would you take this offer?

[TurboS7]

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.

 

[staledog]

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. IF the company has enough faith in you to offer you the job then by all means they should be the one that is willing to pay for the training- no and's, if's, or but's about it. "well the employer just wants to make sure that he will be around and not jump ship" - absolute and complete BS in the first degree and pretty much a complete cop out by those using that point to attempt to justify this. IF the company does it's homework during the interview and leaves no rock unturned then they wouldn't offer someone a job who is going to pick up and leave after a short period of time.


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.

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....

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....

OH, SNAP!!!!!!!!

i agree by the way

 

[C601]

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

 

[cynic]

Let me translate....

"We plan to treat you like crap. We know you will want to quit, so we need a way to force you to stay."

If you don't take the job some other dumba$$ will.

 

[English]

The original question is over a year old. The thread starter probably doesn't need the advice anymore.

 

[pc12_driver]

Anyone who pays to get a job degrades the integrity of our fine profession!!!!!!!

 

[Gulfstream 200]

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

 

[flyifrvfr]

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?

 

[suen1843]

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.

 

[avbug]

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?