Anyone has training contract and what type!

[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.

 

[TimsKeeper]

Also like said previously, don't automatically think it's unenforceable because that is not the case. It depends on a few factors, but it has been enforced at a previous company that I worked for.

 

[G100driver]

I actually had to work, sorry I missed the discussion.

Let me clarify new hire training contract .... OK
Recurrent .... BAD.

Owners buys new G-IV wants pilots to sign contract ... why is that my fault? You hired me. No need to penalize me for getting new equiptment. We are on our 2nd aircraft type ... no training contract.

You do not want guys to quit, well then PAY up. It is at simple as that. If you can afford a G you can afford to train and pay your pilots. When was the last time a REAL flight department asked there senior guys to sign a ridiculous training bond to go recurrent or for a new equiptment upgrade.

Sheese you guys had been beaten so badly that you think this kind management/empoyee relationship is justified. Mobie hit the nail on the head. Recurrent is simply a cost of business.

We have yet to loose anyone is our small fight department. But then again we pay an industry standard wage and provide QOL. Oh, well, I guess some people like to beaten down.

 

[G100driver]

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.

Did you pay Joe pilot below industry wage? After you typed Joe did you send him away for 25 days a month?

If you answered yes to either or these questions well it sounds like Joe did what was best .... got a better job.

If a charter operator is going to dabble in heavy iron then it must expect this. Either that or it must properly staff and subsiquently pay crews. Failure to that is a failure in a business plan. Aviation is expesive. Do not make it any tougher on YOURSELF and your other pilots. Cannot afford it, do not play.

 

[Ace-of-the-Base]

Owners buys new G-IV wants pilots to sign contract ... why is that my fault? You hired me. No need to penalize me for getting new equiptment. We are on our 2nd aircraft type ... no training contract.

You do not want guys to quit, well then PAY up. It is at simple as that. If you can afford a G you can afford to train and pay your pilots. When was the last time a REAL flight department asked there senior guys to sign a ridiculous training bond to go recurrent or for a new equiptment upgrade.

Mobie hit the nail on the head. Recurrent is simply a cost of business.

Hmmmm, ok, let me break it down.

You are my little Astra pilot and I get a nice new G550. Don't need to have you sign a contract? yup, also don't need to upgrade you. You're UNDERQUALIFIED. Why would I get someone with NO time in a Gulfstream to fly my nice shiny new one. Oh yeah, now I remember, you are gods gift to aviation, and even though you've never flown a long-range heavy jet, here is comes, we've all heard it before, IT'S JUST A JET. BFD that Ace and his buddies have been flying these things around the world for years, send me to school, I can do that! Now that being said, my employers have always paid for my types and not hired around me. I, in turn, have had NO problem signing any commitment they want. And lets see how that's hurt my life. Hmmm.

Now, G100, I like you, but I must say on this one, if you're over 30 years old and you're not flying an intercontinental ultra long-range jet making over 200K and working an average of 12 days per month, that maybe, just maybe, your theories are not suiting you so well (this description is not of me, but of my co-captain). And with all of your wisdom about the 'right' way to run and manage a company, what are you doing just flying? Get out there and put your money where your mouth is. Santulli mad a cool 750 million bucks with his great ideas.

So for all of you newbie pilots that are reading this thread, you may want to look at who is giving the info. If they aint at the top of the heap, you may want to stop listening. And when they tell you their story about how they love flying their little jet for their little company because of the QOL or the days off, or whatever excuses they have for not progressing further in their careers, just smile and walk away. Take it from a 'beaten down' guy like me who's had a blessed career.

As for Mobie, he's actually wrong. A full service contract at FSI is only transferable for the unused event and only under specific criteria.

Ace

 

[mobie]

Ace

As for Mobie, he's actually wrong. A full service contract at FSI is only transferable for the unused event and only under specific criteria.(quote)

Was not saying that there was a look-back training entilement, just credit for the next training. Most large new aircraft purchase will give you 4 pilots and 2 mx training included.

Any contract should give protection to both parties, not something I have seen in most 135 and some 91.

This is not my first BBQ and I have flown for the good, bad and the ugly.

Sign your life away for some management company and miss the next big wave, it may come.

Mobie

 

[RedBehren]

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

Ah, the oft-heard "cost of doing business" approach. Well, if you use the engine analogy, then I would ask the question; is the cost of the overhaul for the flying youve DONE or the flying youre going to DO?

