I'm Here Doing It...at Avantair

[gutshotdraw]

Policy is a hard thing to change.

When the FAA changed the first class medical rule to allow ATP privileges for a year if the pilot is under 40 I remember a bunch of NetJet guys saying, "it's still 6 months in our manual so that's the way it is at NetJets". I'm curious, was I right then that it'll change or am I right now that policy is tough to change? How often do your 30 somethings get a medical?

The NJA FOM is being re-written to incorporate the NJI operation so we'll see.

 

[Paradoxus]

Why not earn loyalty instead of forcing it upon someone?

This is what pukes in management fail to comprehend...

 

[johnsonrod]

Why not earn loyalty instead of forcing it upon someone?

Say that to the scumbags who bail early. They know what they are getting into when they join. If not, they are either idiots or scumbags.

 

[rettofly]

Here is the training contract. If you leave before two years, then the company will be out a significant amount of training cost...so you have to pay it back. If the man is to his word, he stays for the two years and if he then decides to leave then there is no harm and no foul. If he decides that he must break his word (due to unforeseen circumstances or whatnot) and leave early, then he pays for a portion of his training cost. This sounds logical to me...why not to you?

Here's where the shades of gray come in.

Part 135 requires ANNUAL recurrent. Thus, the training cost has a shelf life of ONE year.

A one year pro-rated training contract is probably reasonable. Anything over one year is NOT reasonable.

 

[Paradoxus]

Say that to the scumbags who bail early. They know what they are getting into when they join. If not, they are either idiots or scumbags.

If there are so many scumbags that management can justify contracts, the problem isn't with scumbags, it is with management.

Is this so difficult a concept to grasp?

There isn't anything wrong with me (read: the company), the fault lies with the world (read: pilot workforce).

Productivity, morale, loyalty...casualties of this madness.

 

[Kuma]

Here's where the shades of gray come in.

Part 135 requires ANNUAL recurrent. Thus, the training cost has a shelf life of ONE year.

A one year pro-rated training contract is probably reasonable. Anything over one year is NOT reasonable.

Now, this makes sense. Why is Paradoxus et al so vocally against this? Isn't this better than a pay for training type scenario?

In the perfect world, there would be infinite money available for training. In a perfect world every worker would be happy at every company, and at every domicile. In a perfect world, nobody's life plans would ever change due to illness in the family, etc.

I think of this prorated training contract is just a safety net for the cash strapped company. If I were going to hire someone and spend a few G's on them before they could even make revenue for me, I would want them to stay for a while.

 

[Pervis]

I can see valid points to both sides of the discussion. One example I can give in favor of contracts is during the good times. In the first full year post 2005 CBA (2006), when NJA had a whole 5 bases for the noobs, attrition totalled 122 pilots that had less than one year service. Some for legit reasons, but most to get a type and get their "dream" job elsewhere with little/no commute. This is a perfect example of lower than desired ethics for any employee.

On the other hand, same example, management said it didn't hurt at all, thus bamboozling us into giving up more than we needed to (IMHO) in order to increase base availability to 100 for new hires with IBB 2007. Even if the cost was negligible (unlikely), two pilots tied up for months of training to fill one seat is a definite burden.

Management created the problem to begin with, and less than scrupulous pilots took advantage of it while the rest who remained tried to improve on a pretty good place to work. The times are indeed different from my youth. Zero loyalty from both sides will simply increase the cost of doing business, while lowering QOL for the majority of employees who remain, for whatever reason. Maybe someday the viscious circle will return to common sense.

 

[hammer2]

Just talked to a pilot about your schedule change and last day pay. You guy's got it bad, hope it improves soon!

 

[johnsonrod]

If there are so many scumbags that management can justify contracts, the problem isn't with scumbags, it is with management.

Is this so difficult a concept to grasp?

There isn't anything wrong with me (read: the company), the fault lies with the world (read: pilot workforce).

Productivity, morale, loyalty...casualties of this madness.

If you disagree with the idea of a training contract (to avoid jumpers who don't provide a return on the training investment), just don't apply... It really is that simple. Avantair is a public company and it can't afford to continually pump more money into training to cover scumbag jumpers. If you apply to Avantair, just be aware of the training contract policy.

 

[Paradoxus]

If you disagree with the idea of a training contract (to avoid jumpers who don't provide a return on the training investment), just don't apply... It really is that simple.

Correction: it would be that simple if I were an applicant or employee of Avantair (or any other training bond shop); I'm not, so that isn't even remotely the issue under discussion here.

This is a candid indictment of the management practice itself.

Avantair is a public company and it can't afford to continually pump more money into training to cover scumbag jumpers. If you apply to Avantair, just be aware of the training contract policy.

Sage advice, however completely self-evident and unecessary. Again, the phenomena of training-contracts is the result of a short-sighted, reactionary response to significant turnover.

Turnover rates are not arbitrary, I'm sure you'll understand and accede.

Rather than employ a bit of imagination and foresight to correct the base, elemental causes of plethoric turnover, corrupt management instead decides to entrap recruits before they even begin the job.

Again, look at shops that have no training contracts and examine their attrition rates. Perhaps it is fair pay, reasonable working conditions, high morale, stability, or a combination of any or all of these that solidify a quality workforce and eliminate excessive attrition at these operations. In our business, unless you're inexplicably aligned against your brother professionals, I'm sure you'll agree that pilots are what drive the engine of profitability, not silly, binding contracts or the idiot managers that employ them.

It really is as simple as that. Avantair is at the top of this ideological hitlist because of the absurdity of training bonds for non-typed aircraft.

If Avantair was serious about their oft-claimed success in the market, as well as honest with investors, they would have implicitly reported long-ago that newhire retention-rates were unreasonably low due to not operating as a competetive employer.

Fantasist notions that too many pilots are "scumbags" and some such are little-more than clever theatre: distractions from far-more threatening ailments within an operation. For proof, anyone need not look further than, again, newhire retention-rates at non-bonded shops.

I can't for the life of me understand why so many of you vociferously defend and excuse the inexcusable. Some level of Stockholm Syndrome?