Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
- Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
- Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
- Share the passion for aviation
- Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun
:(
- Thread starter jeroom
- Start date
- Watchers 5
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
- Invite your friends
- Share the passion of aviation
- Friendliest aviation community on the web
ILStoMinimums
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2004
- Posts
- 827
jergar999
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2002
- Posts
- 791
johnpeace
#199 of 201
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2003
- Posts
- 841
I'm surprised nobody here has bitched yet about the 'why you should pay for your training...' article in the back of AOPA Flight Training (6/04, pg70).jeroom said:
I was shocked...right there in print is an article about how smart an arrangement it is for new, up & coming pilots to just pay for their initial training.
I guess that's what the landscape is anymore, oh well...be a few more years before I get that glittery blue bass boat with 250hp Evinrude and color GPS/fish finder.
bobbysamd
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2001
- Posts
- 5,710
A_O_ P_ A P_ F_ T_ I.O.U. Advocacy
From the June, 2004 AOPA Flight Training, at p. 70:
The employer agrees to put up money to pay for the cost of your training on the condition that you pay it back. You can make a lump-sum repayment, or you can pay it back over time on an agreed-upon schedule. But there's another way to repay the training loan that has benefits for both the pilot and prospective employer . . . .
The employer recoups its up-front investment in the new pilot's training by deducting the pilot's pay over time . . . . The plan benefits the pilot in that the debt is repaid without having to spend money out of pocket. Sure, it hurts to get a smaller paycheck than would otherwise be the case, but it is the least painful way to pay for expensive training . . . .
Mark Twombly wrote this "article." His background includes a CIMEL, thirty-five years of flying experience and ownership of a twin Commanche. Nothing of which I am aware that includes professional pilot work experience and/or attempts at gaining professional pilot employment. Thus, I question his credentials and expertise in advocating P-F-T.
What totally outrageous, illogical crap. Mr. Twombly appears to focus on corporate flying in his article, but the area of professional aviation does not matter. No matter if it is corporate, regional, majors, freight or flight instruction, pilot training is a cost of doing business and is tax-deductable. It is a business expense of the company. Moreover, all the usual anti-P-F-T arguments continue to apply, e.g., demeaning pilots, cutting-in-line, blackball potential, and, in this case, especially, fraud and conjob. What if you get canned? Will you still be responsible for the full P-F-T I.O.U.? Don't forget the major anti-P-F-T argument: It is still just a job. One does not buy a job.
Quite a few new (naive) pilots read this magazine. No wonder we have so many new pilots asking about such venerated P-F-T institutions as TAB Express, Gulfstream, etc. They are being pushed toward them in articles such as these.
Finally, Flight Training is not the only mag that shills its advertisers with articles about them. Flying has descended to the same level. So much for independent journalism.
Your comment moved me to pick up my magazine and read the article.johnpeace said:
From the June, 2004 AOPA Flight Training, at p. 70:
The employer agrees to put up money to pay for the cost of your training on the condition that you pay it back. You can make a lump-sum repayment, or you can pay it back over time on an agreed-upon schedule. But there's another way to repay the training loan that has benefits for both the pilot and prospective employer . . . .
The employer recoups its up-front investment in the new pilot's training by deducting the pilot's pay over time . . . . The plan benefits the pilot in that the debt is repaid without having to spend money out of pocket. Sure, it hurts to get a smaller paycheck than would otherwise be the case, but it is the least painful way to pay for expensive training . . . .
Mark Twombly wrote this "article." His background includes a CIMEL, thirty-five years of flying experience and ownership of a twin Commanche. Nothing of which I am aware that includes professional pilot work experience and/or attempts at gaining professional pilot employment. Thus, I question his credentials and expertise in advocating P-F-T.
What totally outrageous, illogical crap. Mr. Twombly appears to focus on corporate flying in his article, but the area of professional aviation does not matter. No matter if it is corporate, regional, majors, freight or flight instruction, pilot training is a cost of doing business and is tax-deductable. It is a business expense of the company. Moreover, all the usual anti-P-F-T arguments continue to apply, e.g., demeaning pilots, cutting-in-line, blackball potential, and, in this case, especially, fraud and conjob. What if you get canned? Will you still be responsible for the full P-F-T I.O.U.? Don't forget the major anti-P-F-T argument: It is still just a job. One does not buy a job.
Quite a few new (naive) pilots read this magazine. No wonder we have so many new pilots asking about such venerated P-F-T institutions as TAB Express, Gulfstream, etc. They are being pushed toward them in articles such as these.
Finally, Flight Training is not the only mag that shills its advertisers with articles about them. Flying has descended to the same level. So much for independent journalism.
Share this page
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
