Simviation Forums

Hello everybody!
I was wondering about 2 things,
1) How do real pilots get payed? Do they get payed per flight or do they have to get 40-60hours a week like on a regualar job
2) Do real world pilots have to fly the same aircraft and the same route all the time or do they fly different ones if they wish to.

Thanks! Any replies would be greatly appriciated!
JVC_systems

Well if you're a contract pilot or part timer you get paid by the flight. Like we pay $300 per day for a Citation co-pilot, plus expenses (lunch dinner ect.) Most pilots get paid a salary every year. Like $75,000 a year guareteed and bonus/tips. Then some instructors get paid by the flight hour. They get some thing like $15 an hour in the air and 7 on the ground. Pharachute pilots get paid by the number of jumps. Around 15 dollars a jump. Airline pilots do get paid by the hour. I.E. $45 with a guareentee of 80 hours a month. In the corporate world you fly what the company has. If the company has more then one type of aircraft you maybe flying 2-4 different types of airplanes every week. Most pilot fly different routes every flight, but our Navajo flies one trip 4 days a week so who ever flies that trip does the same leg 2-4 times a week. Most trips are different every flight though. Not sure how it works with the airlines. I know you bid for your flight assignement tho.

Wow that's intersting! Thanks a lot for the information!! . I was also wondering. what happens if an aircraft gets retired. For example, Concorde, when it was retired what happend to the pilots who used to operate it? Did they lose their job or did they also retire or did they just switch to another aircraft, like 777 or 757 for eample? Thanks
JVC_systems

in the case of concorde pilots, the one close to retirement took an early package and retired early. There were a few who took management positions, in BA. And the younger pilots were moved to the 777 and 747's, as they already had experiance with those planes.
Other airlines all have their own set of rules for plane retirements

Btw, many years ago I spoke with one of my friends about the way concorde is designed and how it travels throught the air and he came up with an intersting question. His question was "Do you hear sounds when flying faster than the speed of sound". Since I have never been on Concorde myself I can't really answer that but I don't see why you wouldn't be able to hear anything if traveling over 1Mach. Let me know what you guys think of that .
JVC_systems

yes you still hear sounds. as for if you were sitting on the nose at mach 1. urmm who knows:)

The only noticeable change when you reach Mach 1 is that the the machmeter reads 1.00. You hear no big boom or feel any vibration. The original Corcorde TV ads showed a coin standing on edge next to drink on one of the passenger seat trays. When it went supersonic the coin didn't move or fall over & the liquid in the glass didn't ripple.

The only noticeable change when you reach Mach 1 is that the the machmeter reads 1.00. You hear no big boom or feel any vibration. The original Corcorde TV ads showed a coin standing on edge next to drink on one of the passenger seat trays. When it went supersonic the coin didn't move or fall over & the liquid in the glass didn't ripple.

It's all relative - when you're inside the "cocoon" that's all travelling faster than the speed of sound, everything in that 'cocoon' is going at the same speed, which is why you can talk normally to your fellow passenger...

(it would be a funny skit to have two people having to trade places to talk - the one forward talks while the one behind "catches" the sound.  The one behind can't answer because as soon as he talks, the sound "falls behind" .... where's Benny Hill when we need him?)

That would be funny  ;D. Did Concorde ever did transoceanic routes? Like KLAX-YSSY or KSFO - WSSS? I know it did lots of transatlantic routes but never heared it doing transoceanic thought .

I'm not familiar with airport codes & not sure what you mean by trans-oceanic. The main problem with Concorde was its comparatively short range. London to NY would be on the practical limit. It was not popular because of its general noise & the sonic boom itself when overflying populated areas. For these reasons most countries would not allow it to operate within

i thought barbados was twice weekly.
As for pacific routes, might have done on its promotional tour but never as a service

i thought barbados was twice weekly.

I have no idea & get my information from the horse's mouth - in this case the Concorde site.

As for pacific routes, might have done on its promotional tour but never as a service

Prospects looked very exciting before countries started banning the aircraft from their airspace. This left very few alternatives for practical regular services. I seem to remember that the NYC authorities took some persuading to allow it at one point. Without this, Concorde would never have become the limited success it was.

Was Concorde really the safest aircraft around? Also sometime I hear people say that airbus is safer than Boeing because Boeing had more accdents than Airbus? Is that true? Isn't it true than Boeing has a few times more airplane in service than airbus? I thought that about 70% of all jets around are from Boeing so basically there are barely any airbuses compared to the number of jet Boeing made. So what do you guys think?

i really dont know boths safety records, i have heard of equal number of airbus to boeing accidents.

Statistics can be made to mean anything you wish dependiing on how they're presented. Concorde was operated safely over a period of something like 30 years apart from one very unfortunate accident that claimed the lives of all on board. This is a remarkable record considering it was the only supersonic airliner in service. It cannot be compared with the record of other airliners that are operated on a much larger scale. As you mention yourself JVC,

Isn't it true than Boeing has a few times more airplane in service than airbus? I thought that about 70% of all jets around are from Boeing so basically there are barely any airbuses compared to the number of jet Boeing made.

I'm not sure if your figure of 70% is correct or not. It's quite possibly correct & serves to illustrate the point. Basing the safety record of anything on numbers of accidents is not enough by itself without taking the amount of the type in service into account.