I would pass it up,I would like to think that if it were the type of company that deserves my 100% the pay and bennies would be such that I wouldn't think of leaving. Therefore for the company to invest in me would reap 10 fold for them in the long run. They have the bucks and I have to skill, take it or leave it.
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
would you take this offer?
- Thread starter WMUSIGPI
- Start date
- Watchers 24
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
As been on both sides of the fence, At this point in time i see no reason why not to sign there contract. As long as they have it in writing they will refund all training costs to you as long as you stay
Too many pilots (especially here in FL) are getting hired , signing contracts there training is paid for and within 6months and they end up jumping ship, leaving the company to take 15K-30K hit, and having to spend more money to hire and get another pilot.
Just because they have a $30million jet does not mean they have $$$ to waste on pilots who have no intention of sticking around with the contract they signed.
Most compaines i deal with, have a annual budget for there jet , which does not include paying for training twice.
Yeah its a crappy deal, but what do you expect when time and time again Pilot's dont honor the contracts they sign. Do you expect the company to foot the training bill every time..... I don't think so
Too many pilots (especially here in FL) are getting hired , signing contracts there training is paid for and within 6months and they end up jumping ship, leaving the company to take 15K-30K hit, and having to spend more money to hire and get another pilot.
Just because they have a $30million jet does not mean they have $$$ to waste on pilots who have no intention of sticking around with the contract they signed.
Most compaines i deal with, have a annual budget for there jet , which does not include paying for training twice.
Yeah its a crappy deal, but what do you expect when time and time again Pilot's dont honor the contracts they sign. Do you expect the company to foot the training bill every time..... I don't think so
pc12_driver
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2004
- Posts
- 46
Gulfstream 200
Database Expert
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2002
- Posts
- 4,574
It may be a year old but lets beat it up again...
NO reputable company makes you pay for your type rating or sign any Farkin BS training contract.
If the job didnt $uck so bad they wouldnt worry about you running.
Pay a pilot fair and treat him like a human (or at least a dog) and he will be happy.
Some peoples idea of "reputable" is downright laughable
NO reputable company makes you pay for your type rating or sign any Farkin BS training contract.
If the job didnt $uck so bad they wouldnt worry about you running.
Pay a pilot fair and treat him like a human (or at least a dog) and he will be happy.
Some peoples idea of "reputable" is downright laughable
flyifrvfr
CFII/MEI right seater
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2004
- Posts
- 495
Here is my thinking on the subject. Hire a young first officer with minimum time ( 1200 total, 100 multi ) train him or her, and watch the new hire remain happy and loyal. I would have serious reservations hiring a furlough from the airlines knowing that as soon as the call comes in they are gone. This is where most companies make the mistake of looking for pilots with 3,000 - 4,000 hours. These guys are just waiting for a spot or call from the airlines. The young F/O will look forward to moving to the left seat of the GV, X , 900 in a few years, and will likely remain happy in the left seat.
I know that furloughs from the airlines deserve a chance to work and put food on the table, but these pilots will be the first to jump ship and return to the airlines if called. They had the option of going corporate or going to the airlines; they chose the airlines. If I hired a furlough, I would require them to sign a contract saying that if they leave on their own will, they will have to repay the cost for training. I know that this isn't fair and it should be contracts across the board, but who do you think would leave first? The young new hire with 1200 and 100 and a chance to move to the left seat of some of the best equipment, or the furlough airline pilot waiting for the call to return to the line?
I know that furloughs from the airlines deserve a chance to work and put food on the table, but these pilots will be the first to jump ship and return to the airlines if called. They had the option of going corporate or going to the airlines; they chose the airlines. If I hired a furlough, I would require them to sign a contract saying that if they leave on their own will, they will have to repay the cost for training. I know that this isn't fair and it should be contracts across the board, but who do you think would leave first? The young new hire with 1200 and 100 and a chance to move to the left seat of some of the best equipment, or the furlough airline pilot waiting for the call to return to the line?
