Re: Really Long Range Commercial Transport

From: (Peter Zadrozny - SunService Inc.)
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Date:         01 Jun 94 14:35:02 
References:   1
View raw article
  or MIME structure

In article 1276@ohare.Chicago.COM, akrodriguez@fandago.Read.TASC.COM (A. Kevin Rodriguez) writes:
> I have a cousin who flies B737s for United.  He jumped
> at the chance to go from B747-400 1st Officer to Captain
> on the B737.  Other than the obvious reasons on taking the
> captain spot, what is the likelyhood that a competent
> professional pilot will prefer sitting in either seat
> oversighting the autopilot for 6 to 8 hours?  Granted there will
> be period of activity, but not enough to keep the good ones
> interested.  What happens if you add another 4 to 8 hours
> flying time onto an airframe?  You'll get pilots who are
> collecting their seniority hours to bid other positions.
> Am I dead wrong on this?

Things are different all over the world. In Latin America, the bigger
the airplane (weight and passenger capacity) the better. A first
officer of a DC-10-30 will get better payed than a captain of a Fokker
F-100. This is the case of Mexicana. When they purchased their F-100
they had a very hard time getting people to fly them. It ended up being
that first officers of DC-10-30s that where number 50 or higher on the
list for captain of DC-10 made the move. The first 50 on the list passed
the opportunity. Flight engineers number 40 or higher on the list for
first officer went as first officers to the F-100s.

Another example is the fact that a 727 captain of Mexicana has a higher
salary than a captain of an F-100.

Personally, I would prefer to fly the F-100s than a DC-10 as old as the
ones Mexicana has, or even worse a 727.

> Just use common sense!

The least common of the senses?