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??