Last edited:
As long as one could secure the facts (ei, escrow or whatever) I would think this is a good investment. All you have to do is negotiate that you will pay the 30K (or whatever) for the type and the company would reimburse you after two years...along with 10 or 12% interest. Invest 30K, get back $36K or so. Not as good as a stock but not as risky, and a lot higher than a bank savings account.
Without pointing to any specific individual, the pilot community frequently appears to be populated largely by lying unethical meely mouthed disloyal bastards.
I flew Learjets for a company that had lost six pilots in a row. Not because they were a bad company; they never had a chance to show themselves as good or bad. They paid for their initial hire pilots to go to flight safety, and the initial hire pilots never came back to town. They hired on elsewhere right out the door in Tucson. Go figure.
I've seen this happen time and time again to employers. Company pays nearly thirty grand for a gulfstream type, pilot leaves after a few months. Gets a better offer. Pilot whines that if the company wants to keep him, they'd better start paying more. But wait, didn't he know this before he accepted thirty grand in training?
I have no problem at all with an employer requiring a training contract. Come work for us, we'll train you, and expect a year of service. Stay the year, owe nothing. Leave early, and you owe us for a pro rated share of the training cost. That's fair.
Asking the employee to pay for it up front is not. Pure and simple. Yes, Southwest has done it for years. Southwest's premise is a little different, however. They expect you to be typed before you arrive; that's merely a hiring requirement. What Southwest doesn't do is bring you on board, and require you to shell out for the rating to southwest, or a provider designated by southwest. And southwest isn't in the training business; they only hire typed pilots. There is a difference.
Buying a type rating is not a crime. But requiring a pilot to pay for all his or her training is, and there is a difference. If part of coming aboard is getting indoc, any operations training, and inhouse or inhouse subcontracted type specific training, the employer should cover that. Or specify up front that pilots applying must already be typed.
Companies that only accept pilots who are willing to buy their job get only pilots who can buy their job; they are not discriminating in seeking out the best applicant. I can take some comfort in each job to which I've been assigned in knowing that I was selected over other candidates because I best fit the position. And that I kept my place there by staying suited to the position. Never because I bought my place there.
Don't assume the company is bad simply because they protect their investment; a company that requires a training contract probably does so because it is familiar with the disloyal take-everything-give-nothing-back nature of pilots in general. I have seen it at firm after firm, company after company, over many years. I even turned to enquire at WIA a few years ago after being furloughed, and was told that the state coffers were dry, because pilots from across the country had already raided it to buy themselves another type.
I was replaced at another firm by a furloughed pilot who lasted exactly the time it take to fly one trip; he took the type, then hired on with a former employer who told him they'd take him back if he got a type rating. Time and time again, and again, and again. And yet pilots wonder why employers are leery. Is it not a reputable employer, or simply one who's seen enough pilots to know what could very easily happen, again, and again, and again?
I flew Learjets for a company that had lost six pilots in a row. Not because they were a bad company; they never had a chance to show themselves as good or bad. They paid for their initial hire pilots to go to flight safety, and the initial hire pilots never came back to town. They hired on elsewhere right out the door in Tucson. Go figure.
I've seen this happen time and time again to employers. Company pays nearly thirty grand for a gulfstream type, pilot leaves after a few months. Gets a better offer. Pilot whines that if the company wants to keep him, they'd better start paying more. But wait, didn't he know this before he accepted thirty grand in training?
I have no problem at all with an employer requiring a training contract. Come work for us, we'll train you, and expect a year of service. Stay the year, owe nothing. Leave early, and you owe us for a pro rated share of the training cost. That's fair.
Asking the employee to pay for it up front is not. Pure and simple. Yes, Southwest has done it for years. Southwest's premise is a little different, however. They expect you to be typed before you arrive; that's merely a hiring requirement. What Southwest doesn't do is bring you on board, and require you to shell out for the rating to southwest, or a provider designated by southwest. And southwest isn't in the training business; they only hire typed pilots. There is a difference.
