Enforcing "Training Contracts"? Evidently, they are enforcible...

[midlifeflyer]

You are not correct. These are NOT always enforceable. It depends on the state law where they are signed, and the way the agreement is structured.

Well, my educated guess is that they are usually enforceable. "The way the agreement is structured" is a precondition to whether =any= contract is enforceable.

There may be one or two, but I'm not aware of a state in which a contract of the type being discussed is, for example, void for illegality or unenforceable as being against public policy.

 

[Khirsah]

Your analogy is flawed, midlifeflyer.

I wouldn't expect to walk into a company with my private and have them pay to train me up to legal levels. Just as a person shouldn't expect to walk into a hospital and ask to get hired as a surgeon without going through medical school.

If I were to be hired at a company that operated a certain aircraft I've never flown before and I had 2000/200, I should rightly expect that they would train me on their own equipment at their own cost. Just as if a surgeon were hired at a hospital that performed procedures with specialized equipment that required additional training, he or she should (and would) expect that the hospital would train him on their equipment at their own cost.

Now, both the company and the hospital would be perfectly justified in saying, "We need someone with experience on such and such equipment," while turning down employment. Once they hire you, however, it should be (and in most other industries IS) their responsibility to train you up to their standards.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Maybe. There's training and there's training.

Then there's industry common practice and some of the reasons for it. I picture many 135 operators as being fairly small with budgets that can't absorb a constant flow of people who are understandably interested in receiving the experience they need for the next steppingstone for their careers and then moving on to something better.

The contract comes down to: "Potential employee, I know that this is just a stop on your planned career. We are wiling to train you, but in exchange we'd like you to commit to us for X years. If you leave before then, we'd like to recoup some portion of the training fees that we'll have to spend again."

Whether one thinks it's unfair pretty much depend on the specific terms and one's perspective. I don't think that the 1-year in the Nebraska case was particularly unfair to anyone.

 

[Ty Webb]

Well, my educated guess is that they are usually enforceable. "The way the agreement is structured" is a precondition to whether =any= contract is enforceable.

Your "edumacated guess" contradicts my direct observation.

The "enforceable" agreements are usually structured as a "loan", in other words, as a promissory note.

Otherwise, you start getting into "indentured servitude" issues. What if, for example, a company promises you that you will fly 90 hours a month and be paid $20./hr, or $1800./month. Then, the flying dries up somewhat, and now you are only able to fly 65 hours a month, or $1300. Are you still obligated to stick around, even though you have budgeted your family around the $1800. you were promised? What if they cut your flying back to 20 hours a month, and now you are making $400./month. Are you still obligated to remian there for a year? Well, where do you draw the line?

PArt 135 piston training is not that expensive. It is not like sending a guy to FSI for 3 weeks to get a G-V type. An employer has to make a decision . . . either treat pilots well enough that they stick around for a while, or pay for more training events . . . . it's not rocket science, and most companies manage to do it without a training contract.

One of the problems with this industry is the number of operators trying to do things on a shoestring budget, and another is pilots who are willing to work for next to nothing . . . . .

 

[bobbysamd]

Training contract enforceability

Well, my educated guess is that they are usually enforceable. "The way the agreement is structured" is a precondition to whether =any= contract is enforceable.

There may be one or two, but I'm not aware of a state in which a contract of the type being discussed is, for example, void for illegality or unenforceable as being against public policy.

I second midlife. Unless a contract is for an illegal purpose, there is no reason not to believe that it cannot be enforced or set aside. Training contracts are not for an illegal purpose.

Whether a company opts to enforce a training contract is another matter, but assume that if you breach the contract that it will be enforced.

 

[Ace-of-the-Base]

Your "edumacated guess" contradicts my direct observation.

The "enforceable" agreements are usually structured as a "loan", in other words, as a promissory note.

Otherwise, you start getting into "indentured servitude" issues. What if, for example, a company promises you that you will fly 90 hours a month and be paid $20./hr, or $1800./month. Then, the flying dries up somewhat, and now you are only able to fly 65 hours a month, or $1300. Are you still obligated to stick around, even though you have budgeted your family around the $1800. you were promised? What if they cut your flying back to 20 hours a month, and now you are making $400./month. Are you still obligated to remian there for a year? Well, where do you draw the line?

PArt 135 piston training is not that expensive. It is not like sending a guy to FSI for 3 weeks to get a G-V type. An employer has to make a decision . . . either treat pilots well enough that they stick around for a while, or pay for more training events . . . . it's not rocket science, and most companies manage to do it without a training contract.

One of the problems with this industry is the number of operators trying to do things on a shoestring budget, and another is pilots who are willing to work for next to nothing . . . . .

TyBo, I like your posts, but I have one problem: You are stating things that I think are only opinion (please prove me wrong).

1. I have found in MY observation, that pilots leave companies for MANY reasons, not just because it's a bad place to work. People leave very good companies (such as mine) because of location (wife yearns for home), other family issues, or just a 'better' job offer (such as aviation manager).

2. Do you have info of a pilot fighting one of these 'non-enforcable' contracts in a court of law and loosing? Or are you just speculating.

Ace

 

[midlifeflyer]

Otherwise, you start getting into "indentured servitude" issues.