My point is that the recurrent training buys someone 6 months (under 135) and six months ONLY of captain currency. So, the company sponsored training is an INVESTMENT on their part. Our bosses think that this investment should earn a 6 month return. Seems fair.

 

[h25b]

Ah, the oft-heard "cost of doing business" approach. Well, if you use the engine analogy, then I would ask the question; is the cost of the overhaul for the flying youve DONE or the flying youre going to DO?

My point is that the recurrent training buys someone 6 months (under 135) and six months ONLY of captain currency. So, the company sponsored training is an INVESTMENT on their part. Our bosses think that this investment should earn a 6 month return. Seems fair.

I respectfully call B.S.

First of all, coming back to an employee that is already in the door and forcing them to sign a training agreement as a condition of future employment is illegal provided this was not a term of original employment. In other words, if I hire someone having never mentioned a training agreement and then some months later when it's time for school again I can't say, "sign this or you're gone..."

Your example is really exactly that. If every time it was time to go to recurrent I had to sign a training agreement I am basically in servitude.

They are not investing in you, they are investing in the business by hiring, training, and hopefully retaining qualified pilots. Otherwise, perhaps you could tell me what Option #2 would be ? Not training to FAR 135 regulation and the whole operation being grounded ? I think not.

 

[RedBehren]

I respectfully call B.S.

First of all, coming back to an employee that is already in the door and forcing them to sign a training agreement as a condition of future employment is illegal provided this was not a term of original employment. In other words, if I hire someone having never mentioned a training agreement and then some months later when it's time for school again I can't say, "sign this or you're gone..."

quote]

Actually (at least in the state where I work), they CAN and DO. Its called "employment at will" and it essentially allows them fire us for something as simple as farting in the front lobby... (unless your farts don't stick, in which case they probably wouldn't fire you.) That doesnt make it RIGHT, however, which appears to be the basis for our ongoing discussion.

It really boils down to whether we can all agree to the concept that a company has the right to an "ROI" (return on investment). Once we agree that this, in fact, is fair and legal, then we need to agree whether recurrent training (since we all seem to agree that initial is fair game for a TC) can constitute an "investment". Remember, many, many companies in other industries require employees to commit to a certain time frame after theyve been trained; its called an "employment contract" and these training contracts are the same thing.

At the end of the day, what self-respecting employee would even GO to recurrent training and then gig their company with the bill by leaving a month later? If in your heart of hearts THAT sounds like a s-itty thing to do, then I would argue that we all actually agree - the recurrent training course is an investment, not an expense, and therefore has an "expected usefullness" of 6 months, at which time, the return from the investment has been earned.

The defense rests, Your Honor.

 

[h25b]

At the end of the day, what self-respecting employee would even GO to recurrent training and then gig their company with the bill by leaving a month later? If in your heart of hearts THAT sounds like a s-itty thing to do, then I would argue that we all actually agree - the recurrent training course is an investment, not an expense, and therefore has an "expected usefullness" of 6 months, at which time, the return from the investment has been earned.

The defense rests, Your Honor.

Reasonable minds will disagree on the rest, but I agree with the above in certain instances.

I am speaking in terms of an already proven employee who has not been operating under any sort of training contract and then all of a sudden have it forced upon them.

So counselor I will conclude by saying that the initial costs incurred making the employee eligible to fly legally on the ops. certificate could be considered an investment in the employee. But I will stand by my point that recurrent training required to maintain that same employee's status should be considered an investment in the company and its business objectives (i.e. keeping the aircraft flying and generating revenue).

 

[RedBehren]

Reasonable minds will disagree on the rest, but I agree with the above in certain instances.

I am speaking in terms of an already proven employee who has not been operating under any sort of training contract and then all of a sudden have it forced upon them.

So counselor I will conclude by saying that the initial costs incurred making the employee eligible to fly legally on the ops. certificate could be considered an investment in the employee. But I will stand by my point that recurrent training required to maintain that same employee's status should be considered an investment in the company and its business objectives (i.e. keeping the aircraft flying and generating revenue).

Fair 'nuff...

Although, I would be willing to bet that if we lined up people on this issue, the (reasonable) people that have a stake in profit sharing for a given company would agree with the side I'VE been arguing, and the other (also reasonable) people who simply cash a check every two weeks would be on the other side of the fence. Its all relative in this life, my dear friends...

