Anyone has training contract and what type!

[RedBehren]

The only reason companies are inclined to use these types of contracts is because of the high volume of DOUCHE bags that have bagged the rating and hit the road, leaving some business owner (who made the mistake of trusting the new-hire pilot) holding the bag.

It only takes one loser to do this and it immediately can cost the company $15-25k. If more than one guy does it, well, do the math... Its simply a preventative scare tactic measure, not a tool to keep fence-hoppers contained.

There are plenty of jobs in the real world (not this fantasy-land that we all work in) that require a commitment for company sponsored training. If you dont like the position being offered and are afraid to commit to it, then DON'T. Leave the job for someone who's willing to stick around awhile.

All of the other people that i fly with fully support our management's use of these agreements, as do I, because whats good for us is good for the company, and people breezing through to collect a rating and run ISN'T...

 

[G100driver]

New hire training contracts, fine. We do not live in LaLa land.

Recurrent, upgrade ect ..... No way.

The easy way to make people stay is to pay them and give them QOL. Holding a gun to someone's head is not acceptable. All it takes is one loser company out there doing and suddenly it becomes acceptable.

 

[RedBehren]

We all need to agree on one thing; this is an industry full of opportunists. Ive seen people leave companies who were the highest paid, least worked of the bunch. It has nothing to do with pay and quality of life. If you want quality of life, live in the bahamas and smoke weed all day. If you want to earn a living, find a company that has its employees interests in mind - regardless of pay level. A training contract - regardless of training type - could be looked at as an insurance policy for the entire employee group. Every time one of us leaves the company hanging, it hurts us just as much as them.

 

[mobie]

Training Contract

What about a company that puts one in place after the pilots have been there a year or more. 2 years after type(any type even replacement a/c) and 1 year after each rec. training, have to pay back the cost of training plus hotel, food and travel.

 

[G100driver]

We all need to agree on one thing; this is an industry full of opportunists. Ive seen people leave companies who were the highest paid, least worked of the bunch. It has nothing to do with pay and quality of life. If you want quality of life, live in the bahamas and smoke weed all day. If you want to earn a living, find a company that has its employees interests in mind - regardless of pay level. A training contract - regardless of training type - could be looked at as an insurance policy for the entire employee group. Every time one of us leaves the company hanging, it hurts us just as much as them.

Just curious, are playing devils advocate here or are you serious?

 

[RedBehren]

Just curious, are playing devils advocate here or are you serious?

A little bit of both, I guess. Just trying to inject some relativity to the dialogue. Certainly not trying to get anyone uptight about it...

Look, I've worked at some great places and some lousy places - Ive stayed at every one for at least 5 years and I spent 10 long years at a company that ultimately went out of business for financial reasons - it was the BEST of the bunch. I feel lucky to have found the job I have now with a young, growing company where I feel appreciated... and its NOT the highest paying job I've ever had - and i work a LOT more than I used to. Myself and the other fellows that work there have no issue with the management trying to protect their pocketbooks using the TC's because, as I said before, whats good for them is good for us - or at least at this place it is.

I can understand that for some people that may seem crazy, but I think if you dig deep, you'll agree that unless you have the balls to go start your OWN company, you're at the whim of those who have. Thats just the simple truth...

People's feet do the talking.

 

[G100driver]

Interesting post. You are right about the whole cahoona's thing.

However unless the leadership leads and provides vision people will use their feet. As far contracts to make people stay ... hardly fair. Yea, yea I know if you do like do not apply.

What is their end of the bargin? Sign this contract and you will get X raise? Do not sign it and kick you to the curb every year?

Like I said it take leadership and vision to run a sucessful company. Just ask Herb.

 

[justwatching]

I've been watching this thread from afar, and seems that the stereotypical approaches are abundant.

The main point that Behren makes that most don't think about, is that it is not a way to hold someone "hostage." It's a way to ensure some idiot doesn't roll through town with all the right things to say in an interview, "bag" the rating and split.

If someone is canned for being an idiot, I can't imagine the company trying to recoup the costs. I would also imagine that after the initial expense of the rating, so long as you perform professionally, you WILL get a raise. I haven't heard that you HAVE to take the rating either. If someone is afraid of the commitment to an employer for one year that is ready to drop 15-20k in a type (plus the expenses), then stay seat locked until you're over it. It's simply a trade off.

I don't have a problem with a pro-rated, reasonable term approach. There are no raises or types if the opportunists take advantage of my company.

I'd like the names of half the people in this thread to ensure that we don't hire them.

 

[G100driver]

I've been watching this thread from afar, and seems that the stereotypical approaches are abundant.

The main point that Behren makes that most don't think about, is that it is not a way to hold someone "hostage." It's a way to ensure some idiot doesn't roll through town with all the right things to say in an interview, "bag" the rating and split.

If someone is canned for being an idiot, I can't imagine the company trying to recoup the costs. I would also imagine that after the initial expense of the rating, so long as you perform professionally, you WILL get a raise. I haven't heard that you HAVE to take the rating either. If someone is afraid of the commitment to an employer for one year that is ready to drop 15-20k in a type (plus the expenses), then stay seat locked until you're over it. It's simply a trade off.

I don't have a problem with a pro-rated, reasonable term approach. There are no raises or types if the opportunists take advantage of my company.

I'd like the names of half the people in this thread to ensure that we don't hire them.

No problems with intial types ect. But what about recurrents and costs of doing business? This is what Behern was elluding to.

Any company that does this is truly a bottom feeder with leadership that has given up trying to lead and motivate the group.

This is holding a pilot hostage. Leadership fails to lead and pilots will go elsewhere.

