PDA

View Full Version : Why you should pay for your endorsement!


ginjockey
8th Jul 2005, 02:55
This is probably a topic that will attract abuse and anger from some of you out there but it's always healthy to balance out one's perspective. This is not just an attempt to wind people up so if you choose to respond to the contaray, make it clear and convincing.

Is it not actually sensible and fair to expect that pilots do pay for their own endorsements these days? From a company perspective, it saves any operator a fortune in training costs and as there seems to be no shortage of pilots who happily agree to pay for their endorsements, why would a company not take advantage of this and invest the significant funds it saves in training costs into other capital and company expansion.

Let's face it, a big part of the reason that pilots are today expected to pay for their endorsements stems from the fact that pilots are just too fast to get trained and leave a few weeks later when their next big job offer comes along. That leaves the company out of pocket and still needing pilots. From a business perspective, that sucks.

As mentioned above, the fact that pilots do now accept that they will pay for endorsements onto turbines proves that the concept does have merit and is here to stay.

Thoughts, comments?

tinpis
8th Jul 2005, 03:17
Years ago tin was bonded on by a pommy mob for three years as i recall.
I didnt have any problem with it they helped with licence and citizen etc so I dont see the problem there.they paid ok and on the dot and by and large where a fun place to work.
What I think is happening now is daddy is getting hit for the bucks for an endorsement so sonny jim can get an interview?
That sucks.
What if the company doing the interviews is selling endorsements as well? :hmm:

56P
8th Jul 2005, 03:20
GJ,

As you say, this topic is very likely to attract comments from both sides of the fence. I've been in the industry for 30+ years from GA to military to GA to airlines - in that order.

Your suggestion does have some merit in that it would help marginal operators to survive. Perhaps, however, the pilot who pays for his / her endorsement should attract a contract that guarantees reimbursement of the cost of the endorsement after completion of two years service. Is that not a win-win situation?

NZLeardriver
8th Jul 2005, 03:29
This thread is going to be interesting.....

When the employer pays for the training, as they should, the employee has some level of obligation to them. This should be paid out by working for them, not in cash.

The employers that poach freshly typed pilots, knowing that they are leaving the previous employer in the hole (financially and down a pilot) are the ones creating the problems. It is just another way to hurt the competition. However they will then be left in the lurch when the pilots gets another, better offer. How can they then trust their pilot when they have encouraged his previous desertion?

If the companies themselves are good companies, pay fairly and on time, look after their people, then they will be respected in turn and will reap the profits from investment in employees.

Daddy buying an interview and then a job is just wrong.

chimbu warrior
8th Jul 2005, 04:05
I don't think that Virgin or Jetstar (much less their parent company) are "marginal" operators, yet they are effectively the pace-setters in this trend.

I do feel sorry for the NJS blokes who were effectively shanghaied into this by QF who, (via a competing offer from Jetstar) left little option if the NJS pilots wanted to keep their jobs.

I too have been bonded in the past, and was quite willing to accept that. What irks me now is that, after 30 years in aviation, I just may have to buy my own rating in order to get a decent job. Worse still, I will get no relief from the ATO in terms of a tax deduction.

mattyj
8th Jul 2005, 05:52
You've got to be kidding me, I've paid 90K or so, thus far to get myself trained up to their required standard..the airlines surely should count themselves lucky to not have to pay that..the way training costs are skyrocketing, this batch of recruits will be one of the last they get so easily...the future will lie in cadetships I reckon.

Plus the pay scales are all wrong...instructors should earn more..light turbine pilots should get more too, I mean who has the higher workload.

And anyone flying single pilot, light twin, IF charter etc should get a Knighthood.

