Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Pilot wins training contract lawsuit

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web

Captainzero1

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 29, 2005
Posts
222
Former Flexjet Pilot Wins Contract Training Lawsuit
Last week Allen Miller, a pilot who took a job flying for Bombardier Flexjet in July 2000, was found not liable to repay the fractional provider for his type-specific flight training. Miller signed a contract agreeing to repay Flexjet up to $20,000 if he left the company before two years. When he left almost a year-and-a-half later, Flexjet sued (1, 2) him to recover training funds. Miller countersued, accusing Flexjet of not meeting its promises that he would get his type rating before flying customers and receive recurrent training at six-month intervals. During the trial, Miller and his attorney, Rob Wiley, persuaded the jury that he had a legitimate expectation to be type rated because Flexjet’s marketing material advised customers that all Flexjet flights were flown by two type-rated pilots. The jury did not award Miller any monetary damages. Miller, who spent more than $50,000 on his case, is now a captain for NetJets. A company spokeswoman said Flexjet “is satisfied with and accepts the court’s judgment.” She also noted that all pilots employed by Flexjet are “fully trained and qualified to fly the aircraft that they operate.”
 
Jury should have made the company pay attorney fees. One of the side effects of a jury system is you get a bunch of laypeople to decide cases.
 
How bout the dude was just plain lucky he didn't have to pay back the 20k and the 50k in fees.
 
How bout the dude was just plain lucky he didn't have to pay back the 20k and the 50k in fees.

he did pay the 50k you schmuck. and he shouldnt have had 2 pay the contract. 6 months shy, come on.

what, r u a company guy?
 
he did pay the 50k you schmuck. and he shouldnt have had 2 pay the contract. 6 months shy, come on.

what, r u a company guy?

Wow, WTF is up with you people? He meant also!!!! He meant to italic the "and".

Not, Did not have to pay the 50 and 20 G's.

Do we really feel the need to bash someone that hard, as in calling them a schmuck, on this site?

Goddam.
 
Last edited:

Latest resources

Back
Top