What is PFT, and what should be known?

[UnAnswerd]

I've been doing some reading on this board, and I come across a lot of information regarding PFT, or what I believe is "Pay for Training". Most of what I read is quite negative. Basically, I want to be sure of exactly what PFT is, and what it isn't...

If we start at the beginning, a pilot hoping to someday fly commercially usually gets a private certificate, followed by an instrument rating, multi-engine rating, commercial certificate, and maybe CFI. Obviously, anyone can understand paying for such training, because it's not like any employer had you in mind the day you took your into-flight. After getting these basic certificates, you could probably find a job as a flight instructor, and do that for some time...

But is this board saying that all training after this point should be at the expense of an employer? If you have no multi-engine time, are you saying that employers should take on the expense of somehow providing you with such time? Are you saying that if you have absolutely no turbine-time, employers should orient you with such systems, and at their expense? Are you saying that if the job involves flying a heavy piece of equipment, employers should take on the cost of getting you typed?

As a student pilot, I'm just interested in getting a little perspective from those who've actually gone out and worked in the industry. If PFT is what I think it is, then I would have to agree with anyone who thinks it's negative. Expensive training and ratings are just too costly, especially when you don't even have a job lined up.

 

[Daveman]

You remind me of the student who showed up for lessons with his headset in a used KFC chicken box. (True story).

 

[UnAnswerd]

You remind me of the student who showed up for lessons with his headset in a used KFC chicken box. (True story).

You remind me of just some ass, too caught up in your sense of superiority to contribute anything positive to those willing to learn. Furthermore, it's quite moronic of you to forget those who were willing to help you in your time of inexperience.

 

[400A]

Yes

Yep, you have got it figured out. you dont buy your way into a job, you work your way up. you will need the experience you get along the way. Not only does PFT show the true worth of your employer, it is dangerous.

Kind of like charter companies that pay their full time pilots only for the legs they fly. It encourages poor judgment on the pilots part due to the need to feed his family. If he grounds the plane for a maint. issue, he does not get paid.

To answer it again, YES, if the company gets a complcated aircraft, then They need to pay for you to learn to fly it. If they cant afford 15K for training, then they cant afford a multi-million dollar aircraft. This would also go to point as a general rule in PFT, If they cant afford pilot training, then they probably are not gonna spend alot in the shop either.

 

[350DRIVER]

But is this board saying that all training after this point should be at the expense of an employer? If you have no multi-engine time, are you saying that employers should take on the expense of somehow providing you with such time? Are you saying that if you have absolutely no turbine-time, employers should orient you with such systems, and at their expense? Are you saying that if the job involves flying a heavy piece of equipment, employers should take on the cost of getting you typed?

The answer to the first question is simple, the company requires X amount of hours of multi-engine flight time to meet "minimums" in order to be able to get the interview. That is why many go and get the MEI.... The answer to remaining questions would be "yes".

As a student pilot, I'm just interested in getting a little perspective from those who've actually gone out and worked in the industry. If PFT is what I think it is, then I would have to agree with anyone who thinks it's negative. Expensive training and ratings are just too costly, especially when you don't even have a job lined up.

3 5 0

 

[Daveman]

You remind me of just some ass, too caught up in your sense of superiority to contribute anything positive to those willing to learn. Furthermore, it's quite moronic of you to forget those who were willing to help you in your time of inexperience.

Trisha would agree with the first part. hehe. As far as superior, not me bubba.
Never forgot the lady that taught me how to make love to a woman.
I've answered your metar ? then deleted it after I realized it was a joke.
Why haven't you asked your instructor these questions you have?

 

[bobbysamd]

Pft

Are you saying that if you have absolutely no turbine-time, employers should orient you with such systems, and at their expense? Are you saying that if the job involves flying a heavy piece of equipment, employers should take on the cost of getting you typed?

P-F-T is an employment issue, only. P-F-T involves the employer imposing as a condition of employment the future employee paying for his/her training with that company. What P-F-T comes down to is the employee buying a job with the company.

Under Parts 121 and 135, as applicable, new pilots must receive initial training. Training pilots is part of doing business for companies, just as training new employees is part of doing business for companies in other industries. I know that you are an automotive tech; if you got a new job would the dealership, garage, etc., charge you for whatever training you might need for whatever cars you will fix?? Probably not; it probably will send you to its school at its expense for your training. It should be no different for aviation companies, but the operative word here is "should."

Thus, to answer your question, the answer is "yes," employers absolutely should take on the cost of typing you, if they feel you are qualified to work for them. There are those who argue that Southwest Airlines is P-F-T because a Boeing 737 type rating is required to be hired. What these folks fail to consider that there are many pilots who already were B737 typed on someone's nickel before they applied to Southwest. And, once Southwest hires them, by regulation it must provide them initial training. Southwest does not charge them for their training.