Mr.Buzzy
8th Jul 2005, 06:01
Chimbu,
Im pretty sure that the ATO will recognize your endorsement cost as a deduction. If you need further info, contacting the AFAP may help clarify test case outcomes etc for you.
Cheers

bbbbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzzbbbbbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzz

chimbu warrior
8th Jul 2005, 06:50
Mr Buzzy,

Whilst I am no tax expert, people that are have advised me that buying an endorsement to GET a job does not qualify. On the other hand (as in the case of the NJS pilots), buying an endorsement to KEEP a job probably does.

I am also informed that with one exception, recent VB new-hires have not been able to claim the endorsement as a deduction. The exception apparently went to court with the ATO, but settled out of court, and reportedly did get to claim the cost.

Mr.Buzzy
8th Jul 2005, 09:25
Chimbu,
Yes it's been one of those curly ones. The last explanation to me was that if you are already employed in the industry when handing over the cheque ( so to speak ) then your training is seen as just that... .Training for the betterment of your profession. I realize there have been numerous threads on the topic so perhaps my understanding has been blurred by reading soooo many different opinions and interpretations.
I'm afraid I have no clue when it comes to moving back to the Australian tax system from overseas.
Cheers

bbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

YBRM
8th Jul 2005, 09:45
The fact that pilots today have to part with BIG bucks to get type endorsements in 'large' companies is mind boggling. You may argue that these training costs are re invested back into the company. I say crap, and that these funds are used to fill the pockets of big arse execs. The employee is unlikely to get any real benefit apart from reduced pay and working conditions....I don't think anyone can deny this is the case in aviation today.

The bond system I do however agree with, but it needs to be a fair system. How companies can justify charging pilots for a turboprop endorsement the same as you would pay for a B737 just doesn't make sense to me. Charge for what the actual costs are to the company, not also try and make a profit out of his termination of employment.

If only managers could focus just a little more on looking after their employees and not just concentrating on max profits AND exploiting their staff with regard pay, you would find there would be a lot more stability as far as employees go (and less court cases . :} )

Sue Ridgepipe
8th Jul 2005, 10:38
I have to agree with YBRM that the bond option is a much better alternative. However I think you will find they will become a thing of the past in the not too distant future due to a recent court case over a bond.

Apparently a pilot was trained on a dash8 at the company's expense and she happily signed up for a bond, but after gaining some experience on type it opened up an opportunity with a regional airline that operates the same type, which she naturally jumped at. She then decided that she didn't want to pay the previously agreed to bond, so the case went to court, and said pilot was victorious.

I am not taking sides here, but I think this type of behaviour has hastened the introduction of the pay-for-training scenario we now see very prevalent on Oz aviation.

Transition Layer
9th Jul 2005, 02:03
From a company perspective, it saves any operator a fortune in training costs and as there seems to be no shortage of pilots who happily agree to pay for their endorsements, why would a company not take advantage of this and invest the significant funds it saves in training costs into other capital and company expansion.

In my opinion, any company that cannot afford training costs is obviously not charging enough for their services. Training is an expense that will always be associated with running a business, whether it be an aviation charter company, an IT company or whatever. It WILL affect the company's bottom line and should be accounted for accordingly in pricing.

I have never paid for an endorsement apart from my initial multi. I have recently signed a bond for a rather substantial amount of time and money, but of course it is a fair option. No pilot should ever object to signing a bond if he/she is committed to the task.

Perhaps if your boss says "Hey ginjockey, if you go get yourself a Metro endorsement I'll make you an F/O and looks like you could be a skipper in a year", why not reply with "Ok boss, how about you pay for my endorsement and I'll give you that year's service (and more)".

It's a win win situation. He's got your employment for another year or more, and you've got your endorsement without being out of pocket. In a year's time you're not as likely to leave are you, because you're now a Captain.

And finally, don't forget what the award says folks :

19.1 Where the employer requires a pilot to reach and maintain minimum qualifications for a particular aircraft type...all facilities and other costs associated with attaining and maintaining those qualifications will be the responsibility of the employer.

That means all renewals, endorsements, recency etc. There are operators out there who do this and they are the ones who have been operating for years and remain financially viable.

