Stepping stones...

averettpilot

averettpilot

Well-Known Member
I was having a discussion with a friend about the airlines, and I discovered that I'm either woefully out of the loop or perhaps just a pessimist when it comes to this industry.

We were discussing the prospect of getting on with a major as an FO after about 3 years as an FO at a regional, thereby, leap frogging the upgrade to captain at this hypothetical regional. I would concede that this is maybe possible, but in my personal dealings with people I have never heard of this. Our scenario discussion involved a person who held out on the airlines and built up 2000-3000 PIC time and then had around 1000-1500 turbine time as an FO (very rough numbers and open to manipulation to suite the discussion here).

Would this person feasibly be able to move on to the majors without going up the proverbial ladder? I don't want to be wrong in this debate, but more importantly, I don't want to be uninformed, and having never worked for the airlines this is very possible.
 
It is possible. However, in general you have to have an uncle who is a chief pilot, be female or a minority for it to happen.
 
I know someone who CFI'd till about a thousand hours, then when to a regional for around 12-1300 hours in a RJ..never upgraded. He is now flying for CAL. He is not a minority, or a woman...but...he is pretty good friends with a CAL captain in the top few numbers on the list....
 
I would say it depends on whether or not said major has a turbine multi PIC requirement.

Good networking doesn't hurt either.
 
averettpilot said:
I was having a discussion with a friend about the airlines, and I discovered that I'm either woefully out of the loop or perhaps just a pessimist when it comes to this industry.

We were discussing the prospect of getting on with a major as an FO after about 3 years as an FO at a regional, thereby, leap frogging the upgrade to captain at this hypothetical regional. I would concede that this is maybe possible, but in my personal dealings with people I have never heard of this. Our scenario discussion involved a person who held out on the airlines and built up 2000-3000 PIC time and then had around 1000-1500 turbine time as an FO (very rough numbers and open to manipulation to suite the discussion here).

Would this person feasibly be able to move on to the majors without going up the proverbial ladder? I don't want to be wrong in this debate, but more importantly, I don't want to be uninformed, and having never worked for the airlines this is very possible.
Click to expand...

I have somewhere around 2500PIC time, mostly in piston singles in Alaska, and now the Caravan in freight down here. I also have 600MTSIC. It hasn't particularly springboarded my career, your mileage may very. If you want to go to the airlines, start at the airlines after getting a good foundation. Beyond the foundation you just set yourself up for a paycut.
 
CAL has quite a few that came in straight from FO.

The reason that I heard from "crashpad talk" was that they were having problems with the PIC requirement and then having guys come in and get typed in the 73 and then bail immediately for Southwest. By doing away with the PIC requirement they would get in new hires, still type them but they had nowhere to go. Essentially by getting onto a major with no PIC time you are less likely to use that major as a stepping stone.
 
ZapBrannigan said:
I did it, but that was in 1999 at an airline with no TPIC requirement.
Click to expand...

:yeahthat:

Bill instructed for a few years before going to Scenic to fly canyon tours. He was there a year-ish flying Twin Otters. Did not upgrade to CA, went to Eagle (May 1995). Spent 2 years at Eagle, did not upgrade. Went to TWA (Feb 1997) with 0 TPIC. Was with TWA for 2.5 years, did not upgrade, went to Delta with 0 TPIC (Oct 1999). He did not upgrade at DL til June '08, and got displaced out of his CA seat again in June '09. Hasn't held CA since, and has a whopping 400-ish (?) hours TPIC to his name now. A 12 year legacy pilot with 400 hours TPIC... Things were different then!
 
USMC-SSGT said:
CAL has quite a few that came in straight from FO.

The reason that I heard from "crashpad talk" was that they were having problems with the PIC requirement and then having guys come in and get typed in the 73 and then bail immediately for Southwest. By doing away with the PIC requirement they would get in new hires, still type them but they had nowhere to go. Essentially by getting onto a major with no PIC time you are less likely to use that major as a stepping stone.
Click to expand...

This might be true for some at CAL but the vast majority of regional FO's that were hired directly to CAL were of the friends and family variety. Lots were the children of....well you know.
 
MQAAord said:
went to Delta with 0 TPIC (Oct 1999). He did not upgrade at DL til June '08, and got displaced out of his CA seat again in June '09. Hasn't held CA since,
Click to expand...

And it will be awhile before he can again :( Most junior captain is a 12/97 hire on the DC-9 in DTW.
 
Cptnchia said:
And it will be awhile before he can again :( Most junior captain is a 12/97 hire on the DC-9 in DTW.
Click to expand...

Most recently awarded junior CA spot is DC-9 MEM... 2 guys junior to Bill were awarded it. We know this as it cost us a LOT of his contractual pay protection for getting knocked out of his CA seat.
 
