of corporate flying I believe abnormal = normal. It's not uncommon for us to launch out of a major international airport and land a few hours later at a 4000' strip in the middle of nowhere. We might fly complex PANSOPS procedures into an airport that lies at the base of a volcano in central america. We make decisions about fuel, weight and balance, and aircraft performance without the infrastructure that the airlines have.

I find corporate flying more challenging and, for that reason, more rewarding than I did airline flying. It is apples and oranges from part 121 and the lazy need not apply.
 
My observations on the training environment, having learned and instructed in four sectors of turbine aircraft (91/121/135/142):

- First and foremost, the quality of training is highly, highly contingent on the instructor staff. Instructors need to be "calibrated" and rewarded for relentlessly pursuing further knowledge. I feel that some airlines do not do this. I worked with fantastic people, but most left because they weren't allowed time for professional development or given the tools necessary to effectively teach.

- Access to technical documents: a good portion of training that I found challenging in the airlines was due to a lack of access. Systems that were vaguely described in the airlines' manuals turned out to be crystal clear when reading source documentation.

- As Zap said, a lack of scenario-based training. This sounds like it's changing for the better with AQP. It's incredulous to me that one sim session twice a year is considered anything but recurrent checking.

That all being said, corporate training and standardization will only go as far as flight department leadership lets it. We can harp on callouts and standard profiles all day in the school house, but it's up to in-house standards guys to enforce it. Becoming non-standard is a slippery slope, and I have to say that I've flown with more non-airline/non-military guys that are guilty of this than the opposite (certainly not all - some of the best pilots I've flown with never touched the airlines).

As for the original question, it really depends. I dearly miss certain aspects of 121 flying (straight-forward, predictable, leave-work-at-work, etc.), but I love my new challenges as well (International ops, airport analysis, etc.).
 
After a year at FlightSafety I got on with an operator flying right-seat, making regional captain pay right out of the gate. We all have different criteria in a job, but my big one was to be able to start a family without struggling severely doing the same job (roughly) my regional buddies are for far less pay.

There are other things to consider, obviously. But, I think I enjoy the interaction with my owner, flight planning, weather/performance analysis, and actually getting to see and enjoy our destinations far more than I would the airline lifestyle. To each their own, that's just my .02. Coming from Vero you should have plenty of options in FlightSafety if you do choose that route.
 
Thanks everybody for all of the awesome responses. Corporate has always been my long term goal and almost everyone reinforced that with these detailed responses. My options now are either pay to rent a duchess and build my multi hours for the airlines or wait on a job at an FSI center and I'm thinking the center is the way to go.
 
Rumpel said:
I'm at a cross roads between two career paths. Corporate pilot or regional airline pilot?
Click to expand...

I think you need to better define your careers goals. It seems to me that the options you have presented are the choice between a long-term goal and a short term objective. Corporate pilot is itself a career goal, and within that career, the pilot aspires to move from piston twins to GV international Captain. Contrast that with regional airline pilot, which I think most would agree is a stepping stone to an international widebody captain's seat. Now, if a regional airline is as far as you desire to go, than more power to you. But if you are like most, you want more than that.

The point here is to get you to think about your goals, decide on one, and then lay out the short term objectives to get there.

The good news is, both paths typically start out at the same spot; i.e instrutor to charter/freight, so you have some time to decide.
 
Crockrocket94 said:
Nothing is guarenteed, and everyones experience is different.
Click to expand...

Very true. I painted it a little too rosy, didn't I?

Like Rocket said, nothing is guaranteed, and not everyone gets that lucky. I feel extremely lucky to be where I'm at. However, while I was at FSI, there were guys that lost hope or got tired of the sim and left for the regionals, or even to fly cargo. The guy I replaced was an SIC for 3 years and was never fortunate enough to be offered a job, but was finally hired as an instructor.

If corporate is your goal, the SIC gig is a great way to help with that, but it doesn't come without its own risks.
 
FlyingPoke said:
Very true. I painted it a little too rosy, didn't I?