TL

Bongo Bus Driver
9th Jul 2005, 02:15
Do other professionals have to pay for the training they receive once they are employed by a company. Take the army for instance. Imagine if we suddenly required people to pay for a tank rating before we interviewed them.

The problem is that once a person has spent the 90k mattyj is talking about then it is hard to not spend a bit more to get some form a return on the investment. Especially if you are a GA pilot who just wants to get a job flying an aircraft that is less likely to fall apart on you.

TheStormyPetrel
9th Jul 2005, 14:59
Sue Ridgepipe I wonder if you are referring to the case of McLennan v Surveillance Australia.

That case is not going to prevent bonding. The point in that case was that the employer and the employee were operating under an Australian Workplace Agreement (an AWA) (and an Award, as it happens) which did not cover the bonding arrangement that they agreed to separately and later.

The bond agreement was agreed between the employer and employee outside and separately to the AWA. If it had been included in the original AWA, or as a variation to the AWA, by submitting it to the Employment Advocate and it being accepted, then it would have been enforced. As it was, it didn't bind the employee legally, primarily because it was not a part of the AWA. Consequently she was able to walk away without paying anything.

The lesson is that varing the terms and conditions of employment of employees who are already parties to an AWA (or a certified agreement) may not be binding if the agreements are not varied in accordance with the law.

This is a simplified explanation to suit this situation. If anyone wants to read the case, you'll find it here (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCAFC/2005/46.html)

Capt Claret
9th Jul 2005, 16:47
Petrel,

That's interesting information.

What about the morality of signing a bond and then finding a loophole to get out of it?

TheStormyPetrel
10th Jul 2005, 00:35
Good heavens. I was talking about the legal position, not the ethical position. Let's not get confused here!

YBRM
12th Jul 2005, 05:35
MORALS still exist in this industry do they ????

Bugger me, I must have blinked and gone straight passed 'em !!:p

Richo
12th Jul 2005, 07:05
Gin

The statement you make about the reason for "payed endorsments" just don't add up.

The facts don't support your case.

Do you know for a FACT that companies are charging for endorsments, so that the training cost are relived and utilised elswhere, or is this something you have "HEARD".
In other words are you sprooking for managment, or are you justifying your case.

Lets have a think about this :

1. Pilots have always left companies for a vast number of reasons. It is no worse now that it has been for MANY years.
But paying for endorsments is new.

2. Just what is the actual number of pilots leaving after endorsment vs those that stay to work off thier "moral" obligation.
Do you have figures or is this an assumption on your part. I don't have figures, but from (a rather lot of) experiance, I find it to be quite low. This is not from BELIEF but real company operating data over 6 years.
It is my experiance that people leave companies due to dissatisfaction (for whatever reason) rather than going on to bigger and better things.

3. Operators that do pay for pilot training are still in the majority. If the problem is so dire then why don't they all do it.

4. Operators with good conditions (pay, leave etc) do trend to keep crew longer, than poor condition operators.

5. 10(?) years ago bonds were going to stop the pilots from leaving. But has it. We even see court cases lost, even though there were different circumstances in that case.

Given the above, it would appear that the decision to charge for endorsments stems more from a economic money saving culture, rather than from pilot retention problems.

It is my BELIEF that companies charging for endorsments are doing so on purely economic grounds. To say otherwise seems to be some sort of justification, either for not wanting to see the truth or accepting someonelses lie.

Companies that charge for endorsmets are generating a greater problem with both thier culture and probable pilot retention. At least with the bond system (most) pilots do feel an obligation for return of service or accept a cost. But if you pay for the endorsment then there is little keeping you there, no (little) respect or consideration for the company as they have shown little for you.

Are people paying for endorsment helping the industry?, or are that just like the bond jumpers and doing harm to us all in another way.

If you decide to pay for your endorsment then good for you, but have a think about how you really feel about your new employer and what they think of you.

