Why you should pay for your endorsement!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: australia
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why you should pay for your endorsement!
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?
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?
Guest
Posts: n/a
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?
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?
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Join Date: May 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: back to the land of small pay and big bills
Age: 50
Posts: 1,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Mydadsbag
Posts: 1,113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Mydadsbag
Posts: 1,113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: May 2002
Location: WA
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 .
)
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 .
)
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.
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.
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.
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.
TL
Join Date: May 2005
Location: DOWNUNDER
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Stormy
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Australia, and I love it!!
Posts: 299
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Perth WA
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What are the facts.
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
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
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.
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.