Pilots who P-F-T might be at far lower time than ordinary street hires, but try to use it to end-run the normal and traditional years of time-building. Or, you might encounter experienced pilots who P-F-T because they cannot be hired elsewhere for free. Aviation is a conservative and traditional industry, with conservative and traditional institutions. While companies themselves might care less if a person buys a job by way of P-F-T, pilots, themselves, who worked hard and sacrificed to work their way up, will likely resent someone who tries to circumvent the system. And, that "someone" might be blackballed when it is learned he/she P-F-T'd.

What it all boils down to is piloting, like automobile techs, lawyers, paralegals, secretaries, nurses, etc. is still just a job. Except for aviation, I know of no other vocation where one has to pay for his/her training. There is plenty of jobs one can get without paying for them. I was confronted with P-F-T in the early '90s. Not only was I afraid of being scammed, I, frankly, refused to be humiliated by paying for a job. I had met all the qualfications by then. I loved flying, but not enough to suffer the humiliation of buying my job. Whether you want to is something you must decide for yourself.

(For those who care to know and who would allege that I gave up, I continued to apply to non-P-F-T airlines, some for a total of six years.)

Hope that furthers your understanding of P-F-T. Let me suggest that you run board searches on P-F-T for all the opinion you need on this controversial issue.

 

[NEDude]

Everyone has a different opinion. FWIW, here is mine.

PFT is paying for company specific training as a condition of employment. In other words, pay us xxxxx dollars for our training course and we'll give you a job with us. In most cases, you come away with no additional ratings or certificates from such training, just a job.

Examples of this are companies which require you to pay them for new-hire SIC training (ie. Gulfstream, TAB Express, and just about every regional in the mid 90s).

Another variation is getting hired by a company who then requires you to pay a third party for SIC training (ie. no type rating).


If, before you start working for a company, you pay a third, unrelated party for training, and receive an FAA certificate or rating, I don't consider it PFT in most cases.


While I don't agree with the practice, and think it is an unwise investment, I personally don't villify those who do it. Believe it or not, there are people out there who do not visit places like this before they do their training, they may have gotten some bad advice. And I would personally be wary of any 250 hour pilot who thinks because they have been through a five week training course, they are competent, qualified pilots in a turbine powered transport aircraft. I know it gets tempting when you have 300 hours or so, and don't want to instruct, to pay a company 20K for some BE-1900 time in a 121 operation. But as a BE-1900 captain (for a non-PFT company), I don't know any F/O I have flown with who thinks it would be worth paying 20K for their seat.

 

[FN FAL]

Are you saying that if you have absolutely no turbine-time, employers should orient you with such systems, and at their expense? Are you saying that if the job involves flying a heavy piece of equipment, employers should take on the cost of getting you typed?

Mine did...they spared no expense to get me behind the wheel of a turbine aircraft. Almost two weeks of paid ground school and two hours in the aircraft shooting approaches and to/landings, before sending me down to Pan Am for the Level D simulator training and ground school. Followed by coming home and getting in the aircraft and doing the 135 ride and a week of uneventful IOE fun. IOE was really fun...no kidding.

This was how they trained everyone back when I was hired. I thought it was a little excessive, but it ingrained into my mind that the company cared about our training. Things have changed for new hires since then, but they will give extended IOE for the right candidate that shows promise of growing into being a good employee and good pilot.

They did that recently for a guy who was worth the effort, but eventually they had to cut their losses. I'm sure he was a great CFI, but I think he lacked the "foundation" neccessary to jump into single pilot 135 turbine operations. I think he will do well in the future, so I hope this little set back doesn't bum him out too much, he just needs more foundation in his flight experience. It's dangerous and expensive to bet on best wishes in single pilot air carrier ops.

So to answer your question unanswered, employers do cover the cost of training, they pay you when you are in training and they house you and feed you. Especially the places that value a good employee.

 

[UnAnswerd]

I've answered your metar then deleted it after I realized it was a joke.

Sorry, but the only "joke" I've seen thus far is your response to an honest question.

Why haven't you asked your instructor these questions you have?

My instructor is teaching me to operate a single-engine aircraft. Though I have curiosities about business, I'm not going to bother him with such questions that are very much irrelevant at this point in time.

 

[UnAnswerd]

If they cant afford 15K for training, then they cant afford a multi-million dollar aircraft.

I'd say that's a pretty good way of looking at it.

 

[UnAnswerd]

I know that you are an automotive tech; if you got a new job would the dealership, garage, etc., charge you for whatever training you might need for whatever cars you will fix?? Probably not; it probably will send you to its school at its expense for your training.

That's pretty much it. In fact, even if you participate in voluntary certification, it is not uncommon for the shop to reimburse you 100%.