NOT FOR ME.

Richo

Col. Walter E. Kurtz
12th Jul 2005, 08:01
MORALITY?????


Hahahahahahhaha

in this game???

Hahahahahaha

Claret, stop, you're KILLING me!:=

neville_nobody
12th Jul 2005, 09:15
The only reason that companies charge for training is because they can. If every pilot in the country blacklisted, for example, QantasLink then they would have to change their arrangements. Since they probably have hundreds of suitably qulaifield applicants for very few positions I would suggest that pay for training will remain.

One thing I did notice in the Four Corners Doco was the comments about the very inexperienced copilots and how this was legal. The Transair director response was that major airlines have copilots with LESS experience than the guy that crashed at Lochart River. Maybe CASA can help us out here by upping the experience requirements for copilots and getting rid of cadets and low time pilots buying their way through the industry.

Capt Claret
12th Jul 2005, 12:48
Lucky I've got a thick skin....

I don't like the trend towards paying for endorsements but I can understand some of the argument in favour.

I do find it interesting that much is said on these fora about a company's responsibility to its employees, and how they should pay for the training costs, and how if they treated us better we'd all be happy and stay for ever.

But naff all is mentioned about our reciprocal responsibilty to give a fair return of service.

Who knows, maybe if there wasn't a history of folks leaving for greener pastures shortly after accepting the training dollars, and I can think of many in just the 10 years of service with my current employer, then just maybe we wouldn't be in the position of having to pay for endorsements now.

Maybe we would but will we ever know?

1013
12th Jul 2005, 22:47
It gets to the stage where the question amongst recruiters will be, " this guy is a far better candidate but cannot afford the endorsement but this guy wont make as good an employee and his Daddy is loaded......."

Which decision do you think the company will make?

By employing only those that can afford the endorsement does not put all pilots on an equal footing.
Just ask that individual that has a wife and kids, possibly a mortgage and no hope of an extra $25,000 loan.
What hope does he have?

In essence in this case that individual is effectively being discriminated against for commercial reasons and the fact that he/she cannot afford an endorsement.

I agree that if it is to be done that the bonding system is a better answer.
Leave within say 3-5 years and the company will zap you for an agreed amount (pro-rated of course).

Otherwise I believe the "pay for your own endorsement" to be a flawed system that discriminates against those that cannot for whatever reason afford it.

Imagine in Australia having to "pay" for a job in say the public service or the military?
What about having to pay a tradesman money to become an apprentice?
How long would that be tolerated by mainstream society.

Get real here guys.

FYC
13th Jul 2005, 07:00
Hi Guys

I have just received an invitation to participate in stage two, and am seriously contemplating whether I really want to continue with the application.
I am married with child and no mortgage, yet still really can't afford the endorsement, especially as I really only wanted to stay flying those aircraft for maximum five years before maybe stepping up (and then needing to pay for another endorsement!)



:confused:

Mr.Buzzy
13th Jul 2005, 07:41
1013,
Get real yourself! What about the person that has all the great qualities of a fine pilot but can't get the dollars for a CPL and IREX?

Bear in mind the whole supply and demand idea! Companies will shaft employees any which way they can to improve their bottom line. ANY EMPLOYEES.... The sooner pilots realize that they are employees just like everyone else and not removed from any of these games the sooner we can move on and bury these pointless threads!

I mean honestly.... Can you see us going on strike? bwahhhahahah.... U think management aren't having a great old laugh at us?...."Hahaha EBA..... What are they gonna do?...go on strike?"

Airlines once sponsored cadets, paid for instrument ratings, paid for SCPL subjects, issued Navbags, blah blah blah. It dont happen no more and dont expect it to improve until the goverment does something about workers coming to OZ at any cost We can expect the locals to follow suit and then we can all sit back and watch our cashcow keel over and die!

Sure play your games, refuse to sign a bond, dont pay for an endorsement, whatever. There will be a thousand Kiwis just lining up to do what you refuse to do!

