Miami Air

[Fly91]

I've got more time on a few of Miami Airs flight attendants than I have fixed wing flight time. And that was just in an 8 week period at the Homestead Suites during school at Aero Service about 4 years ago.

Ho's, Ho's and more Ho's.

lol

 

[ksu_aviator]

I was there a short time, I can tell you that they have no legal basis to enforce that "training contract". I never paid a cent, btw they only go after the suckers willing to pay. they never want it to go to court due to the fact that it is an illegal concept, and they would then subject themselves to a class action by all of those who did actually pay. Remember, federal labor law does not allow companies to charge employees for training received that is required for them to perform their job. If they offered college courses and had a training contract and these courses were outside of your normal job description, then yes you do have an obligation to pay it back.
This dead horse has been beaten thoroughly, why do people still ask about illegal training contracts? This is the only industry that has so many suckers willing to pay to work. BTW, Miami Air, is what it is, 36th Street, Miami. Take it for what its worth.

I love how we have so many lawyers that are willing to give free advice about contract law.

Since then, such agreements have become commonplace in the public sector. In 2004, Congress enacted legislation specifically requiring so-called "continued service agreements" from government employees who receive extended training. Such contracts obligate the employees to work for at least three times the training period or face suit for recovery of the training costs.2 Similar agreements are also widely used by state and local government for police and other highly trained personnel. In 2006, the City of Los Angeles made headlines by filing suit seeking to recover 1.6 million dollars in training costs from 53 officers who had agreed to repay them if they left the police department before completing a five-year service commitment.3
In the private sector, reliance upon such agreements also has expanded. Such agreements continue to be widely used by airlines4 and securities brokers,5 whose training costs can be quite high, and also in other [COLOR=#336699 !important][COLOR=#336699 !important]industries[/COLOR][/COLOR], such as accounting6, information technology,7 and trucking.8

http://www.allbusiness.com/government/government-bodies-offices-government/11805714-1.html

 

[boomlrd]

I love how we have so many lawyers that are willing to give free advice about contract law.

You specifically quote my statement regarding training contracts, but your rebuttal quotes a news article on government contracts? How do some of you fly airplanes, much less drive a car? I am an ex military and government employee, I am well aware of government training obligations, Miami Air is not the government. I also have a lawyer who specializes in labor issues due to my business I own, I did consult him. Aviation, specifically pilots seem susceptible to this scam, I know of no other private sector industry that gets away with this crap, but pilots like you are the reason they continue to try.

 

[boomlrd]

Here you go KSU Aviator, quote factual information pertaining to the subject:

Pilot wins lawsuit against Bombardier Flexjet
Firm used deceptive practices, jury finds
12:00 AM CST on Saturday, February 9, 2008

By ERIC TORBENSON / The Dallas Morning News
[email protected]
A Dallas jury has found Bombardier Flexjet's contract with a former pilot unenforceable, saying the Richardson-based private jet company used deceptive practices in promising pilots promotions and training.

Flexjet, which sells private jet service, sued Allen Miller of Plano in October 2005 for failing to repay a portion of his training costs after he flew for the company for 17 months starting in April 2000. The pilots' contract stated that pilots who left the company before working 24 months would repay a portion of their training costs, or $5,280 in Mr. Miller's case.

Mr. Miller, 52, countersued, arguing that Flexjet had falsely promised rapid promotions for new pilots and training that would help them get their official rating quickly on various types of corporate jets.

"These promises turned out to be lies," he said, especially the part about becoming a captain and earning more than $50,000 a year, well above the initial pay of $32,000 a year. "We were cheap labor to them."

In an interview, Mr. Miller said he thought it was particularly deceptive that the company emphasized to its customers that for safety reasons both captain and co-pilot would be fully rated on the planes flown. "I flew their planes for 17 months without my type rating," he said.

Calls for comment to Flexjet's spokeswoman and Jones & Davis attorney Chad Berry, who represented Flexjet in the case, weren't returned Friday.

The jury returned its verdict Monday, finding that the contract was invalid and that Flexjet had used deceptive trade practices, said Rob Wiley, attorney for Mr. Miller.