 

[justwatching]

Let me pose a hypothetical (and real) situation:

You, G100, are the company owner (or "leader" as you like to use):

Pilot gets furloughed, is broke and comes absolutely begging for a job a couple years ago. His total times are okay, so you type him in a LR35 and everyone goes about their business. T

Along the way, recurrents have come and gone, and raises have come every year as promised. Benefits are great, morale is great, company is growing and new equipment is being added all the time. Maintenance is exemplary and the schedule rocks. You, as the business owner, G100 are very proud of your company and after each review HR reports that folks are happy.

You, business owner, are going to add a GIV. "Joe Pilot" seems like a great candidate. You're going to drop $30k+ on that training.

Here's the question: What do you do? Ask "Joe" to sign a ONE YEAR contract or not?

Your business sense is on the line here, G100....what do you do?

Hint: It's really tough to "lead" out of BK.

This happened to us 6 months ago. Nearly $3k/month is a lot of raises for the rest of us.

 

[Rick1128]

Training contracts are a sore note on this site. I have signed one and fulfilled my obligations under it. It got me to where I wanted to go in this industry. I have refused to sign others.

Unfortunately, it has been my experience that a majority of the companies that require training contracts do so to lock an employee in. The companies that require a contract for recurrent IMHO are total lowlifes. The regs require recurrent training and therefore it is a cost of doing business. You can bet they are taking it off their taxes. I wouldn't sign a contract that would not pro-rate. As you get closer to your contract completion, the less you should owe. After all the company has gotten some value for their money. It has also been my experience that many of these companies will lie to get you to sign and will then tell you the cold hard truth after you are locked in. Especially regarding pay and benefits.

The one that really bugs me is the company that inists that you sign a contract even though you are already typed in their aircraft. Real winners here.

While I do understand why companies do require a contract, too many of them are way too one-sided. They need to be reasonably balanced.

 

[Ace-of-the-Base]

However unless the leadership leads and provides vision people will use their feet. As far contracts to make people stay ... hardly fair. Yea, yea I know if you do like do not apply....Like I said it take leadership and vision to run a sucessful company. Just ask Herb.

Don't know about 'Herb', but I keep hearing those on the sidelines making statements on how people will walk, and these low-life companies, etc.

I work for one of the largest management and charter companies in the world. We have to commit to training contracts. It surprises me how everyone thinks they know how to identify the 'bottom feeders'. Alot of what I hear about this subject is pure opinion. Why don't we all look at the facts.

Does anyone have examples of these things:

1. Companies that require training contracts have bad QOL.
2. Companies that have training contracts have high turn-over ("people will use their feet")
3. Companies that have training contracts are run by bad managers.

It was explained to me at my company that the recurrents are just as much of an issue as the types. Do the math, I did. If a company has 50 pilots and they all stay an average of 5 years, and the pilots leave right after the company buys a full service recurrent as opposed to leaving at the end of that recurrent period, it costs a bunch of money. GV full service = $40,000 time 50 = 2 million dollars. Divide that by 5 years, and it still = $400,000 EXTRA expense per year. Contrary to what everyone here says, I think its the bigger companies that really have the need to have these contracts if they want to be good managers and do what's best for the company and the pilots.

Bottom line, if you don't like the contract, don't go to work there, although you might be passing up a great gig like the one I have.

Ace

 

[RedBehren]

Don't know about 'Herb', but I keep hearing those on the sidelines making statements on how people will walk, and these low-life companies, etc.

I work for one of the largest management and charter companies in the world. We have to commit to training contracts. It surprises me how everyone thinks they know how to identify the 'bottom feeders'. Alot of what I hear about this subject is pure opinion. Why don't we all look at the facts.

Does anyone have examples of these things:

1. Companies that require training contracts have bad QOL.
2. Companies that have training contracts have high turn-over ("people will use their feet")
3. Companies that have training contracts are run by bad managers.

It was explained to me at my company that the recurrents are just as much of an issue as the types. Do the math, I did. If a company has 50 pilots and they all stay an average of 5 years, and the pilots leave right after the company buys a full service recurrent as opposed to leaving at the end of that recurrent period, it costs a bunch of money. GV full service = $40,000 time 50 = 2 million dollars. Divide that by 5 years, and it still = $400,000 EXTRA expense per year. Contrary to what everyone here says, I think its the bigger companies that really have the need to have these contracts if they want to be good managers and do what's best for the company and the pilots.

Bottom line, if you don't like the contract, don't go to work there, although you might be passing up a great gig like the one I have.

Ace

Precisely my point, Ace. Thank you. I guess I was not articulating clearly, now that I re-read my posts.

Our management - while certainly not Southwest Airlines - is very fair about the contract they make us sign. Regardless of our tenure, we sign a 1 year on an initial training for a new type and a 6 month on a recurrent. Hasn't really been a major problem for any of us.

To date, nobody has complained too heavily becasue we recognize that they are esentially "buying" one year or six months of usage via that training. If after 6 months you want to bail, they dont care - they got their "return on investment".

 

[mobie]

Training Contract

Ace,

You forgot that full service is transferable to any pilot, any operator should know this cost happens every 6 months. There is also an obligation to the employer to uphold working conditions and pay, sometime that just does not happen.

Recurrent training is a cost of doing busuness just like engine overhaul. You must have a good deal with 9999 hrs. and only two types.

Mobie

 

[TimsKeeper]

QOL is not automatically bad at companies that make you sign contracts. My current job has better than average QOL with better than average equipment. Obviously I would prefer not to, but 1 year prorated is not the worst thing in the world. If someone drops 20 grand on you I don't see the problem with guaranteeing some time or paying some back if you don't.

You don't like contracts go apply to American Eagle and wait 6 to 8 years for a type rating and make just above the poverty level for a few years.