So take your pick, feed your family after paying a tax deductible training fee or watch our kiwi mates live the life at bondi while you stay "moral" living in blacktown with 3 other Dash8 FOs!


bbbbbbbzzzzzzzzbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Gnadenburg
13th Jul 2005, 10:38
Mr Buzzy

Do you have to pay for sex too?

You sure do need to get the buy a job stigma of your chest don't you?

At least have a crack at upholding conditions of service. Waving the white flag so willingly to justify your own circumstances, the veritable cop out for the rest of us having a bit of a go.

Chilli Muscle
26th Jul 2005, 13:07
Paying for airline endorsements to obtain employment is just another way of lowering the bar.
It must give them a good laugh in the boardrooms.
Hands up! - Who wants to pay the company to let you fly their aircraft.
Bloody comical when you think about it but it does make for some good performance bonuses.
And if their stupid enough to do that give them a 50% pay cut , up the hours, dress them in uniforms out of a corn flakes packet and get them to pay for them.

Now - where is that performance bonus. We have saved millions and would like to keep a couple of them.

Keep up the good work - people rely on those 50 dollar seats.

Alistair
26th Jul 2005, 18:29
Hey Chilli, speaking of performance bonus'. And this is copyrighted in 2 hemispheres, only take skippers who are willing to pay for a rating, pay em 10-15% more than what they get now and lose the guy in the right seat altogether. These things are so easy to fly nowadays single crew boeingbus shouldn't be a problem, or if you must, just grab a grade 3 instructor from down the scare-o-club and have him fork over some cash to operate the radio, he'll have a radio licence (seen one you seen them all) and nothing better to do, maybe make him pay for the seat too ! 15 bucks a sector or something should be about right :ok:

psycho joe
27th Jul 2005, 00:43
Why stop at making pilot's pay for their endorsement training?

As this practice doesn't inspire loyalty, surely the next step is to bond pilots on top of this.

And why stop there? I'm sure there are pilots who would pay for the privilege of FO time.

While you're at it, pilot's will pay for uniforms, crew meals, car parking, and on going check and training.

So...what's wrong with making pilot's Pay for endorsement training???

flyby_kiwi
27th Jul 2005, 10:34
So its from an economic viewpoint that there is a requirement to pay for the training? Hmmmmm?

Lets take a job with a fairly reputable 135 operator (training paid for by the company)..... A couple of type ratings on company a/c, a few hours famil. on said types, accociated comp checks lets say $4-5k

Take a job with a buy your own rating on a turbine of sorts.... How bout instead of having to pay the 10k endo. the operator states is due to economics, they pay 5k you pay 5k, surely they are not mis-managed to the point the cannot even match what the GA operator is paying?????
Alternatively how bout..... "We arent financially strong and have a high staff turn over for whaterver reason" Well give you the endorsement, and pay you 45kgross p.a. but take off 5k per year till 10k is paid back?

Better still - go the bond.

1013
27th Jul 2005, 13:19
Gnadenburg - good analogy about Mr Buzzy having to pay for sex also!

Psycho Joe hit the nail on the head when he stated the point that next, people such as Mr Buzzy (sadly no longer tolerated on this forum) will be expected to pay for uniforms, crew meals, airport parking as well as paying a privilege to fly the bosses aircraft!!!!

I suppose Mr Buzzy will gladly endorse these practices and assume the position willingly!
While we're at it why dont we get Flight Attendants and Engineers to pay for their training also!!!
Where does it all end???

I stand by my reasonable argument that the bonding system is much more practical, reasonable and fair.

Companies that expect pilots to pay for their endorsements must be rubbing their hands together thinking that pilots are fools and will treat them accordingly.

Chris Higgins
27th Jul 2005, 13:42
At Netjets we are still "paying" for the sins of the past.

