Trying to find out if an airline like alaska or southwest that uses 737s exclusively is able to use a single type rating for its pilots - or do they need to be checked out in each variant of the 737?
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
737 type rating
- Thread starter Recovering LSO
- Start date
I've been out of the FLUF for a while, so HAL or CAT could probably provide better time-sensitive info .... but: I'm pretty sure you can get a 'type' on the steam gauge cockpits (100/200 series) or a type on the EFIS (glass) cockpits -- AND -- differences training to cover you for the other models. But I wouldn't take that 'aged best guess' to the bank, unless you 'feel lucky' ... like I said; HAL or CAT ...
I got mine on the -200, but I was 'typed' for both 'original' models -- no differentiation. No glass in those days ...
Question: why do you want one?? Do you have an interview w/ SWA?? Do you have an 'in' w/ SWA?? Otherwise ..... you'd probably be better off putting the $$$$$ toward HOURS in a Super King Air, or something similar. HOURS impress the interviewers, generally not type ratings w/ no time in the bird.
Just my $20 worth ...
*edit* ... this is the ACTUAL bird I got my type in:
I got mine on the -200, but I was 'typed' for both 'original' models -- no differentiation. No glass in those days ...
Question: why do you want one?? Do you have an interview w/ SWA?? Do you have an 'in' w/ SWA?? Otherwise ..... you'd probably be better off putting the $$$$$ toward HOURS in a Super King Air, or something similar. HOURS impress the interviewers, generally not type ratings w/ no time in the bird.
Just my $20 worth ...
*edit* ... this is the ACTUAL bird I got my type in:
Been awhile since I flew one, but I agree. To fly the Glass & Computer 300 required only differences training, and not a seperate type rating after being typed in the 200 with only steam guages.
Writing a paper on Alaska's business practices and am trying to suggest that they save money on training and scheduling by having an "all 737" fleet - in addition to maint and fuel savings associated with getting rid of their MD-80s a few years ago. Not sure though if a dude is qual'd in a 737-400, if it carries over to 700,800,900 series.
YGBSM about paying out of pocket for the type rating
Maybe 20 years ago when the job was esteemed and considered a profession - when you fine, dare I say, gentlemen were in the game. Not these days - its just labor.
YGBSM about paying out of pocket for the type rating
Maybe 20 years ago when the job was esteemed and considered a profession - when you fine, dare I say, gentlemen were in the game. Not these days - its just labor.
737 type covers all of the series but there is differences training for each. This is why for years Southwest had their glass in the cockpit configured to look like round dials. They only within the last month started using the glass like it is supposed to be used. SWA guys are checked out in all series where I believe Alaska isn't. Alaska only checks out in the series that's in their base.
SWA is the only airline that requires a 737 type to be hired. They use it as a way to weed out the resumes. They still have to give a full training syllabus so it doesn't save them training money. But there is no doubt a single aircraft fleet saves money as the cost of differences training is minuscule.
Send a pm to Frumby (if he's still around). He's a SWA pilot.
SWA is the only airline that requires a 737 type to be hired. They use it as a way to weed out the resumes. They still have to give a full training syllabus so it doesn't save them training money. But there is no doubt a single aircraft fleet saves money as the cost of differences training is minuscule.
Send a pm to Frumby (if he's still around). He's a SWA pilot.
I never liked ANY version of the Diesel-9, no matter what they called it. I know some guys who flew it for fun & profit and they described it as a 'sports car' ... ??? We obviously had differing opinions on what constituted 'sport'. It didn't have a wing -- which was a typical McD jet design philosophy (even though I LOVE the A-4
) -- i.e., McD's theory seemed to be: if you put enough thrust on a brick IT WILL FLY !!!I never saw/rode through as many 'firm' landings in the airlines as I saw/rode through while encased in a Diesel-9-anything.
DC-9 (left) ... MD-80 (right)
From the seek & ye shall find department:
Here you go, younger Bruddah ... I highly recommend the Moses Lake, WA school run through Big Bend Community College (Vikings) ... second choice would be the school in Aberdeen, WA run by Grays Harbor College (Chokers).
I DID 'drive' an 18-wheeler for 25 years, you know ...
B-717 - the "new" DC-9/MD-80
I thought the 717 was "sporty", especially in a good gusty crosswind.
No wing - the bottom would drop out in a heart beat but it did like to roll nicely at the same time......
However I did enjoy flying the MD-87-105/MD-95/B-717.
I thought the 717 was "sporty", especially in a good gusty crosswind.
No wing - the bottom would drop out in a heart beat but it did like to roll nicely at the same time......
However I did enjoy flying the MD-87-105/MD-95/B-717.