would you take this offer?

[wingnutt]

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

 

[Goose Egg]

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

 

[C601]

"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'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.

 

[wingnutt]

well thats a nice warm and fuzzy post youve got there. but obviously not everyone thinks that way, or these contracts would have never seen the light of day...as evidenced by the very results of this poll

 

[avbug]

There's a poll?


edit: good grief, there is, too. Not enough ways to properly respond it it, though; two answers and neither one adequate. Perhaps that's why so many people responded with words, rather tha merely checking a box.

 

[TurboS7]

Who dug this thing out of the attic. It has so much dust on it I am choking.

 

[wingnutt]

lol...touche. i never even looked

 

[PropsForward]

Who dug this thing out of the attic. It has so much dust on it I am choking.

HA Ha! The irony of it is that Staledog did it!

 

[bobbysamd]

Contract v. training contract

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 . . .

Ordinarily, I have no problem with training contracts. However, in this (ancient) case, I can see a pilot leaving, demanding return of his/her training costs pursuant to the contract, and the company sticking its tongue out at the departed pilot and daring it to sue. Companies, which will have deep pockets for legal help as opposed to most pilots who would be hard-pressed to afford lawyers, can do this and get away with it.

Yeah its a crappy deal, but what do you expect when time and time again Pilot's dont honor the contracts they sign . . . .

Insinuating that all pilots are dishonest, which I, on a personal basis, resent. Two viewpoints here: (1) It takes one (the company) to know one, or (2) Just like some people, some pilots are dishonest but that does not make them all dishonest. Do not generalize or stereotype. Do not assume that because one guy/gal skipped out that each succeeding hiree will skip. Isn't that the purpose of background checks??

 

[wingnutt]

Insinuating that all pilots are dishonest, which I, on a personal basis, resent.

oh c'mon...you can have hurt feelings all day long, but hes right. time and time again, pilots dont honor their contracts. he never said all pilots. if they all did honor them, there would be no such thing as a paper contract

 

[bobbysamd]

oh c'mon...you can have hurt feelings all day long, but hes right. time and time again, pilots dont honor their contracts. he never said all pilots. if they all did honor them, there would be no such thing as a paper contract

No offense taken from C601; offense taken from this "company." I, personally, don't care for automatic assumptions that I am dishonest or unethical because others are. But, maybe, that's just me and me being old-school. And, again, there are dangers in generalizations.

And, there are choices. If a company is going to automatically assume that I am dishonest because others before me have been that way and before getting to know me, I would not care to work for them.

Anyway, old discussion. Although the place does not comport exactly with P-F-T, it is close enough and, therefore, should be avoided.

 

[wingnutt]

Although the place does not comport exactly with P-F-T, it is close enough and, therefore, should be avoided.

agreed...but unfortunately, by the results of the poll, we are in the minority

 

[avbug]

comport

Neat word.

 

[bobbysamd]

<sigh>

Although the place does not comport exactly with P-F-T, it is close enough and, therefore, should be avoided.

agreed...but unfortunately, by the results of the poll, we are in the minority

So much for old-school ways. But, I'm old-school, and proud of it.

 

[Ty Webb]

Let's call it a 'Shelter for Battered Pilots" and maybe we can get a tax break, too!"

3 years ago when places couldn't find enough qualified (insurable in business world terms) pilots and they were repeatedly being burned by pilots taking the job getting the training/type then jumping to a better paying gig because of the type leaving the original company stiffed on its investment.
sitting in the chief pilot's chair trying to explain all these large costs to the CFO what would you say to him?

Sheesh. You say to him, "We are losing a lot of good pilots because what we are offering is not competitive. We need to review our compensation packages and update it to make sure we stay competitive".

That's the difference between a good chief pilot and a bad one. A bad one says, "Hmmnn, well, here's an idea- let's hire guys who aren't competitively qualified for the job, but are willing to pay out some money, and make them buy their own types. That way, if they leave for soemthing better, it won;t cost us anything. And, while we're at it, let's stop calling ourselves a Flight Department, let's call it a 'Shelter for Battered Pilots" and maybe we can get a tax break, too!".