Netjets used to be a Pay For Training (PFT) operation and in the late '90s they stopped doing it due to the low participation rate and low average experience levels they were getting.

The problem is that we still aren't getting paid fair market value for our services, and many of the PFT pilots are really now only aware of the damage they did by paying $8,000 plus for a $28,000 starting salary on a Citation II. Many of these same crew now see NBAA salaries up in the $US130,000 for a base salary on a Citation X.

What will happen in Australia is exactly the same as happened here at Netjets. We now have to make an enormous effort to restore the balance with a concerted effort on the part of our union. The management obviously cannot believe that we all want to make six figures and only time will tell if this works out, or if we end up going on strike.

Its possible to make good overtime rates here at Netjets and if you do, you can make good money, but never be home.

We are still having many experienced applicants turn down job offers here due to the terrible starting salary and our company has now reached a point where we are short staffed.

This whole debacle started with pilots who paid for a job, believing their skills were worth next to nothing, who just wanted to say they flew a jet for a living. It has been a thorn in the side of every operator in the country since.

TIMMEEEE
28th Jul 2005, 01:16
This whole debacle started with pilots who paid for a job, believing their skills were worth next to nothing, who just wanted to say they flew a jet for a living. It has been a thorn in the side of every operator in the country since.

Here, here.
Well said Chris.

YBRM
28th Jul 2005, 02:23
Give it time folks, as I believe there are already a number of "low cost" airlines in the UK who charge their crews for all their training and checking requirements. Only a matter of time before aussie management realise that they can start using that process here to.

Imagine........there you are; 10 years with an airline, do your prof check in a sim only to recieve a bill for $2500 a week later. How about five hunjie for an EP's renewal ?? Or better still, three hunjie to have an amendment service on your ops manuals !!

:yuk: :yuk:

U2
28th Jul 2005, 10:27
1013

You say'what would happen if government personnel had to pay for there training. Fair enough question, but if the entire government went on strike then the tax payer would have to fit the bill, otherwise we would end up like the Phillipines and have a corrupt government. Anyway, what if all the G.A and regional pilots went on strike..what would happen?....I'll tell you...NOTHING. NOT the people, NOT the government would prop up G.A. They would keep there major airlines going in a crisis and leave the rest to rot. The people of this country are more concerned with Health care and house prices/interest rates...then the national transportation system.

Let me give you an example. What members of the community stand up for the conditions of doctors and truck drivers. NOBODY!... they both work terrible hours. I can't think of one person I have ever meet who would rather go hungry or get stranded; as a result of a shortage of fuel or food; in order to let the POOR truck drivers work an 8 hour day rather than a 22 hour shift. Likewise with doctors.

....Humm, nurse I'll just sit outside and bleed to death just so your "doctor on call" can complete his 8 hour rest period!

Back to the topic!

The problem here is that the employers are suffering just as the employees are. When was the last time the cost of doing aviation business actually dropped. The government keeps administering more red tape and it is the operator who has to fit the bill. This is simply a matter of employees having to chip in.

The unfortunate issue is that when people get TAXED and administereed too much they throw their MORALS out the window.

The winners in this are those who have short-term interests in aviation..like executives, government employees and shareholders. It is the dedicated workers and owners who fail to benefit. Thats capitalism.


Pilots paying for endorsements is a product of a segregated industry and no political/community concern for the viability of Australian aviation.

I'm sure those that survive this next twenty years are going to be large concerns with good business managers. I can't see small business in aviation getting any relief.

As for my opinion on paying for an endorsement and bonding! Well I think it is a matter of choice for the individual.

There was a time when you had job security just because you were a hard worker....there was also a time when a gentlemans agreement was his reputation...now it is just a simple handshake...doesn't mean much!

Its just a sign of the times folkes!

My two cents

U2

psycho joe
29th Jul 2005, 09:46
IMHO This whole argument about paying for endorsements versus bonding is completely missing the point. No matter how hard you try you can't force someone to be loyal.