I think in 5 or 6 years when the "pilot shortage" really hits they will hire F/Os again. Of course then everyone will have 1500 hours and an ATP
 
bretthullrampage said:
I didnt think FO's could log PIC. Am I wrong?
Click to expand...

jtrain609 said:
You're not wrong.
Click to expand...

Unless they have a full type rating, then they can log PIC when they are the sole manipulator of the controls.

Again, this kind of PIC time is of limited usefulness and I tell everyone that I log it seperately from "true" PIC time and recommend that they do the same, but there are limited occasions where this PIC time can come in handy. If there's a chance (albeit small) that they could use it, why not log it?

edit to add:
I believe that the 250 hours of PIC time required for an ATP could be logged per 61.51(c)(1) under 61.51(e)(1)(i).

...
(c) Logging of pilot time. The pilot time described in this section may be used to:
(1) Apply for a certificate or rating issued under this part or a privilege authorized under this part;

...

(e) Logging pilot-in-command flight time.
(1) A sport, recreational, private, commercial, or airline transport pilot may log pilot in command flight time for flights-
(i) When the pilot is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which the pilot is rated, or has sport pilot privileges for that category and class of aircraft, if the aircraft class rating is appropriate;
Click to expand...
 
SteveC said:
Unless they have a full type rating, then they can log PIC when they are the sole manipulator of the controls.

Again, this kind of PIC time is of limited usefulness and I tell everyone that I log it seperately from "true" PIC time and recommend that they do the same, but there are limited occasions where this PIC time can come in handy. If there's a chance (albeit small) that they could use it, why not log it?
Click to expand...

Why not log it? You've already said why, it's of limited usefulness.

The last thing I'd want to do is lawyer my way through an answer like this in an interview with as to why I logged that time. It may start to sound to many people like you're trying to game the system or worse, that you don't know what you're talking about.

So while you may be technically correct, I believe the downside risk to this practice outweighs any of the positive outcomes that you believe are possible with logging time in this manner, that this is not applicable to the majority of candidates out there, and that they are done a disservice in being told that it's a-ok.

Disagree all you'd like, but put it all out there, including the risks (major) vs. reward (minor) of the practice that you are recommending to unassuming pilots.
 
jtrain609 said:
Why not log it? You've already said why, it's of limited usefulness.

The last thing I'd want to do is lawyer my way through an answer like this in an interview with as to why I logged that time. It may start to sound to many people like you're trying to game the system or worse, that you don't know what you're talking about.

So while you may be technically correct, I believe the downside risk to this practice outweighs any of the positive outcomes that you believe are possible with logging time in this manner, that this is not applicable to the majority of candidates out there, and that they are done a disservice in being told that it's a-ok.

Disagree all you'd like, but put it all out there, including the risks (major) vs. reward (minor) of the practice that you are recommending to unassuming pilots.
Click to expand...

Why should there be a risk, or any problem at all? As I spelled out once already, I have a seperate column in my logbook. I title that column "61 PIC". It is right next to my SIC column. When I'm on a flight with another captain and he is listed as the PIC on the Flight Release, my time for that flight gets logged as either "SIC" or "61 PIC".

If I go up for a rating (like an ATP) I can use that 61 PIC time to count towards the requirement, so I'm going to use it. If I go to a job interview with a company that allows "sole manipulator" time to be counted towards PIC total, I'm going to use it. In either case all I have to do is to add two numbers; PIC + 61 PIC = total PIC (for that particular cause).

If I'm going to an interview with an outfit like an airline that does not accept this as PIC time for their use then I don't add in the "61 PIC" time on the application. My total time under the column labeled "PIC" will exactly match what is on my application. If they ask me about the "61 PIC" column in an interview I can show them that I understand the regs, and the fact that I've kept that time seperately makes it clear that I'm not trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes. No "lawyering" needed at all. The complete opposite of "trying to game the system or worse, that you don't know what you're talking about." It proves that I am NOT trying to game the system, and that I DO know what I'm talking about, probably more than the average Joe.

Personally I think that you are way off base by telling people NOT to log time that is perfectly legal to log and can be done without jepordizing anything at all. And there ARE circumstances where that time can be useful.
 
Steve, I understand the sole-manipulator PIC thing is a lot more common in corporate/charter business jet operations. Airlines, not so much. Nothing wrong with doing it the way you're doing obviously, but the airlines aren't a big fan.
 
You are certainly entitled to your opinion, Steve.

I recommend one simple rule; log PIC time when you're signing the logbook, or in other words when you're responsible for the flight.
 
dasleben said:
Steve, I understand the sole-manipulator PIC thing is a lot more common in corporate/charter business jet operations. Airlines, not so much. Nothing wrong with doing it the way you're doing obviously, but the airlines aren't a big fan.
Click to expand...

I can understand the airlines not liking that time in the PIC column - muddies the water too much.

Under a seperate column I seriously doubt that they would care one iota.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top