PFT Defined?

[Capt. Haddock]

PFT has been discussed a lot.
Many aspiring pilots have asked me about this, one question I end up with is:

Do we have an industry definition of PFT?

The forum is filled with personal views and I am not looking for that or the discussion about what’s right or wrong. Just asking if PFT as a term has been defined by any of our industry organizations, associations, unions, societies or working groups?

Again not asking for personal views, feelings or to justify PFT – just some facts please...

 

[pilotyip]

Bobby defined it

Do a search under bobbysans and PFT and you will get a kinda consenus on what PFT is, maybe bobby will even post something to refresh our memories on what PFT is

 

[norskman2]

It's actually bobbysamd

I believe there's no official definition from any sort of industry association or organization, which is why the definition of PFT is like a**holes: everyone's got one.

However, a GENERAL consensus seems to be: being hired under the provision that you must subsequently pay the company for training that is REQUIRED for the position.

Example: Colgan was recently requiring new hires to pay a $10,000 training contract upon hire, although it sounds like they may have dropped it. PFT was quite rampant throughout all the regionals in the 90's.

What is NOT PFT (although many on this board argue it is):
Southwest - requires new hire to have a 737 type. Well, if you already have a 73 type, it's not PFT, is it? Also, SWA does not do the type training, and you can also take the type somewhere else if you want.
Mesa MAPD - graduates are NOT guaranteed a job, only an interview. PFT involves coughing up dough AFTER you're hired

 

[WhiteCloud]

Do we have an industry definition of PFT?

This is always a hot topic. PFT has come to mean that you have to pay the company you want to work for (or their school of choice) for the privilidge of working there. You don't pay them....you don't get the job. The idea of SWA requiring a type rating always comes up as controversial too. Since their training program is designed for type rated pilots and everyone has to have it (regardless of where it came from...important distinction!) I don't consider this PFT. I think of it as similar to a financial firm only interviewing and hiring MBA's. You'll get many different opinions on what PFT is though. PFT is basically an over the table bribe to hire you over the next guy.

 

[PSL]

If there is an 'industry definition for pft' I don't know what it is ...

But I'll take a shot at a definition.

PFT exists where the applicant (new-hire/upgrade/transition) undertakes some debt (money, time in service) to perform revenue service for the provider. The training received must have been regulatory in nature and historically subsidized by the company.

Any company that requires an applicant to enter into a training contract is erecting artificial barriers to labor's free market. There must be some reason why the carrier feels compelled to do so. Compensation levels, advancement opportunities, corporate stability, quality of life deficits, security may all be reasons.

The lingering question presents itself yet again. How can a company achieve a positive return on investment (training) ?

The answer is they can not guarantee anything without artificially limiting an employee's 'right' to leave. That's anti-competitive and virtually assures an embittered employee.

 

[pilotyip]

training contract?

Training contract is PFT?, that is a new one.

 

[norskman2]

Re: training contract?

Training contract is PFT?, that is a new one.

I don't see why not. The company is requiring you to fork over dough, to pay them for training in order to get the job. Yes, some companies will forgive the money after two years or whatever. And there was a recent thread on the board on whether they can really enforce it if you leave early.

But, bottom line, being required to pay money upfront in order to get the job sure seems to fit a reasonable definition of PFT.

 

[BoilerUP]

A training contract IS NOT PFT.

Example:

Company XXX has a two-year, $12,000 training contract. In order to obtain employment one must sign this contract basically stating you will work for them for at least two years or you will pay a pro-rated amount on the original $12,000.

No money ever exchanges hands with training contracts, unless the person who signed the LEGAL, BINDING contract decides to renig, in which case the company can sue to get their money back. Whether they do or not is up to them. Usually contracts aren't enforced if the person is terminated from the company, only if they leave voluntarily.

The whole reason some airlines have training contracts is some pilots go all the way through training (which is expensive), then bail to another airline. If people would have some ethics and not screw Company XXX out of all that time and money in order to go to Company YYY, there would be no need for training contracts. The company is simply protecting their investment in you.

 

[PSL]

Pilotyip:

The 'training contract' is nothing more than a legal means to an end.

Our career is finite (at least under FAR121). Any obstacle errected by legal restriction in one's desired career progression equates to lost compensation.

Consider if a company had no collective bargaining unit and as such no pilot working agreement. It's possible for the company to change the terms of employement unilaterally and the pilot is left with no recourse other than to resign. Now, enter in the training contract, and you see how the employee is left with zero options.

I find this offensive and speaks volumes about the carrier that promote training contracts.

If you don't see 'training contracts' as PFT, I'd like to hear your views.

 

[Mr Hat]

IN this day an age when there aren't many opportunities, does anyone really care? If your a CFI...someone offers you a PFT deal and you got the money...go for it. If you don't, you may be CFIing for a long time. Besides you want that jet time ready for when the majors start hiring again. To each his own. Once you get where you are going, nobody cares. In fact, from my experience the only ones who care ARE CFIs. If your already at a company that is PFT or is considering PFT, try to stop them, look out for those below you.

 

[PSL]

Boilerup:

You can not guarantee an investment.

Every investment has risk, even government securities, albeit small.

By you own example, Company XXX trains pilot XXX(1) who then 'bails' for Carrier YYY. It might be simply economics, with no ill intent. Companies will either respond by enhancing their compensation package and find some way to pay for it or they will cease to exist because the cost of training is not sustainable.
Either way ... let the market decide who makes it and who does not.

Now, let's make it personal ...

If you were hired by Carrier 1 and your dream job was offered shortly after training, are you going to bypass on your career goal ?

If you do bypass, you have opened yourself up to the possibility that you may never reach you career goal. If you are OK with that, so be it, but I would be willing to bet the vast majority of us would not think twice about leaving to live our dream.