Buying a type rating is not a crime. But requiring a pilot to pay for all his or her training is, and there is a difference. If part of coming aboard is getting indoc, any operations training, and inhouse or inhouse subcontracted type specific training, the employer should cover that. Or specify up front that pilots applying must already be typed.
Companies that only accept pilots who are willing to buy their job get only pilots who can buy their job; they are not discriminating in seeking out the best applicant. I can take some comfort in each job to which I've been assigned in knowing that I was selected over other candidates because I best fit the position. And that I kept my place there by staying suited to the position. Never because I bought my place there.
Don't assume the company is bad simply because they protect their investment; a company that requires a training contract probably does so because it is familiar with the disloyal take-everything-give-nothing-back nature of pilots in general. I have seen it at firm after firm, company after company, over many years. I even turned to enquire at WIA a few years ago after being furloughed, and was told that the state coffers were dry, because pilots from across the country had already raided it to buy themselves another type.
I was replaced at another firm by a furloughed pilot who lasted exactly the time it take to fly one trip; he took the type, then hired on with a former employer who told him they'd take him back if he got a type rating. Time and time again, and again, and again. And yet pilots wonder why employers are leery. Is it not a reputable employer, or simply one who's seen enough pilots to know what could very easily happen, again, and again, and again?
wingnutt
...recognize this?
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2002
- Posts
- 1,079
i didnt read every reply, so i apologize if this has been brought up...but lets say you go ahead and sign the contract, and pay for the initial. whats to stop this "wonderful" company, at, say 1 year 11 months and 29 days to say, "no thanks, you arent what we are looking for"...then what 
...dont laff, ive seen it more than once, although not on such a grand scale as per the aircraft in question
edit...i would have never guessed that the poll would be as close as it is
...dont laff, ive seen it more than once, although not on such a grand scale as per the aircraft in question
edit...i would have never guessed that the poll would be as close as it is
Last edited:
Goose Egg
Big Jens
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2004
- Posts
- 1,719
As someone who may find himself in this situation in the not-so-distant future, I think that I'd be extremely hesitant to actually pay real money for initial type training, whether the company promises to reimburse or not. That's just too much financial risk on my part. However, I would have no problems with signing a contract that stated that I would have to pay for my training if I "jumped ship" within a specified amount of time. I think that's only fair to the company--they need to be able to protect their investment as well. And the greater the ability of the flight department to remain financially viable, the more likely it will be for me to keep my job.
-Goose
-Goose
"I have no problem at all with an employer requiring a training contract. Come work for us, we'll train you, and expect a year of service. Stay the year, owe nothing. Leave early, and you owe us for a pro rated share of the training cost. That's fair."
Avbug, i agree with you 100%, but i have yet to see a pilot that leaves early and pay a pro rated share of the training costs, especially down here in S FL.
The only thing it does is make it harder for the next pilot that comes along and expect the company to pay for his/her TR
Avbug, i agree with you 100%, but i have yet to see a pilot that leaves early and pay a pro rated share of the training costs, especially down here in S FL.
The only thing it does is make it harder for the next pilot that comes along and expect the company to pay for his/her TR
Last edited:
I've been following along with the thread on the fractional forum on this site about the netjets "bad santa." This thread interested me, because I had a conversation with the CEO of a rapidly growing fractional operator recently, in which the subject came up. The CEO just instituted a rather stiff training contract for new pilots; something that hasn't been in the works before. The company is requiring a promisory note to remain employed for a year, with a stiff financial penalty for those who fail to do so.
I read his document, and commented that I saw nothing in it about pro-rating the pilots time with the company. He indicated that indeed the company would take that into consideration. I re-read the contract, and found nothing to indicate that to be the case.
I then asked him about several hypothetical situations in which a pilot might leave due to illness, injury, valid concerns or complaint, and finally, at company request. The contract included wording to the effect that should the pilot no longer be employable as a pilot for any reason, the company still has the option of requiring twelve months service, to include employment in another capacity.
My question to him was what to do about an employee leaving. Is he really going to expect a pilot to repay that amount.
