would you take this offer?

[Timebuilder]

TB you really are tracking down EVERY lead.

You won't believe the folder of info I have put together.

Phones will be ringing tomorrow!!!

 

[350DRIVER]

da20 is absolutely right, cost of training is not a factor if they can afford the airplanes. It is a slap in the face (a hard one) if one would choose to do this. Common sense goes a long way and I would question any flight department that would require me to pay for my own training up front and I laugh nicely then excuse myself from the interview.


3 5 0

 

[350DRIVER]

The sad thing is that many 135 operators will be catching on to what Eagle Jet itl. is doing and I can see this becoming a much larger problem than it is now. Just a matter of time before this occurs since their are enough fools out there to undercut this industry and it is a marvelous business move for the operator to not only not have to pay a first officer but in return they get paid by that individual for X amount of hours- this is just a matter of time before this gets out of control.....


King Air 90/100/200 100hr= $9900 - 250 = $13,400 - 500= $18,900

Cessna 402 = 1250 hours @ $31,900

Learjet 500 hours @ $28,900


this month from the back Flying.... Eagle Jet at its best-


3 5 0

 

[2000flyer]

EXACTLY.....
3 5 0

by the way (food for thought) money is not an object for most of these corporate flight departments so even if someone does up and go after a short time I highly doubt this will hurt the company financially.

That would be like the Simon company (IND) asking for the pilots to pay for their initial GV training- come on....

350 and all,

While I totally disagree with the idea of a new hire having to pay for his/her initial training, I will say there is a cost to the company. Not to mention a salary, benefits and so forth, but the training investment is, I repeat, IS a large sum. While I don't have the numbers for a G4/DA900, I can tell you with reasonable certainty a full service agreement at FSI will run between $20-30,000. An initial on a 900EX is in the neighborhood of $35,000. I don't know of any well run department that would think this sum of money is "of no object".

Again, and hear me loud and clear, I'm totally against requiring a new hire to fund his/her training, regardless if it is paid back or not. PERIOD! But, lest we not forget one of the darlings of Wall Street who has practiced this for years with great success and has no requirement to repay it's new hires. Anyone hear of SWA?

To the original poster. Be very wary of this type of employment offer. If they don't trust you to stick around two years, especially in this economy when there aren't a lot of jobs to be had anyway, can you trust them to repay you?

IMHO

2000Flyer

 

[Hugh Jorgan]

EXACTLY..... It is very unprofessional not to mention completely ridiculous to ask a "potential" employee to pay thousands to get trained with money out of there pocket.

How about requiring a type just to apply???

Please name me one fortune 50 company that does this, or even a smaller respectable flight department that does this.?? I know of zero meaning "none" that makes the employee pay for the training.
[/B]

SWA

I would NOT pay a single dime for this job, it is nothing more than a slap in your face if you opt to do this.... [/B]

I'd do it if I had no better options, sounds like an okay deal.

 

[typhoonpilot]

The simple answer to this is no. Preferably no company would ever ask a pilot to pay for his own training. That is simply the cost of doing business and shouldn't be passed along to the employee. However, as 2000flyer has indicated, it does cost the company concerned money if you walk within a year or two. So that leads to the complex answer which is a bond arrangement. Again, it would be preferable that the company trusted you enough, treated you well enough, and paid you well enough that a bonding arrangement wasn't necessary but it is a way for that company to protect it's interests. Let's face it, many companies have been burned by pilots leaving shortly after getting a type.

Bonding is done a lot in Europe and Asia, especially with airlines. In a bond situation you simple sign a piece of paper promising to pay for a pro-rated cost of the training if you leave within a certain time period. Again, let me say, this is not the most optimal way to get hired but if the question came up and the company was deadly serious, it is a viable option.

Typhoonpilot

Currently on a three year bond.

 

[corp_da20_guy]

I fully understand the boding issue and the fact that the company just wants to cover its butt; however, if Ford or GM or whoever hires someone to paint cars or install windows...it does not require an employee to 1) pay for his/her own training or 2) sign a contract agreeing to repay all or part of the expenses for their training. I realize the significant cost differential between such a comparison....but I think it is still a valid one!

 

[350DRIVER]

How about requiring a type just to apply???

That is fine considering most that will be applying for the job would have obtained the type rating from a previous employer at the operators expense... I am sure some (me not being one of them) would go out and "buy" a type just to apply for a job, just extremely unprofessional and a slap in the face (in my opinion).

SWA

Exactly why I have absolutely no ambition or desire to ever want to fly for them... Since this thread is concerning corporate flight departments how about stating a company along these lines that requires you to pay for the initial training.? I apologize for not making that clear in my previous post which was too general, should have seen the SWA answer coming my way.
Eagle Jet INT. also promotes 737 time and some have said they have the "exclusive" agreement with SWA and if this holds true then no wonder why they always make the big bucks... (really hope there is no truth to this since it is bad enough to have to go buy the type just to get the interview with them...

I'd do it if I had no better options, sounds like an okay deal.

I have no doubts in my mind that a few others may agree with you on this one, I just have a different mindset I guess..

Not to mention a salary, benefits and so forth, but the training investment is, I repeat, IS a large sum.

I absolutely agree with you 100% hands down. I just tend to feel that if a company can afford to buy a GV or a Falcon then they must surely be able to "afford" to train the crews at the company's own expense. Like I said I have yet to meet one large flight department (corporate world) that requires the employee to pay for the training costs....


3 5 0

although with Eagle Jet maybee we will start to see a change in how the industry is operating....(hope not)

 

[banned username 2]

Corporate flight department with a good reputation offers you a job as an F/O on a large jet (GV, Citation X, Falcon 900 ect.)

Anal Check....

A G-V is a "Ultra Long Range" or "Very Large" Jet
A Falcon 900EX is a "Large" Jet
A Citation X is a "Mid-sized" Jet

Each is in it's own class... Apples and Oranges I tell ya'...

Now if you said: "G-IVsp, Falcon 900EX and Challenger 604" now you are comparing Apples to Apples.

Ok, done with that rant....

As far as costs, I know the annual costs for a Falcon 900EX full service Flight Safety contract are over $30,000 per year...

 

[AZaviator]

I’d have no problem with signing a contract, but the company better pay for the training.

I think Wiggums said it best. I'd have no problem signing a contract, but only as long as the company pays for the training. Its a way for them to cover their butt if they were afraid of you leaving shortly after getting your type rating. That's the only way to do it, in my opinion.

How about requiring a type just to apply???

That's a very good question/comment too!