Fact- the companies with the turnover that would make them consider indentured servitude (let's call it what it is) are the ones that are going to treat you like dog-doo . . . don't ever pay for your own training.

 

[Ty Webb]

Who dug this thing out of the attic. It has so much dust on it I am choking.

You, sir, you are killing me!

 

[C601]

Bobby,

Again like i said with Avbugs post, I agree with everything you say, put as i have stated in my second post, i did not refer to ALL pilots leave there current employment and not pro-rate the training.

Again i said based on what i have experienced with the corporate jets i have sold and leased i have yet to see a pilot that leaves early and pay a pro rated share of the training costs here in S Florida.

This year I have only had 1 pilot come and see me private to let me know he was leaving, the rest it was either a phone call from the company that bought the jet asking if we could help them, or i heard from other sources.

Its either some pilots get better offers here in the states or overseas, or its family issues etc....

As for background checks, that it some thing we don't get involved in, Unless its for our own jet. But then again I personaly hired our other pilot after he asked me to did i want to go Gliding, sure i'll fly anything, Spent a day with him told him everything he needed to know about the company Good and some small issues i felt he needed to know and he has been with us 6 and a bit years with no problems.

Even, I have been offered other Corporate jobs, some with the jets i have sold, But i've stayed with my boss, has he's been very good to me and learned alot in the 7years i've have been with them, more then i could ever wished for.

Maybe 1 day i'll tell my story, i think its an interesing one, considering that if you had of told me 10years ago i'd be a corporate pilot, and buying jets to either sell or lease for the Investment Bank i'm with. I've would of told you there is no way. Flying for the airlines was the way for me since i can rememeber, but probably never happen at this point.

Anyways this is an old thread so i'll leave it a that.

 

[Ty Webb]

You can't compare what happens in South FL flight departments with the rest of the country. Having lived and worked down there- there are a few good jobs, a few traditional corporate pilots, and a whole lot of scalawags.

In my experience (5 years as a corporate jet pilot) the companies that wanted money from the pilots had serious problems anyway . . . . now, I did work for a place that I had a "gentlemens' agreement" with to stay for two years, after they paid for my type, and to move me and my family there. I had no problem honoring that commitment. If a much, much better opportunity had come along, I would have went to them and said, "Look, if I don't take this job, I would be too stupid to work here. What can I do to make this fair? How much do I reimburse you to make this right?".

 

[Gulfstream 200]

You can't compare what happens in South FL flight departments with the rest of the country. Having lived and worked down there- there are a few good jobs, a few traditional corporate pilots, and a whole lot of scalawags.

In my experience (5 years as a corporate and/or 135 pilot) the companies that wanted money from the pilots had serious problems anyway . . . . now, I did work for a place that I had a "gentlemens' agreement" with to stay for two years, after they paid for my type, and to move me and my family there. I had no problem honoring that commitment. If a much, much better opportunity had come along, I would have went to them and said, "Look, if I don;t take this job, I would be too stupid to wrok here. What can I do to make this fair? How much do I reimburse you to make this right?".

Ty's right on.

S. Florida is the breeding ground of scumbag charter/management companies.
(Now..before y'all get huffy...surely Im not refering to YOUR operation..)

You would have to be crazy to buy your type, most of these places dont keep these airplanes under management for an entire 2 years...these owners switch companies yearly, with nothing but a bunch of lawsuits in thier wake - fights over maintenance, billing, etc..they are paranoid that they are getting screwed, and usually they are right!

Remember, a Falcon 900 type rating you just wasted 30K+ on is pretty useless unless you have a few good PIC hours in the airplane. What are you going to do when the owner moves his airplane or sells it? You can bet as soon as that owner stops paying his bills, that charter operator stops paying you.

A good company usually attracts good pilots, and neither has a need for a signed training agreement.

But yeah, beat to death...throw this biatch back in the closet...