His candid response to me was that this was a new policy, that the company hasn't had a problem with pilots jumping ship, and sincerely hopes to keep it that way. He stated that he couldn't afford to risk enforcing the contract, because of the negative publicity it might cause. In essence, the paper contract is just that; it has legal teeth, but the reprocussions of enforcing it, from his point of view, would be unacceptable.
This was a one-on-one conversation that didn't put he or I in the hot seat. How it might bear out in an adversarial situation, real time for a pilot who has signed the contract and then leaves, I don't know. I found his candid admission to be enlightening, however. I don't know the man well, but from our meeting, I would surmise that he means what he says.
Personally, I've never had to sign one of those contracts in the past. I've worked for employers that had them, but I've always managed to get by with a handshake. For me, it's a lot more binding than any contract, and it means a lot more to me. A man signs a paper to me, or me to him, it's paper. I honor my obligations...but a handshake is personal and it's a matter of honor.
The same should be said for an employment contract. When I have taken training in the past, regardless of weather it was type training or not, I've been prepared for what I consider a standard fair stay; a year of service. I've turned down some career-enhancing employment and some lucrative offers in the past because my moral obligation to remain and not leave an employer high and dry was too strong to permit me to walk out. In each case, I've told the employer who is making the offer that "I wouldn't do it to you, and I can't do it to them."
In almost every case, the inviting employer has told me that they appreciate that as a valueable quality in an employee; it certainly is to me. I've had a few who were flexible enough to work with me, for which I've been grateful, and a lot more that I lost because of a refusal to break my bond. I've known a lot of pilots who have taken the money and run, and those individuals to me are unethical, and lack honor and integrity. Their actions speak loudly about their character.
Training contract or not, the signatures on the paper are only as worthy as the hands that sign them.
I read his document, and commented that I saw nothing in it about pro-rating the pilots time with the company. He indicated that indeed the company would take that into consideration. I re-read the contract, and found nothing to indicate that to be the case.
I then asked him about several hypothetical situations in which a pilot might leave due to illness, injury, valid concerns or complaint, and finally, at company request. The contract included wording to the effect that should the pilot no longer be employable as a pilot for any reason, the company still has the option of requiring twelve months service, to include employment in another capacity.
My question to him was what to do about an employee leaving. Is he really going to expect a pilot to repay that amount.
His candid response to me was that this was a new policy, that the company hasn't had a problem with pilots jumping ship, and sincerely hopes to keep it that way. He stated that he couldn't afford to risk enforcing the contract, because of the negative publicity it might cause. In essence, the paper contract is just that; it has legal teeth, but the reprocussions of enforcing it, from his point of view, would be unacceptable.
This was a one-on-one conversation that didn't put he or I in the hot seat. How it might bear out in an adversarial situation, real time for a pilot who has signed the contract and then leaves, I don't know. I found his candid admission to be enlightening, however. I don't know the man well, but from our meeting, I would surmise that he means what he says.
Personally, I've never had to sign one of those contracts in the past. I've worked for employers that had them, but I've always managed to get by with a handshake. For me, it's a lot more binding than any contract, and it means a lot more to me. A man signs a paper to me, or me to him, it's paper. I honor my obligations...but a handshake is personal and it's a matter of honor.
The same should be said for an employment contract. When I have taken training in the past, regardless of weather it was type training or not, I've been prepared for what I consider a standard fair stay; a year of service. I've turned down some career-enhancing employment and some lucrative offers in the past because my moral obligation to remain and not leave an employer high and dry was too strong to permit me to walk out. In each case, I've told the employer who is making the offer that "I wouldn't do it to you, and I can't do it to them."
In almost every case, the inviting employer has told me that they appreciate that as a valueable quality in an employee; it certainly is to me. I've had a few who were flexible enough to work with me, for which I've been grateful, and a lot more that I lost because of a refusal to break my bond. I've known a lot of pilots who have taken the money and run, and those individuals to me are unethical, and lack honor and integrity. Their actions speak loudly about their character.
Training contract or not, the signatures on the paper are only as worthy as the hands that sign them.
Share this page
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