Regret is a terrible emotion to have your career defined by when looking back at your last flight.

 

[BoilerUP]

PSL,

I don't disagree with anything you said. If I took a job with Carrier 1 and got an offer for my "dream job" shortly thereafter, you are right that I probably would (along with everybody else) jump ship in order to be where my heart 100% wants to be. However, in making the decision to leave, I would have to weigh many variables, including my ability to pay off the training contract.

Fact of the matter remains it is a legal and binding document that you signed as a condition of employment. If as a pilot you don't want that burden, work somewhere else. If you sign that dotted line, abide by it or be prepared for the legal and financial consequences when you break it.

There is a reason many airlines refuse to hire furloughed pilots, primarily they know they will be gone as soon as they get a recall notice (and nobody would blame them!). They don't want to train people to have them leave shortly thereafter; that type of business model wouldn't work in any industry, let alone aviation. Some airlines like to hire low-time pilots for this reason. They know if they take somebody between 500-1200 hours it will be a long while before they are qualfied for any other job. They get a maximum term of employment out of them, and don't typically have to worry about them breaking the contract.

Another example: I get hired by Airnet and sign their new training contract ($6000 I think). I start flying a PA31 or Baron and do that for seven months and then get a call for an interview with Comair/Horizon/Skywest. I interview, then get a call a few weeks later for a class date. I have been with Airnet for nearly eight months, with four months remaining on the contract. I would quit flying checks and go to the airline, but I would expect to pay the remainder of the contract if asked, because thats my obligation. I suspect 98% of everybody else would do the same.

 

[enigma]

Captain Haddock, you won't find an "official" definition of PFT. Neither can you find an official definition of pornography, but most people know it when they see it.

PFT is buying the job. The advocates call it pay for training as a way to confuse the issue; because under PFT, the employee must agree to pay, NO MATTER WHAT HIS QUALIFICATION. Also, they are agreeing to pay for indoc that the company is required to give to all new hires. The FAR's require that it is given, it has no value at any airline other than the hiring airline.

Signing a contract is not pft; it's agreeing to pay the employer if you leave before the employer gets his ROI.

enigma

 

[enigma]

IN this day an age when there aren't many opportunities, does anyone really care? If your a CFI...someone offers you a PFT deal and you got the money...go for it. If you don't, you may be CFIing for a long time. Besides you want that jet time ready for when the majors start hiring again. To each his own. Once you get where you are going, nobody cares. In fact, from my experience the only ones who care ARE CFIs. If your already at a company that is PFT or is considering PFT, try to stop them, look out for those below you.

Wrong, If you search and read the anti PFT strings from the last five years, you will find that the majority of anti-PFT'rs that post are pilots like myself. I was a CFI, long ago, but I've been an airline pilot for 15 years. I care because the people willing to buy a job are sending a message to management that pilots will take anything. Management is listening.

enigma

 

[de727ups]

What Enigma said....

I'm a CFI but also been at UPS for 14 years. Gulfstream style PFT is bad news for the industry.

 

[bobbysamd]

P-F-T defined

I second Enigma's well-stated comment about the non-existence of an official definition of P-F-T. Having said that, of course, P-F-T means "pay-for-training." It is an employment issue. If a company hires you and as a condition of employment requires you to remit money for training, then it is P-F-T. A secondary test is whether the training is esoteric to that company only and does not lead to a certificate, rating or other operating privilege that is accepted universally and can be marketed elsewhere.

No matter which way you slice the pie, P-F-T amounts to buying a job. That's why the practice is offensive to so many. The best-known P-F-T programs require only a Commercial-Multi-Instrument, implying that only the minimum hours needed to obtain these ratings are all that are needed for these programs. In other words, P-F-T negates, by way of a checkbook, flight time and experience pilots generally struggle to build before they are eligible for hire. Thus, as you can well imagine, P-F-T is attractive to those who want to pull end-runs around the conservative and traditional system of building experience (and character) in aviation.

Some P-F-T programs profess a minimum experience requirement, but, face it, folks, a person who shows up at the door with a check for P-F-T tuition will not be turned away. You can bet your bottom dollar on it.

A training contract or training bond is not P-F-T. Such documents only ensure that a company can recoup its training costs if you leave before the term of the contract. I have no problem with training contracts and would have gladly signed one if it had meant regional airline employment.

Flight schools such as Mesa Airlines Pilot Development and Delta Connection Academy are not P-F-T. They only say you might get an interview with their parent airline after you earn your ratings with them and/or jump through myriad hoops. The only thing they might promise is they will provide training for your ratings. Once again, P-F-T is an employment issue, only. Neither school is hiring you for a job at an airline. The comment above about school attendance being required for hire is simply untrue; both Mesa and Comair hire off the street.

Finally, the B737 type requirement for Southwest is not P-F-T. It is no different than a corporation requiring a Lear or Falcon type. The 737 type can still be marketed; moreover, Southwest will (and must) provide you with its company 737 training.

Hope that helps a little.

 

[pilotyip]

Thank you Bobby

I think we can stick with Bobby's definition of PFT.

 

[The_Russian]

I'm really tired of this sh!t. How many times do I have to tell you guys that GIA is not PFT. We do not buy a job. I'm getting tired of these fraternities of pilots that think GIA is bad for the industry.

Give it a rest guys. There are better things to talk about.

 

[Falconjet]

Huh?

Ok, I'll bite. I must admit, being fairly new to civilian aviation, I have absolutely no idea what GIA is. Could somebody please define for me.

Thanks.

FJ

 

[searching]

Falconjet,

www.gulfstreamacademy.com.

Go here to find out what GIA is. No explanation is needed. Draw your own conlusions.