Training contracts

amorris311 said:
Why should anyone have to sign a training contract? I know I signed one with my current employer and I might sound like a hypocrite. They are providing a mandatory training and testing platform in order for you to complete the job you were hired for. Why would/should anyone have to sign a contract for something that is required of the employer in order for me to complete my duties?
Click to expand...
They could just require that type rating to get a job, like SWA, and I bet they would still get people getting a e145 type for the job. Aviation is different as they hire people not qualified for the job (now type rated) compared to other industries. Worse they will reduce first year pay and put longevity bonus in if you stay long enough. Like vesting a 401k. Ideas how to protect the company's investment?
 
I could have a type for every airplane flown at each individual company. That still does not satisfy the requirement to go through the approved FAA course. I am pretty sure @ZapBrannigan had to go through a full initial at his current employer even though he has a type. Protect the investment is a cheap argument especially when companies consider employees liabilities instead of assets.
 
amorris311 said:
I could have a type for every airplane flown at each individual company. That still does not satisfy the requirement to go through the approved FAA course. I am pretty sure @ZapBrannigan had to go through a full initial at his current employer even though he has a type. Protect the investment is a cheap argument especially when companies consider employees liabilities instead of assets.
Click to expand...
What you pilots do if UA DL FEDex UPS etc all started this? It's like any other contract. Read it understand it. Then decide to sign or not. What is the unions' stance on training contracts? I know you see it more outside 121 but there is some in 121. So the real problem is that the FAA doesn't see a type as part of initial training?
 
ComplexHiAv8r said:
What you pilots do if UA DL FEDex UPS etc all started this? It's like any other contract. Read it understand it. Then decide to sign or not. What is the unions' stance on training contracts? I know you see it more outside 121 but there is some in 121. So the real problem is that the FAA doesn't see a type as part of initial training?
Click to expand...
The FAA sees types as part of initial training. The thing is SWA, UAL, and DAL fly the same plane and differently. The FAA approves specific opspecs for these companies and they must comply with them. I think SWA makes you get the type to ensure they can train you. I think this goes way back though. Others can correct me if I'm wrong.
 
killbilly said:
Who cares if it's enforceable or not? You're signing your name - which is an accepted symbol of your integrity - to an agreement. Doesn't that matter most?
Click to expand...

I think this attitude is outdated. This is a business decision and not some code of honor.

Aviation companies enter contracts with pilots, unions and other businesses all the time. When things go south they sometimes BREAK their word or contract. They negotiate what's best for them. Sometimes that means furloughing pilots or declaring bankruptcy.

Why don't pilots do the same? If a job ends up not being not profitable for you then you should get out if you need to. Some people have families to feed.
 
Krieger said:
I think this attitude is outdated. This is a business decision and not some code of honor.

Aviation companies enter contracts with pilots, unions and other businesses all the time. When things go south they sometimes BREAK their word or contract. They negotiate what's best for them. Sometimes that means furloughing pilots or declaring bankruptcy.

Why don't pilots do the same? If a job ends up not being not profitable for you then you should get out if you need to. Some people have families to feed.
Click to expand...

Y'know, I shouldn't be so binary or black-and-white on everything - because in certain cases I can agree with what you're saying. There are scumbag employers who do exploit their people and, yeah, I can see a training contract being an untenable albatross for some folks.

Context matters, I guess. If an employer is a good one, who creates as good an environment as can be reasonably expected, then I can understand wanting to protect the investment in a type rating or other specialized training that happens to be portable to another job. I think that's the point that @ComplexHiAv8r was trying to make - contracts are supposed to be entered into in good faith. If someone enters into a training contract knowing that they plan to break it as soon as they get what they want - well, that's the thing I would never do and that's the behavior I find troubling.

You make a good point, though, Krieger. It would seem that there should be some language in these types of agreements that allows for re-negotiation or outright dissolution if there is a problem with the working conditions.
 
Krieger said:
Aviation companies enter contracts with pilots, unions and other businesses all the time. When things go south they sometimes BREAK their word or contract. They negotiate what's best for them. Sometimes that means furloughing pilots or declaring bankruptcy.
Click to expand...

It happens more than people might think. Ask the ASA guys and gals how their deadheads on the last leg back to base is going right now. It's part of a contract that is being broken as we speak.
 
killbilly said:
Context matters, I guess. If an employer is a good one, who creates as good an environment as can be reasonably expected, then I can understand wanting to protect the investment in a type rating or other specialized training that happens to be portable to another job.
Click to expand...


This is where I don't have a problem signing a contract. When I started at my company, I had to sign a contract holding me there for 18 months. My reason for signing at the time was that I knew the history of the company well. They provided decent income and a good QOL, while having a good reputation (and even if I wanted to leave I didn't have enough hours to really go anywhere else at the time). Likewise, if a new employer with a good reputation came my way and offered me a job/type rating that provided me with good pay and QOL, but I had to sign a contract, I would absolutely do it again. I think in that scenario, contracts can help both parties involved.