Absolutely. Which is why, ultimately, judges and juries have to deal with the specifics of the contract and the case. The fact that there are situations in which there us overreaching, bad faith dealing, indentured servitude, fraud, failure of consideration and one of the other fifty or so defenses to a contract claim might make those specific contracts in those specific situations unenforceable. In that sense, again, just like all other contracts. Doesn't make the whole concept void.

 

[Ty Webb]

1. I have found in MY observation, that pilots leave companies for MANY reasons, not just because it's a bad place to work. People leave very good companies (such as mine) because of location (wife yearns for home), other family issues, or just a 'better' job offer (such as aviation manager).

2. Do you have info of a pilot fighting one of these 'non-enforcable' contracts in a court of law and loosing? Or are you just speculating.

Ace

I would definitely agree that there are two sides to every argument. I have known pilots who couldn;t hold a job, and I have also seen some of the sleazier operators (S. FL, need I say more?).

We used to use a guy part-time on a corporate jet who couldn't seem to hold a full-time job more than a few months . . . the running joke was that his first paycheck got his rent caught up, his second one got his truck payments up to date, and when the third check arrived, he was off to the "Nudie Bar" and wouldn't show up for work . . . . then the whole cycle would start all over again somewhere else. Sheesh!

I have seen a pilot lose a training agreement lawsuit (the above-mentioned frequenter of [and I do use the term loosely], "Gentlemen's Clubs"), and I have seen a few pilots prevail, too.

And that's about all I'm gonna say about that . . . . except why is it that the afore-mentioned "entertainers" seem to have the same names as luxury automobiles? Is it because they get their stage name from the stolen hood ornament that is hanging around the unwashed neck of their trailer-park-dwelling-abusive-boyfriend?

Hmmm. . . . I think this thread has been officially hijacked . . . . Bobby, can I get a ruling over here?

 

[Sol Rosenberg]

The bigger question is, why would a professional pilot, with a long career ahead of them, not abide by something they signed?

This is only my opinion:
Lets say you just got a job at one of these rinky-dink companies that require you to sign a training contract. It's not your fault that they require you to sign that redicilous contract; heck, you just wanted a job, right?
Now lets say, right after signing that contract, you happen to get hired by FedEx. You're telling me that either you will pay the $15000-$20000 to settle the contract, or turn down FedEx so you can work the remaining years in your contract? There are alot of pilots I know that have been working for regional airline wages (or less) and simply don't have the money to pay back the amount stated in the contract. Does that mean that he/she should turn down the FedEx job because he can't get out of the contract? He11 No!!! Contracts are made to be broken. Besides, you can't squeeze blood out of a turnip.

Every company I've worked for has had training contracts. I have known at least 20 or 30 pilots who have quit (for various reasons) without paying the money and nothing has happened to them. Some of them claim to have had their credit messed up as a result of breaking the contract, but nothing else happened to them.

 

[FN FAL]

I think where a lot of people get confused with these contracts is that pilots keep trying to correlate these contracts to something tangible with their perceptions about what is right and what is wrong in aviation. A contract is a contract and in the Nebraska contract, the courts found one of the pilot's defenses invalid because the contract was not in any way tied to wages.

Contracts are not a pilot thing, they are a contract thing...I guess the next thing I'm going to hear is that a pilot doesn't have to abide by signed purchase agreements or leases when they are buying or renting a house or a car...simply because they are pilots.

 

[Ace-of-the-Base]

Contracts are made to be broken.

All I can say is "wow".



You are what is wrong with the world these days (or at least one of the things). You reap what you sew. I hope lots of employers brake contracts that you are on the receiving end of. What did Shakespeare call it, "just desserts".



Ace

 

[Sol Rosenberg]

I hope lots of employers brake contracts that you are on the receiving end of.

And whose to say they havent? I've been on the receiving end of bad contracts my whole career. I've also seen employers break the contract every day.

Ace, I respect you for being a stand up guy and willing to pay back your training contract. However, I'm personally not going to miss out on a chance of a lifetime to fly for a major airline (FedEx for example) because I'm unwilling to break a contract based on personal moral obligations.

 

[FN FAL]

And whose to say they havent? I've been on the receiving end of bad contracts my whole career. I've also seen employers break the contract every day.

Ace, I respect you for being a stand up guy and willing to pay back your training contract. However, I'm personally not going to miss out on a chance of a lifetime to fly for a major airline (FedEx for example) because I'm unwilling to break a contract based on personal moral obligations.

Just make sure that when you interview at FedEx or any other major airline, when you get asked, "How did you get the day off to come to this interview?"...be frank with them and tell them, "I called in sick, you morons!".
Honesty IS the best policy.

 

[English]

Now lets say, right after signing that contract, you happen to get hired by FedEx. You're telling me that either you will pay the $15000-$20000 to settle the contract, or turn down FedEx so you can work the remaining years in your contract?

YES.

But I'm not interested in FedEx so maybe my answer is slanted a bit. However, I did turn down an interview at another national recently for this reason. While I didn't sign a training contract, I gave my word I'd stick around a while.

 

[jimpilot]

I guess you have to ask yourself, how good do I want my word to be.

The old phraise of "Let the buyer beware" applies. If you sign your name to a contract without knowing the conditions, pay rate etc. then shame on you.

Funny thing about this industry though. Run out on a training contract (fair or not, enforceable or not) and it will follow you the rest of your time in this business. And then that dream job will go to someone else.

Again how good do you want your word to be?