Ace-of-the-Base
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2004
- Posts
- 440
Ty Webb said: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