However, the jury awarded Mr. Miller no damages in his countersuit against Flexjet, and he probably will have to bear his own legal costs.

Mr. Miller estimated his legal expenses were about $70,000, but he believes he's among the very first pilots to successfully challenge Flexjet's pilot contract.

"It was a real education for me," he said.

Flexjet's Richardson operations employed 809 people last year, according to information from the company.

Mr. Miller now flies for Netjets Inc. of Woodbridge, N.J., which is owned by Berkshire-Hathway Inc.

 

[ksu_aviator]

You specifically quote my statement regarding training contracts, but your rebuttal quotes a news article on government contracts? How do some of you fly airplanes, much less drive a car? I am an ex military and government employee, I am well aware of government training obligations, Miami Air is not the government. I also have a lawyer who specializes in labor issues due to my business I own, I did consult him. Aviation, specifically pilots seem susceptible to this scam, I know of no other private sector industry that gets away with this crap, but pilots like you are the reason they continue to try.

You really should have read the entire article:

Training cost repayment agreements are potentially subject to regulation under many different principles of employment law. While courts generally appear willing to permit some forms of training to be conditioned on cost reimbursement by employees if they leave before an agreed-upon period, there are many issues that need to be considered in formulating such arrangements. Attorneys undertaking to draft or enforce such agreements should be familiar with the expanding case law that addresses them and the pitfalls to be avoided.

​

In other words, it is perfectly legal to have an employment contract, but there are circumstances that may invalidate a contract. But you go on believing that you can make a legal commitment to a company and break that commitment without consequence.

BTW...what do you think happens with construction contractors? Can they just quit building a building at any time if they just don't feel like working on it. A contract is binding and an employment contract is no different. Yes, both parties must adhere to the contract for it to remain binding (like in your Flex example) but it is binding and legal.

I am impressed, though, that you were able to assess my piloting and driving skills through reading 1/20th of an article I didn't write. You hit the nail directly on the head. I can barely tie my own shoes, much less fly an airplane. But I can run circles around you in a debate, as illustrated above.

 

[ksu_aviator]

Here you go KSU Aviator, quote factual information pertaining to the subject:

Pilot wins lawsuit against Bombardier Flexjet
Firm used deceptive practices, jury finds
12:00 AM CST on Saturday, February 9, 2008

By ERIC TORBENSON / The Dallas Morning News
[email protected]
A Dallas jury has found Bombardier Flexjet's contract with a former pilot unenforceable, saying the Richardson-based private jet company used deceptive practices in promising pilots promotions and training.

Flexjet, which sells private jet service, sued Allen Miller of Plano in October 2005 for failing to repay a portion of his training costs after he flew for the company for 17 months starting in April 2000. The pilots' contract stated that pilots who left the company before working 24 months would repay a portion of their training costs, or $5,280 in Mr. Miller's case.

Mr. Miller, 52, countersued, arguing that Flexjet had falsely promised rapid promotions for new pilots and training that would help them get their official rating quickly on various types of corporate jets.

"These promises turned out to be lies," he said, especially the part about becoming a captain and earning more than $50,000 a year, well above the initial pay of $32,000 a year. "We were cheap labor to them."

In an interview, Mr. Miller said he thought it was particularly deceptive that the company emphasized to its customers that for safety reasons both captain and co-pilot would be fully rated on the planes flown. "I flew their planes for 17 months without my type rating," he said.

Calls for comment to Flexjet's spokeswoman and Jones & Davis attorney Chad Berry, who represented Flexjet in the case, weren't returned Friday.

The jury returned its verdict Monday, finding that the contract was invalid and that Flexjet had used deceptive trade practices, said Rob Wiley, attorney for Mr. Miller.

However, the jury awarded Mr. Miller no damages in his countersuit against Flexjet, and he probably will have to bear his own legal costs.

Mr. Miller estimated his legal expenses were about $70,000, but he believes he's among the very first pilots to successfully challenge Flexjet's pilot contract.

"It was a real education for me," he said.

Flexjet's Richardson operations employed 809 people last year, according to information from the company.

