Foreign Pilots work in the US

#23
Because long haul is where you go to completely forget how to fly.
Between our mandatory ap on rnav sids and one or two legs a month, you may "fly" 600 hours a year but of that 600 maybe 2 hours is actually flying.
That's why I've never really been a fan of international. Always preferred transcontinental. Or a mix of domestic and international like they do on 757/767 fleets at some airlines. Will that change at some point once I'm a 121 pilot. Right now I only know what I don't know. Lol, if even that. Time will tell. But honestly, I NEVER been a 747 fan. Always preferred light twins.
 

z987k

Well-Known Member
#24
That's why I've never really been a fan of international. Always preferred transcontinental. Or a mix of domestic and international like they do on 757/767 fleets at some airlines. Will that change at some point once I'm a 121 pilot. Right now I only know what I don't know. Lol, if even that. Time will tell. But honestly, I NEVER been a 747 fan. Always preferred light twins.
I mean if you're going to cross an ocean, as a pilot, I cannot think of a better plane to do it in.
The way rest facilities and places to move around works in light twins and the 3 holer, it sucks terribly in comparison.
 

jtrain609

I'm a carnal, organic anagram.
#29
That's why I've never really been a fan of international. Always preferred transcontinental. Or a mix of domestic and international like they do on 757/767 fleets at some airlines. Will that change at some point once I'm a 121 pilot. Right now I only know what I don't know. Lol, if even that. Time will tell. But honestly, I NEVER been a 747 fan. Always preferred light twins.
Yeah I thought that once, until I did a few 7 hour legs westbound and considered jumping out after 3 hours and letting the captain fend for himself.
 

Kingairer

'Tiger Team' Member
#32
That's why I've never really been a fan of international. Always preferred transcontinental. Or a mix of domestic and international like they do on 757/767 fleets at some airlines. Will that change at some point once I'm a 121 pilot. Right now I only know what I don't know. Lol, if even that. Time will tell. But honestly, I NEVER been a 747 fan. Always preferred light twins.
Pretty much how I feel right now. Not from a “forgeting how to fly standpoint", but just personal preference and patience. Airbus 320 series has a really nice mixture of flying. I’ve never had to do a tech stop doing a transcon. Pretty rare and limited mostly to winter months from the most distant airports.
 
Last edited:

BobDDuck

Island Bus Driver
#33
Well, that's because your jet has problems going WB and has to make stop(s) along the way. 757 doesn't have that problem. But it does have a yoke.
The 32x hasn't been making tech stops (outside of abnormal conditions) for a while now. Hell, WOW flew theirs from KEF to SFO a few months ago. When you look at the fuel burn difference between the 757 and the NB airbus (even the ceo) it's pretty apparent that outside of cargo, there isn't an ongoing market for it.
 
#35
The 32x hasn't been making tech stops (outside of abnormal conditions) for a while now. Hell, WOW flew theirs from KEF to SFO a few months ago. When you look at the fuel burn difference between the 757 and the NB airbus (even the ceo) it's pretty apparent that outside of cargo, there isn't an ongoing market for it.
I wasn't serious. I was just giving @jtrain609 some crap, because he hates the 320.
 

z987k

Well-Known Member
#40
Yeah, I thought we were talking while at work. Belay my last. :)
I like medium stage lengths where it's hard for them to give me two legs. I'm not a big fan of multiple legs. But I also abhor 14 hours flights.
My favorite flight in our system is probably NRT-ANC as a 2 man crew. I'm going home, even if it's the middle of the trip and there's nothing at all they can do with me when I get there. It's short enough that I don't mind being in the seat that long at all.
 
Top