DL757 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (14 years 10 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 734 times:
If you had the choice between flying as an First Officer on a big turboprop (something like a ATR or Dash-8) or as a Second Officer on an airliners (say a A-340 or 747), which would you chose ? Let's suppose that also with the turboprop you would automaticly get into the jets after a while (as a FO). Hard choice I think,
L-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29513 posts, RR: 59 Reply 1, posted (14 years 10 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 734 times:
Turboprop. I hate to say this to all of the heavy drivers up there but when you are down low setting up for a landing at a small airport with minimal facilities. It is a lot more interesting then having the autopilot land you at any big airport.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
dave From United Arab Emirates, joined Mar 2004, 0 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (14 years 10 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 734 times:
i think it would be better as second officer on the heavies as even second officers supplement flying duties in flight and lets remember that the question is "grey" due to the fact that a second officer is promoted to first officer anyway after the usual time, etc. there is no guarantee anymore that a first officer off a prop will ever fly a heavy with the transition from typical narrow body jets being replaced with regional jets. chances are a first officer will come off a prop and go onto an rj. further, with cross crew qualifications, it is becoming harder and harder to move up the ranks. (ie. A320 captain one day = A340 captain the next)
Cool Cat IIIc From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (14 years 10 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 734 times:
Personally I would definately choose the turboprop. At least you get to do some of the flying rather than just sitting there monitoring everything and then having to retire to the back when it's action time. That must be very depressing. Sure, the prospect is good, but...
This interesting choise is actually given to some peopel at KLM. They can either start as a Second Officer on the 747-400 (and maybe -300, I don't know) or as a First Officer on a Fokker 50 with KLM cityhopper. KLM then guarantees that in due time they will move up into KLM mainline into the right seat of a Boeing 737. As an added bonus, all the time flown with KLM cityhopper counts towards your seniority time with KLM. In this case I would most seriously choose the turboprop route. This gives you a chance to sample different parts of aviation. Once you're on the jets, your on the jets. You're never going to leave that kind of operation.
Then one final note for L-188. I think you make a good point, however, not all airline flying will take you into nice big airports on autopilot (and I think you know that too). There are some airports, mostly outside the USA, where it does come down to real flying and the autopilot won't do the job. Thank goodness for that.
AA727 From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 124 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (14 years 10 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 734 times:
There is no second officer in the A340. When you say the 747, you mean the Classic 747 right?
I would rather choose to fly as a flight engineer in the big jets rather than as a pilot in turboprops. I have a degree in engineering and I'm more interested in the Boeings than small props. A lot of flight engineers become copilots after a while.
I'm not interested in bizjets, I prefer large airliners. I'm a widebody lover.
CX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4435 posts, RR: 5 Reply 8, posted (14 years 10 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 735 times:
I would have to say second officer on a heavy. Flying the turboprop as others above stated does not gurantee a move to jet equipment. With KLM it is interesting but who do you think will move up faster. The guy with turboprop hours or the guy with 747 hours? Also, when two guys are hired on the same day they basically have close seniority numbers. You can't get more seniority by flying turboprops. Don't you think their union would object?
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
Cool Cat IIIc From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 9, posted (14 years 10 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 734 times:
I wasn't saying you get more seniority with the turboprops, CX747, just that your time at the turboprops is not wasted as far as seniority goes, ie you don't have to start from the bottom again once you move to KLM mainline. As far as moving up I don't think it will make a big difference. First of all, moving up to what ? You are already flying with a big airline, so you wouldn't have to move up to another company, so I assume you mean upgrading to captaincy. That I cannot answer since there are too many variables involved. It is not unlikely that on the turboprop fleet you even get a chance of a command before you move to the jet fleet and that experience is more valuable perhaps than those years as a Second Officer on the 747. I don't claim to have the answer, indeed there is no answer, it's all a matter of personal opinion. I would still choose the turboprop though. Good luck with the long haul though :)
dave From United Arab Emirates, joined Mar 2004, 0 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (14 years 10 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 734 times:
remember... depending on the airline, second officers do work on the new aged wide bodies. this might stem back to colonial days and the flying boats where there was a "population" on the flight deck. Australia being a perfect example. Qantas may have changed recently but i was aware that all pilot entrants are second officers that are dispatched on long haul flying for qantas. i also remember seeing a BA crew at Toronto Pearson a few years ago when the 747-400 was operating the route and i did notice a "two striper" with the crew. and finally, when you operate a 14 hour leg, (ie. SYD - LAX) there is usually more than two pilots.