Like Rocket said, nothing is guaranteed, and not everyone gets that lucky. I feel extremely lucky to be where I'm at. However, while I was at FSI, there were guys that lost hope or got tired of the sim and left for the regionals, or even to fly cargo. The guy I replaced was an SIC for 3 years and was never fortunate enough to be offered a job, but was finally hired as an instructor.

If corporate is your goal, the SIC gig is a great way to help with that, but it doesn't come without its own risks.
Click to expand...

I second this. One guy I flew survey with did the Flight Safety SIC thing right after graduation. Got NUMEROUS queries on his flight time and if he was looking for a job. 250/30 obviously didn't get him anywhere. Now that he's over 1200/200, it's still low, and still probably won't meet insurance mins, but the networking he received doing that was priceless.
 
I don't mean to misdirect or steal this thread but since it is about somewhat alike I will. Is there anyone out there in the big freighters like UPS or FEDEX? What would be a good career path to get there? I understand it is quite difficult to get in but you know what they say...the sky's the limit.
 
I can only speak to what I know about FedEx which isn't everything. Their minimums are:

ATP Certificate
Current FE Turbojet Rating or written (FEX or Basic/turbojet) taken within previous 18 months only applicable to candidates notified and offered a BI class that may include B727 Second officer positions.
Must pass FAA mandated drug screen.
Recency and type of experience is considered.
Meet requirements for and currently hold First Class Medical certification.
Bachelor's Degree from an accredited college or university.
Eligibility for rapid visa issuance, issued by offices in the United States to fly to any FedEx destination.
This position requires clearance from United States Postal Service including a FBI fingerprint check.
This position requires a Radio Telephone Operators License.
Candidates for jobs involving handling or access to U.S. mail cannot be considered for employment if they have resided outside the U.S., Guam or Puerto Rico for more than (6) six months during the last (5) years prior to today's date, other than the following verifiable exceptions: active duty in the U.S. Uniformed Service; trailing spouse or dependent of someone working for the U.S. government (military or civilian); missionary; student attending school in a foreign country; Peace Corps participant; employee of a U.S. based employer/company or other extraordinary circumstances.
Eligibility for issuance of US Security Clearance.
1500 hours total fixed-wing time as pilot-in-command (PIC) or second-in-command in multi-engine turbo-prop A/C or jet A/C or combination thereof, including a minimum of 1000 hours total fixed-wing pilot-in-command in multi-engine turbo prop A/C or jet A/C or combination thereof. Note: PIC for this purpose is defined as Captain/Aircraft Commander of record, not simply the sole manipulator of the controls. FedEx considers only pilot time in fixed wing aircraft toward minimum qualifications. This does not include simulator, helicopter, flight engineer, bombardier, navigator, RIO, EWO, WSO, NFO, or Special Crew.
All certificates and ratings required to be U.S.A. FAA issued.

However, I doubt that anyone is ever hired with only these minimums and that new hires have much higher times/experience. Military pilots, especially those who flew transport (but there are plenty of military jet pilots there as well) and civilian pilots with freight/cargo experience have a much better shot. Internal recs are a plus. A sponsor at the company which I believe they are now calling a primary endorsement, is a plus plus plus. They also seem to still like MD11 experience. They also will interview employees who already work for them in another capacity with a leg up in the order of interviewing (if they feel you qualify for an interview to begin with) when ever interviews are open and after year of employment you can apply as an internal applicant, but you will still need to have better than just the minimum requirements.

Also FYI IMO, for any major carrier interview I would recommend attending an Emerald Coast seminar/workshop. You won't regret using them, they are excellent.
 
Meh, corporate isn't all that.....

frys 747SP-27.jpg


or one of Google's planes

Google 767 -238ER.jpg
 
Heh I was wondering around some hangars at some airport once and came across that 747SP with a San Jose Sharks logo on the tail.

I obviously have no flying experience from either side, but from what I hear, while airlines vary in QOL, pay, ect, they are more or less the same kind of operation at the end of the day. Cooperate seems to be a total crap shoot from extreme bad to unbelievably amazing. Not sure how one could summarize "cooperate" in its entirety, just between our own members experiences are vastly different.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top