If you look after your pilots with good T&C then you wouldn't need to force/bond/entrap pilots into some sort of loyalty facade.

Even the Us army are learning that no matter how often you hit people with a rifle butt, kick down their door and threaten to shoot their missus......Some of them still wont be grateful.

pakeha-boy
27th Aug 2005, 21:33
maattj.....like my dad used to say mate....Hand of your cock...feet in your socks!!!!!...who made you pay the 90k for your flight training....if it was the mongrel mob then you are forgiven....other than that it is your choice,aviation owes you nothing.....like the rest of us,do your time, dont scab,and enjoy what you are doing.....digging holes for the city council sucks!!!!!!.....I could tell you a few stories myself,but pissing into the wind gets you soaked ......I been held to several training contracts,that have never been enfoceable,but the ones Ive had,Ive done the proper thing by staying until Id completed my terms,nobody forced me to signed the dotted line......Ireckon it all boils down to the type of person/pilot you are......the "knighthood" thing.....how about a hand job....you have to be joking...kia kaha

botero
28th Aug 2005, 09:20
I think it would be only reasonable to ask for the same loyalty and commitment from all employees in an organisation - including management.

Management positions often have quite a high turnover due to new executives arriving from an unrelated field, then seeing out a short stint, getting the best they can for themselves and then quickly moving onto a different, unrelated next job they promises them greener pastures - I believe they should have to pay for their own endorsement to be trained and 'proficient' in their 'airline management position' from the moment they set foot in the company. Without this 'recognised training they would be ineligible for a position in airline management. I guarantee that it would stop the normal flow through of the pig’s snouts in the troughs for a big feed before quickly moving onto the next trough!!

Maybe we could have management bonded for a period that is commensurate with the amount of bonus that they took so they can give some service to the company?

Just another perspective.

jettlager
28th Aug 2005, 10:16
botero,
works for me.....

relax737
28th Aug 2005, 12:27
I was chatting with a senior QF Capt recently at a social function, and he advised that QF recruits will be required to pay for their initial endorsement in the not too distant future. Upgrades will be met by the company.

In QF's defence, if a company is seeking, say, a vet with particular experience, they expect that he will have that experience, or will secure it at his expense. Simple, so why should pilots be any different.
I don't agree with it, but I see it going that way. Fortunately I don't have too many years left in this pharqed industry

pakeha-boy
28th Aug 2005, 16:25
could,nt agree more with the previous posts.....the company I am with now has no training contract....the type rating on the A-320 they tell me is worth about $60,000 all up ...ie ground school,sim time,type check,I.O.E...they have asked for nothing,the only restriction being a freeze on that equipment for 2 yrs,,...that being based on the fact that is how long it will take to get there $dosh$ back plus some....if you leave you leave ...with the type!!!!!trainning contracts have been around for years,regional airlines have had them but enforcement has always been hard......and you are right ,you a seeing a lot more....why....obviously the cost,and secondly,not all but many pilots have taken the training and run...you can only get burnt so many times.....take a good look at Southwest Airlines.....you must be typed in the 737 to even get an interview...who pays for that? ....the pilots do!!!! a small price to pay for a good paying,dedicated pilot group.......true,they are few and far between.....for those of us who have been flying for 20+ yrs,..the attitude has always been.....they pay,we dont...they are bloody lucky to have us(guilty as charged)...those days are gone ........what I see happening now is.....eg I had a young fella (f/0) last week.....low time(2900Hrs..TT)$80,000 in dept due to his training,uiniverity studies,etc,etc etc....pissing and moaning that he has done his time and should be in the left seat NOW!!!!!.....THIS BLOKE WILL DO ANYTHING TO GET TO THE LEFT SEAT.....this profession is losing its loyalty and respect because of the conditions these types of blokes are placing on themselves.....I dont belive this is the case for the majority,but there is a huge minority,guilty of this........personally I detest training contracts,but they at least provide short-lived loyalty....whether you agree or not,that is the state a lot of you/me are in......kia kaha :yuk:

haughtney1
28th Aug 2005, 17:43
Ultimately its about the bottom line...the bean-counters know full well there are plenty of wannabes who would give their left nut if they could to get a right or left seat...hence in europe lo-co's, and FTO's offer you the "chance" to buy a job..as long as you pass the "tests"..and can come up with the cash..then your told..there is no guarantee of a job, but that you've got a better chance than someone who isnt typed.
Personally I dont have a problem being bonded, I understand the commercial realities of training costs and staff retention..and its how I got my first jet job. Pilots being pilots however i.e. competitive, selfish, confident, and ambitious, never stick together..so for any given situation..there will always be individuals who will throw money at the problem in the hope that it will buy them a job..sadly it seems to be that way at the moment.
If everyone turned down an offer to pay for a type-rating..then carriers would be forced to bond people...instead of taking your cash.

Shagtastic
28th Aug 2005, 23:25
Just say no.

Any airline without new recruits or pilots is stuffed.

Virgin Blue, jetstar etc etc, can stick there strategic aspirations up their rectum without pilots to fly their planes.

When will the average pilot realise this? When asked to pay for a rating just tell them to stick it, things will change very fast indeed if our pilot community grasp this fact.

relax737
29th Aug 2005, 00:10
shagtastic, forget it. It's not reality. This situation has ALWAYS existed, but right now it's becoming more widespread.

Suggesting that guys don't buy an endorsement is about as silly as kaptin m suggesting that pilots boycott Jet* when it kicked off unless they upped the $$.

Just say no,and you will just say no to a flyingjob, forever.

Won't happen in our lifetimes, or for the next billion years.

404 Titan
29th Aug 2005, 00:36
relax737
Just say no,and you will just say no to a flyingjob, forever.
Bullshit. I told Impulse to take a flying leap, twice. You would have thought they would have learnt the first time. This never hindered my career. Infact it opened my eyes to the fact there are choices out there and I exercised that choice.

bushy
29th Aug 2005, 04:16
Try getting into the military, and getting training without signing a contract to stay for a certain period.

Shagtastic
29th Aug 2005, 09:26
relax737,

So we should all just bend over and say 'go easy please' according to your last post.

I know what I am suggesting is unlikely to happen but if the majority of us refused to pay for our ratings, either through hard cash or reduced pay sclaes over 2-3 years, then at least the situation will change.

It's only a matter of time before QF mainline ask you to pay for your 747 or A330 rating whatever.

I read earlier that QF regional is having to drop their $18K asking price for a Dash rating as they can't get new pilots.. it does work then.

In Europe the shortage of pilots is starting to bite so this factor will influence this appalling trend. Ryanair is now paying for Capatins 737 ratings and it was Ryanair that mastered profiteering off the staff.

Shags

pakeha-boy
29th Aug 2005, 15:26
shags mate....so true so true....ryan air is the exception rather than the rule,,,the fact that they are having a hard type finding jocks like you and I is not because of a training contracts,its because most dont or cant afford those types of debts.....there are thousands of foulouged pilots around,there is no shortage,most of the areas of shortage aRE positions nobody will take,...ie the pay and lifestyle SUCK!!!!!......the "new breed" of pilot coming out of these flight schools are being "conditioned" to training contracts....the fact that you can still tell someone to stick the training contract up their arse is great....free enterprise mate,.....you are well aware of the state of some of these air groups......my position now was a choice between a training contract v,s no contract....I took the no contract......maybe old school but the choice was mine.........the day we all make$$$$ the same for the same type of equipment and some form of retainer/contract.....is more reality than not......bottom line the choice is yours....like I said before pilots are the biggest sluts and whores around....the loss of loyalty and respect for ourselves has led to the positon we are in....only 13 yrs left to enjoy many Tui,s and some "corromandel Green".....kia kaha