While companies themselves might care less if a person buys a job by way of P-F-T, pilots, themselves, who worked hard and sacrificed to work their way up, will likely resent someone who tries to circumvent the system. And, that "someone" might be blackballed when it is learned he/she P-F-T'd.

I can see why. If I had spent years flight instructing, and then years at some bottom-end 135 operation, frankly I'd be quite pissed if upon landing at job elsewhere, I found out some low-time pilot got in because he cut corners and bought his way in.

What it all boils down to is piloting, like automobile techs, lawyers, paralegals, secretaries, nurses, etc. is still just a job. Except for aviation, I know of no other vocation where one has to pay for his/her training. There is plenty of jobs one can get without paying for them. I was confronted with P-F-T in the early '90s. Not only was I afraid of being scammed, I, frankly, refused to be humiliated by paying for a job. I had met all the qualifications by then. I loved flying, but not enough to suffer the humiliation of buying my job. Whether you want to is something you must decide for yourself.

Lots of good information here. I definitely have a better understanding, and I really appreciate the time you, NE DUDE, FN FAL, 350Driver, and 400A have taken to answer the question.

 

[bobbysamd]

Pft

If I had spent years flight instructing, and then years at some bottom-end 135 operation, frankly I'd be quite pissed if upon landing at job elsewhere, I found out some low-time pilot got in because he cut corners and bought his way in.

(emphasis added)

Or any pilot, for that matter. Thank G-d, someone else sees the light.

Good luck with your career plans.

 

[Goose Egg]

Quite frankly, I find the concept of PFT insulting. I think it is really important to be selective in the jobs that we accept. The prevalent notion is that something is better than nothing as far as flying jobs go; it is ok to tolerate a little abuse from an employer if it gets you to the desired result. I'm not so sure that's true. People are willing to sacrifice anything and everything in the monomaniacal pursuit of that airline job. Not me though.

No wonder people get burned out in flying jobs!

Remember, your job is one of the major determinants of the quality of your life. To accept poor working conditions is foolish. I think that we should be working and working hard, but not being abused by our employers.

-Goose

 

[wrxpilot]

You remind me of just some ass, too caught up in your sense of superiority to contribute anything positive to those willing to learn. Furthermore, it's quite moronic of you to forget those who were willing to help you in your time of inexperience.

Nice response! I gotta admit I am curious about the headset in the KFC box though, lol!

 

[bobbysamd]

It is just a job

The prevalent notion is that something is better than nothing as far as flying jobs go; it is ok to tolerate a little abuse from an employer if it gets you to the desired result. I'm not so sure that's true. People are willing to sacrifice anything and everything in the monomaniacal pursuit of that airline job. Not me though.

One also runs into that in broadcasting, and, undoubtedly, other businesses. I met any number of people, including myself, who would do nearly anything and accept virtually nothing to get a chance. One needs a chance in broadcasting. It is as competitive as aviation, especially for newcomers. But, so many people, including myself, continued to do most anything, such as working lousy shifts and put up with further abuse, to get further opportunities and/or stay employed. Granted, one has to put up with some abuse in any job, but the line must be drawn somewhere. Here again, it is still just a job.

Remember, your job is one of the major determinants of the quality of your life. To accept poor working conditions is foolish. I think that we should be working and working hard, but not being abused by our employers.

Once again, so many pilots lose sight of the fact that piloting is still just a job. I should think that pilots would not tolerate such abuses as P-F-T in any other business. So, why should flying (or broadcasting or whatever) be any different? If more pilots would view their work and job as professionals and as adults and people worthy of respect, and not embarass and humiliate themselves via P-F-T and pay-for-interview, such abuses would surely vanish.

 

[Goose Egg]

If more pilots would view their work and job as professionals and as adults and people worthy of respect, and not embarass and humiliate themselves via P-F-T and pay-for-interview, such abuses would surely vanish.

Good point. As much as I hate to admit it, all this PFT stuff is market driven. In other words, companies are getting away with it because they can.

What people don't seem to realize is that one does not need to prostitute him or herself in order to get a flying job. That's something that I just won't do, and that's partly because I find the practice objectionable, and partly because it's just not necessary to make a career in aviation. People are so impatient. They want a career with all the glitz, and they want it now. They want to strut around the airline terminal with epaulets blazin'. But there isn't any glitz in flying, and a lot of really good flying jobs are hidden behind the scenes. And it takes a consistent and concerted effort to accomplish anything in flying, as well as a healthy dose of endurance.

We should all know by now that nothing good is just handed to us.

If my future children decide that they want to fly, that's fine. I'll help them out where I can. But I'm not sending them to a PFT outfit or buying them a type rating, and I'm certainly not going to buy them an airplane to build time in. If they aren't willing to scratch for flying, they are better off doing something else.

-Goose