Mr. Miller now flies for Netjets Inc. of Woodbridge, N.J., which is owned by Berkshire-Hathway Inc.

You should have read this article fully, as well. This case is about 1 contract and how the contract was broken by FlexJet. This article does not speak to the concept of training contracts.

 

[HOMER D POE]

rumor control: did Miami Air just furlough a few guys?

 

[fxbat]

rumor control: did Miami Air just furlough a few guys?

No

 

[Heavy Set]

Are you guys flying to Kona?

I thought I heard a "Biscane 4000" flying towards Kona, and the guys on the common freq said they were a 737. Which series 737 are you flying, and what is up with the special callsign? Are you doing special charters or is this scheduled?

 

[boomlrd]

KSU, you can spin it however you want, however that is a training contract that was labled unenforceable by a judge. Cut and dry. By the way, I and a couple others have worked for Miami Air, they never came after us and we broke the "training contract", if it is so air tight, why did they not pursue us? Because we had legal representation and that scared them. So I know from direct experience.

 

[inline]

I've got more time on a few of Miami Airs flight attendants than I have fixed wing flight time. And that was just in an 8 week period at the Homestead Suites during school at Aero Service about 4 years ago.

Ho's, Ho's and more Ho's.

lol

Nobody cares you bloward

 

[TommyG]

I found fly91's insight very enlightening.

 

[ksu_aviator]

KSU, you can spin it however you want, however that is a training contract that was labled unenforceable by a judge. Cut and dry. By the way, I and a couple others have worked for Miami Air, they never came after us and we broke the "training contract", if it is so air tight, why did they not pursue us? Because we had legal representation and that scared them. So I know from direct experience.

Believe what ever you want. All you have is anectdotal evidence. Miami Air's actions do not equal a legal opinion authored by a legal expert in a noted law journal. Why didn't Miami Air come after you? There are a multitude of reasons from the cost v benefit to the validity of their contract. However, just because Miami Air wasn't interested in spending that much money or their contract was too weak to enforce doesn't mean every training contract in the US is invalid.

 

[ContractFlyer]

Miami Air could be hiring for the Kona Shuttle which is operated by Kaiser Air in OAK. Pilots on the Kona Shuttle get an additional pay check from Kaiser....that is if Kaiser hires you!!! Same deal with the kaiser flight attendants, they get the Miami Air salary and then Kaiser ups it to $350 per day! Guess the unions have not caught on yet! I know a few folks at Kaiser and this appears to be accurate....it only works if Kaiser hires you!

 

[Hugh Johnson]

KSU, you can spin it however you want, however that is a training contract that was labled unenforceable by a judge. Cut and dry. By the way, I and a couple others have worked for Miami Air, they never came after us and we broke the "training contract", if it is so air tight, why did they not pursue us? Because we had legal representation and that scared them. So I know from direct experience.

I like how you brag about breaking a contract. You must be a great man.

 

[Moonshiner]

If you thought the contract was invalid, you should not have signed it. You should not have worked there. By signing, then breaking the terms you went back on your word. You dishonored yourself.

 

[Metro752]

lol...

 

[boomlrd]

yes, i am dishonored

 

[filejw]

FYI in the mid 90's I was on the interview panel at my airline. One applicant had short stay at a non-sch and i asked him about the reason for leaving. He had valid reason but the other guy i was working with asked him about the training contract as he knew this company had one. The interviewee gave a lame excuse that basically said i blew them off and that was it.....never had a chance.

 

[Flex-ible]

KSU, you can spin it however you want, however that is a training contract that was labled unenforceable by a judge. Cut and dry. By the way, I and a couple others have worked for Miami Air, they never came after us and we broke the "training contract", if it is so air tight, why did they not pursue us? Because we had legal representation and that scared them. So I know from direct experience.

Not so cut and dried. The judge ruled in favor of Flexjet on something like 12 of 13 claims. The only claim on which the pilot won was the claim that he didn't actually get the type rating he was supposed to reimburse they for. Since he didn't have the type, he didn't have to pay. He also lost his countersuit and ate his $70k in attorney's fees.

Flexjet fixed the situation. I got my PIC type on my initial checkride.