No "wrongs" or "rights" here neccesarily... and for the record, I've just been pontificating all the garbage BS that our cxompany threw back at us when we bitched after they were making us sign these GD contacts!

Regretfully, I have to sign off from this thread... Another day, another trip -10 days bee-bopping around the resort towns of mexico for one of the owners. I'll be thinking of our meaningful dialogue whilst drinking a Modelo and dipping my toes in the warm waters of the blue pacific. aaahhh.... I can't believe they pay me for this.

 

[G100driver]

Ace:

Well thought out though poorly reasoned response. Must have been that Viagra giving you a headache.

Now I was happy being a little Astra guy (but the airplane was and still is a pile of poo). I was making industry wage working for a great guy and was not looking for employement. My boss is very sucessful and gets a nice new shinny jet. Do I suddenly become unemployed because I have never flown one? I think not. I was a good employee then and still am now. Of course he was going to train me. I have always done the right thing by more employer as he has always done the right thing by me. He in turn pays me. Is it as much as a long-haul driver? No, but it is FAIR and I know that raises are in the future(promises fulfiled I might add).

Now as far as over 30 making $200K a year flying international long haul, well I am just perfectly fine making my industry standard wage with a mostly domestic schedule. I am glad to see that you can still stay awake long enough to make a flight across the Atlantic after the last Matlock re-run is over on A&E.

As far as the contracts go, we will agree to dis-agree. No one who works for me has ever signed a contract. We pay an industry wage (which is better than most given our region of the country) and myself and co-workers are hard pressed to find a much better gig in the local area. If someone really wants to move to make more money, well I guess that is their problem. But there in lies the key to finding good people.

The only folks in the local area using training contracts for recurrents are the scumbag outfits. The only ones blessed by aviation these outfits are the senior non-flying management who spend most of their day trying to figure out how to draw blood from turnips (aka pilots and mechanics). Lord knows that they cannot charge what it truly costs to produce the product.

Anyhow, we shall continue to disagree.

 

[G100driver]

BTW, do IBM, Nike, B of A and the other sought after companies on this board require contracts for recurrent? I think not.

 

[Stealthh21]

That's true...however....these companies that want to train (type) a pilot and then expect them to be paid far below industry standard do it to themselves.

So don't work for that company.

 

[HawkerF/O]

As for Mobie, he's actually wrong. A full service contract at FSI is only transferable for the unused event and only under specific criteria.
Ace

Ace, you are flat wrong. You speak of the FSI full service contract as having 1 or 2 events or it is limiting in some way. That is not the case at all; are you famailar with what exactly a FSI full service sontract is? An initial full service has a initial/type, unlimited recurrents for 2 aircraft. A Full service recurrent has unlimited amounts of recurrents for 2 aircraft, and that is used when the person has already been to an initial on the aircraft (in most cases)

The FSI full service recurrent contract has NO limits on the # of recurrent events that 1 attends AND it can be paid in quarters, bi-annualy, anually, etc. If a pilot leaves or the department closes, FSI will refund the unused portion based upon what has been used if that is what the comapny wants. A guy leaving a company the day he gets home from a recurrent then the company hires a guy already typed and sends him to recurrent will take over the previously purchased contract and the company would incur no additional expense from FSI.

 

[Ace-of-the-Base]

Ace, you are flat wrong. You speak of the FSI full service contract as having 1 or 2 events or it is limiting in some way. That is not the case at all; are you famailar with what exactly a FSI full service sontract is? An initial full service has a initial/type, unlimited recurrents for 2 aircraft. A Full service recurrent has unlimited amounts of recurrents for 2 aircraft, and that is used when the person has already been to an initial on the aircraft (in most cases)

The FSI full service recurrent contract has NO limits on the # of recurrent events that 1 attends AND it can be paid in quarters, bi-annualy, anually, etc. If a pilot leaves or the department closes, FSI will refund the unused portion based upon what has been used if that is what the comapny wants. A guy leaving a company the day he gets home from a recurrent then the company hires a guy already typed and sends him to recurrent will take over the previously purchased contract and the company would incur no additional expense from FSI.

Might want to check your facts, bucko.

That used to be the case and is not anymore, you get a maximum of 2 events during a 12 month period. In the old days, you could schedule as many as you wanted, then they made it so you could only schedule 2 events, but could train as much as you wanted but only last minute and pending their schedule. Now they only alow 2 training events.

Make a call and check your facts, then you can get back to me.

Ace