The problem I have is with places like an airline wanting signed deals, and I agree 100% with Krieger when he stated that it's business, not honor. I have to maintain a roof over my head, and gas in my car. If a company can't provide me with enough income for that, no way am I going to stick it out. Now others will say that you should do research before signing a contract, which is absolutely correct, however not everyone has a choice as to where they want to work. If a pilot has no money coming in, maybe not current and has only gotten a callback from a company like Republic for example (Who have a 2yr contract), what choice would they have, other than to sign? But if within a year that pilot finds better work, something that allows him and his family a much higher QOL, I wouldn't look down on them at all for choosing to break a contract.
 
mshunter said:
It happens more than people might think. Ask the ASA guys and gals how their deadheads on the last leg back to base is going right now. It's part of a contract that is being broken as we speak.
Click to expand...
Fly it now, grieve it later.

Retired in SAN said:
What do they say opinions are like? Other than everybody has one.
Click to expand...
If you didn't want a bunch of opinions, why did you ask? :)

amorris311 said:
I could have a type for every airplane flown at each individual company. That still does not satisfy the requirement to go through the approved FAA course. I am pretty sure @ZapBrannigan had to go through a full initial at his current employer even though he has a type. Protect the investment is a cheap argument especially when companies consider employees liabilities instead of assets.
Click to expand...
Typed or not, you're getting a full course anyway when you switch carriers. It really is a "cost of doing business."

My employer expects to lose pilots to other carriers. Part of that is our position on the "pecking order" and part of that is an acknowledgment that we have a portable workforce. They do restrict you from changing airplanes willy-nilly, but they're not going to throw a temper tantrum if you take your training and experience and get a new job elsewhere. (Something about getting your money's worth comes to mind...rest assured, they get their money's worth too. It's a mutually beneficial arrangement.)
 
SeanD said:
Disclaimer: If you start a thread with a slightly controversial nature, expect numerous opinions.
Click to expand...
duty_calls.png
 
I don't have a problem signing a contract at a good company. I think anything longer than a year is stupid, as you have to go to reccurrent in a year as an FO anyway. You can tell pretty quickly if a company is making you sign a contract as a deterrent to leave, or if they are just asking you to commit because they are investing a lot of money into something that can be widely used somewhere else. But at AMF, they want a year contract because they give you a week of training in a PA31, give me a freaking break. And people break training contracts at AMF almost daily...
 
Just throwing some more info out there. The FAA doesn't require Part 91 flight departments to require specific company training. Typed and current you can hop in the seat. Because of this you see Part 91 departments require types a lot of the time.

Training contracts for an initial type rating suck but I get the need. The one I can't stand is training contracts for recurrent training. You basically can't leave a company without paying something.

Full disclosure I left 6 months into my 1 year training contract at Ameriflight. They didn't even bring it up in my exit interview, they just wanted to sit down with me and figure out how to improve things at my base so it didn't happen again. It was a good experience for all involved I believe. I even brought up that they should probably make people sign the contracts prior to actually starting training. I didn't get mine until after they had already spent money on me. I probably could have thrown it away at the time but I was trying to be a good little boy.
 
mshunter said:
For a PA31!
Click to expand...

I was a PA31 instructor in 2004/2005, at that time we had a high number of applicants come in and back then give a verbal agreement that they would be around for a year. More than 50% of these individuals never had any intent on staying, it was a means to get their multi time to get on at skyw or horizon.

After that the written agreement started, you might be surprised to learn that with the amount of offline training required in the PA31 prior to the checkride that the cost of training an individual is almost in line with a turbine aircraft.
 
spbrian said:
I was a PA31 instructor in 2004/2005, at that time we had a high number of applicants come in and back then give a verbal agreement that they would be around for a year. More than 50% of these individuals never had any intent on staying, it was a means to get their multi time to get on at skyw or horizon.

After that the written agreement started, you might be surprised to learn that with the amount of offline training required in the PA31 prior to the checkride that the cost of training an individual is almost in line with a turbine aircraft.
Click to expand...

Then you guys were doing it wrong. WAY wrong. I flew a PA31 for a while, in a 135 outfit. It's not a hard airplane to learn. I also did some of the training for a guy on these forums, and it wasn't hard, and he did great. If it's costing as much to train a guy in a turbine, either your turbine training is lacking, or your piston twin training is way over the top.
 
mshunter said:
Then you guys were doing it wrong. WAY wrong. I flew a PA31 for a while, in a 135 outfit. It's not a hard airplane to learn. I also did some of the training for a guy on these forums, and it wasn't hard, and he did great. If it's costing as much to train a guy in a turbine, either your turbine training is lacking, or your piston twin training is way over the top.
Click to expand...

We all get a paycheck from operating somebody else's property the way they want it operated. When we get to own the property and write the paychecks then we get to decide how they those machines get operated. I have been on all of the sides of that coin.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top