Pay 2 Fly program

CockpitSeeker said:
I'm having a hard time getting the info with proper references on that. The 'etc' part sounds like you may have a somewhat refined idea on that. Care to elaborate? ;)
Click to expand...

The typical '90s PFT scheme involved Flight Safety. The airline would contract with Flight Safety to do the screening and training, and you paid somewhere between $10k and $15k for the training/job. GIA's was a little bit different, because they didn't have the same minimum hours requirements that the Flight Safety programs did. Even with the PFT scheme, the airlines working with Flight Safety still wanted to see at least 1,000 hours, if I remember right. Maybe even 1,200. GIA would accept you with just a commercial multi (although wash out rates were much higher than the typical regional).

I'll make sure to correct that, wikipedia can display some blatant errors obviously... 'didn't figure I would finally meet folks that know better :) (no sarc intended)
Click to expand...

I started at GIA in 2000 and did the program, so I can answer any questions you have from that era.
 
Don't worry. I did the FlightSafety PFT program with Chautauqua in 96. I had about 1600TT, and 500 ME. Folks told me that I'd never get hired by a real airline.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
Your frame of reference is apparently pretty limited, so your information is incorrect. I'm guessing you're only familiar with things post-9/11, because back in the '90s, even the late '90s, nobody got hired at a regional with less than 1,200 hours. The 500 hour wonders were a post-9/11 phenomenon that resulted from incredibly fast RJ feeder growth. So, while I don't condone it (even though I was stupid enough to do it), GIA did help a lot of people to get ahead much more quickly. The typical GIA pilot pre-9/11 got hired full time after completing his 250 hours, upgraded as soon as he hit 1,500 hours total time, and was interviewing at the legacies before he hit 3,000 hours total time. Pre-9/11, I would fly with captains with 2,500 hours total time who were trying to decide between their offers from United and American.
Click to expand...
Yes I understand that. I fast forwarded to when GIA's practice became bad. My target audience got the message. You are just trying to be difficult.

I know exactly what people had to do back then to get into the commuter side of the industry. You had to have some high flight times, sometimes as high as 2500tt to even get a shot. Then you dished up $10k the day you came into training. I work at the most senior base at XJT. That means I fly with guys that paid that $10k for a job. I hear their stories and know what they had to do in comparison. Read the guy's post I quoted and you can see he didn't understand the difference from 20 years ago and the post 9/11 era of regionals.

What I said was correct about 20 years ago. You wouldn't run into the staffing issues you find today. Pilots competed for those slots to get paid maybe $12k. That is why the mins were so high and why they could get away with screwing the pilots. Post 9/11 the game changed and companies had to compete. First thing to happen was them dropping the pay wall shortly followed by a plummeting hiring requirement.
 
Last edited:
Maurus said:
Yes I understand that. I fast forwarded to when GIA's practice became bad. My target audience got the message. You are just trying to be difficult.
Click to expand...

No, I'm not trying to be difficult, but I certainly don't understand what you're trying to say. What do mean by "when GIA's practice became bad?" PFT has always been bad.
 
The minima for ASA's "Direct Track" program were commercial mins. The student had to have completed training at FlightSafety, or go through an eval period if they came from the outside.

It wasn't PFT like ASA was in the 90s. It was purely training intended to guarantee success in training once hired at ASA. The job wasn't guaranteed until you completed the training at FSI. More than a few washed out at FlightSafety after spending the money, but we tried to screen them pretty closely so people didn't waste their money.

Some people loved it, and some hated it. I'm equivocal because it was just another path to a job if you had the money for it. It wasn't the path I chose, but it was just as valid as any other path available, with pluses and minuses.

During the interview I often suggested that the students pursue a CFI, since the training was so expensive AND I personally felt/feel that instructing was valuable experience. But most wanted the quick path to a seniority number, and you can't fault that.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
No, I'm not trying to be difficult, but I certainly don't understand what you're trying to say. What do mean by "when GIA's practice became bad?" PFT has always been bad.
Click to expand...
I mean when industry standard changed.

PFT is never good but it was industry standard at one point.

The guy I quoted didn't understand why people don't like the PFT system. His example was from 20 years ago when PFT was standard at the commuters and the legacies had a different hiring philosophy. Sounded like he want to apply his friend's experience from 20 years ago to today. That just doesn't work.

I made a quick explanation and he got the idea.
 
Last edited:
MikeD said:
Too, the way her name was dragged through the mud with some real sickening comments by people I read after that accident, was pretty much a disgrace. Both regarding her past as well as how that just had to be a factor in the crash itself, as well as being "glad she died...got what she deserved" types of comments. Kicking someone after they're dead isn't right.
Click to expand...
People who post things like that are just cowards hiding behind some unseen persona. It makes me sick.
 
MikeD said:
Too, the way her name was dragged through the mud with some real sickening comments by people I read after that accident, was pretty much a disgrace. Both regarding her past as well as how that just had to be a factor in the crash itself, as well as being "glad she died...got what she deserved" types of comments. Kicking someone after they're dead isn't right.
Click to expand...
I really do get why we should loathe scabs. It is a very despicable act. With that said most of the personal venom that comes with the term is even more despicable.

I feel like I see it all to often recently with the various Regional Airline contract votes that have happened. The word scab is being thrown around with much vigor and the personal attacks these airline employees are receiving is just unacceptable. It causes my palm to violently impact my own face.
 
This conversation makes me that much happier when I fly into Grand Rapids, MN (KGPZ) and see a rotting GIA Saab 340 fuselage. A not so subtle representation of a time that has withered away.
 
Finny said:
This conversation makes me that much happier when I fly into Grand Rapids, MN (KGPZ) and see a rotting GIA Saab 340 fuselage. A not so subtle representation of a time that has withered away.
Click to expand...
I dont think Gulfstream ever had SAABs
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top