T-Prop versus T-Jet Time
12-30-2007, 02:18 PM
#1
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Mar 2007
Posts: 152
T-Prop versus T-Jet Time
Good Evening,
I would like to hear feedback regarding the question of turboprop time versus turbojet time. Both would be gained via Part 121, but does T-jet time carry a slight advantage (i.e. speed, altitude, etc.) for career progression.
Thanks in advance for the advice and feedback.
V/R,
Apollo
I would like to hear feedback regarding the question of turboprop time versus turbojet time. Both would be gained via Part 121, but does T-jet time carry a slight advantage (i.e. speed, altitude, etc.) for career progression.
Thanks in advance for the advice and feedback.
V/R,
Apollo
12-30-2007, 02:41 PM
#4
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,597
Originally Posted by Slice
Take the one that gets you in the left seat quicker.
But I agree with Slice. Take the one that gets you into the left seat quicker. Ultimately it is turbine time that matters (not turbojet versus turboprop).
12-30-2007, 03:05 PM
#6
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Mar 2007
Posts: 152
Great comments. Turbine PIC, as opposed to SIC, is the real commodity. And the quickest path to PIC seems to be the consensus for success.
Thank you all and Happy New Year.
Thank you all and Happy New Year.
Last edited by Apollo; 12-30-2007 at 04:20 PM.
12-30-2007, 03:26 PM
#7
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Posts: 302
I agree, get to the left seat. Either way, you can't go wrong with 121 PIC time. The one thing I would consider though, is if you are talking airlines... upgrade times are pretty low at some jet regionals right now, almost equal to the turboprop operators. Think if you get stuck long term, you would probably prefer to be stuck in a jet.
That is my take, anyway.
That is my take, anyway.
12-30-2007, 04:42 PM
#8
Tuberriffic
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: Hopefully the bunk
Posts: 222
Some people's individual goals may influence the decision there. Most foreign carriers (CX, EK, etc) have a noted preference for jets over props, and UA is evidently not even looking at the resumes of any prop drivers. If those aren't your goals, then the usual arguments of "Quick Upgrade vs. Quality of Life" apply. The short answer to your question, as it was phrased, is "No".
12-30-2007, 05:11 PM
#9
Line Holder
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: Unknown - Progressive Please!
Posts: 80
12-30-2007, 05:47 PM
#10
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: 737/FO
Posts: 423
CAL new-hire classes have been very balanced generally between turbo-prop/jet/corporate/military.
If you are in the 121 world, for a final time, only turbine PIC time really counts. It doesn't matter whether it's turbo-prop or jet PIC time. Just get it. As fast as possible (meaning the quickest upgrade).
Remember, the captains sitting on major airline hiring boards that came up through civilian 121 flying almost all flew turbo-props, not jets. They don't care about jet time. That isn't a question they even ask.
And, yes, UA is looking at and has hired turbo-prop captains.
If you are in the 121 world, for a final time, only turbine PIC time really counts. It doesn't matter whether it's turbo-prop or jet PIC time. Just get it. As fast as possible (meaning the quickest upgrade).
Remember, the captains sitting on major airline hiring boards that came up through civilian 121 flying almost all flew turbo-props, not jets. They don't care about jet time. That isn't a question they even ask.
And, yes, UA is looking at and has hired turbo-prop captains.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
captain_drew
Flight Schools and Training
38
12-05-2012 08:29 AM
