SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
The more accurate term, no matter what the "industry" called it is PFJ, we all paid for training, you paid for a job that is in fact what it was.
If that's what you prefer, then so be it. But you shouldn't complain when I use the term that has been used for a couple of decades for the practice.
To be fair I wasn't aware that that's what ASA and the others did in the 90's.
Were they 121 outfits with required crew members then?
Yes, these were all for required crew member positions on large turboprop and 50-seat RJ aircraft. Companies starting doing it because they realized that there was a glut of qualified applicants, so they could eliminate (or at least offset) their training costs by having the newhires pay for it themselves. Since everyone was so desperate for a job, and since almost every regional was doing it, most guys just gave in and paid up, thinking of it as an investment in their careers towards getting to that coveted major airline gig. Of course, by doing so, they perpetuated the practice until ALPA finally started pushing back. If you look in the ALPA Administrative Manual under Collective Bargaining, you'll see that it is recommended to MECs to prohibit "Pay For Training" at their companies. This happened as a result of the widespread practice in the '90s. Gulfstream started doing it during the same timeframe when they were still a BE-99 and Shorts 360 operator, but they didn't cease the practice when the other carriers did.
look I don't even care about that issue, if they (the other airlines) were then they were built on the backs of young hungry guys that wanted a career just like you.
In fact, you were as much a victim of that system as anyone else could claim to be...
Eh, maybe, maybe not. I should have done more research. Instead, I was hungry to be an airline pilot, and took what I thought was the quickest route. Had I done more research, I could have avoided doing something that I regret. In the end, it turned out well for me, but it still sucks.