TR costs, job offers...
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Worldwide
Posts: 1,468
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All true, in my opinion the way it should be is, company pays TR, normal salary, bonded for1- 2-3 years.
Unfortunately some took advantage of that in the past, this is one of the reasons we now have companies asking pilots to pay for the TR(I say again, ONE of the reasons)
Of course if you already have a rating you usually are in a stronger position contract wise, usually.
But here again, you have people accepting ridiculous salaries just to get the job, screwing up the market for everybody else.
Unfortunately some took advantage of that in the past, this is one of the reasons we now have companies asking pilots to pay for the TR(I say again, ONE of the reasons)
Of course if you already have a rating you usually are in a stronger position contract wise, usually.
But here again, you have people accepting ridiculous salaries just to get the job, screwing up the market for everybody else.
Last edited by flydive1; 15th Feb 2013 at 16:55.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: germany
Age: 52
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Company paid my TR but that was in the boomyear 2007...
Regarding the countries where I have been employed so far, I have the impression that, in the bizjet branch, in Germany, it is common to pay for your type rating whereas in Switzerland, the company covers the costs (bonding for 2-3 years).
What is it like in your country?
Cecco
Regarding the countries where I have been employed so far, I have the impression that, in the bizjet branch, in Germany, it is common to pay for your type rating whereas in Switzerland, the company covers the costs (bonding for 2-3 years).
What is it like in your country?
Cecco
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Near Stuttgart, Germany
Posts: 1,095
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
...in the bizjet branch, in Germany, it is common to pay for your type rating whereas in Switzerland, the company covers the costs (bonding for 2-3 years).
And regarding the bonding schemes: That was common here as well (and a real good thing in my opinion) until some dumbass idiots lawyered themselves out of their bonds to leave for greener pastures.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: uk
Age: 75
Posts: 588
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You have hit the nail on the head,. the pilot community has only itself to blame for the current situation. If smart pilot lawyers had not been so shortsighted in renaging on bonds it may be different.
Not withstanding the above, we have always paid for type ratings with no bond, but the new low time entrant must realise that he/she is not really very productive until they have reached 500 hours on type/18 months into the job. Getting youngsters to accept that they are a bit of a liability to begin with can be hard so we put them in the office for the first 1-2 years (as well as fly) to convert them from being simple pilots to operators ( world of difference between the two).
Unfortunatly for the hours builder the best candidate is the approved course route and the worst is the flight instructor. I think the reason for this is that flight instructors have been used to hours building for themselves and the student, so to have to accomplish anything quickly and efficiently does not come naturally.
I think our scheme works really quite well and eventually we produce a good operator who can do all the things that a lot of pilots feel is beneath them. (like booking hotels, calling for a taxi and even filing a flight plan). Our 3 Captains all started in this manner and I have every respect for their complete ability to do ALL the job, not just the bits they want to do.
Not withstanding the above, we have always paid for type ratings with no bond, but the new low time entrant must realise that he/she is not really very productive until they have reached 500 hours on type/18 months into the job. Getting youngsters to accept that they are a bit of a liability to begin with can be hard so we put them in the office for the first 1-2 years (as well as fly) to convert them from being simple pilots to operators ( world of difference between the two).
Unfortunatly for the hours builder the best candidate is the approved course route and the worst is the flight instructor. I think the reason for this is that flight instructors have been used to hours building for themselves and the student, so to have to accomplish anything quickly and efficiently does not come naturally.
I think our scheme works really quite well and eventually we produce a good operator who can do all the things that a lot of pilots feel is beneath them. (like booking hotels, calling for a taxi and even filing a flight plan). Our 3 Captains all started in this manner and I have every respect for their complete ability to do ALL the job, not just the bits they want to do.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: schermoney and left front seat
Age: 57
Posts: 2,438
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the pilot community has only itself to blame for the current situation.
I personally know 2 guys that did actually 'lawyered' their way out of a contract (same company) and the reason why they did so killed himself and their successor in a CFIT.
There are rotten apples in both baskets. Employers that have no decency whatsoever. Employees like the ones described by what next.
And nothing is just white or black.
As for your scheme: I like it, I did the same in my first job, from aircraft de-icing, cleaning, catering to office work. In between flying.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: uk
Age: 75
Posts: 588
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not saying that all pilots are barrack room lawyers but I do remember a thread on this forum about 6 years ago debating as to whether pilots should walk away from bonds and the concensus was very much for breaking the bond. Most pilots (not all) were of the opinion that employers were dirt rotten capatalists and just exploiting the pilot community and breaking the bond appeared to be a sort of revenge.
I can see both sides. I am a pilot/owner/employer (and one time employee). All I do know is that a good professional loyal pilot workforce is a company's greatest asset and looking after that asset is fundamental to having a profitable business. Perhaps that is why I am still in business after 38 years, albeit operating gereatric old Hawkers that so many pilots on this forum like to rubbish. I would like to point out that when said same pilots are offered a full time job with a free type rating and no bond our Hawkers suddenly seem to regain their youth!
I can see both sides. I am a pilot/owner/employer (and one time employee). All I do know is that a good professional loyal pilot workforce is a company's greatest asset and looking after that asset is fundamental to having a profitable business. Perhaps that is why I am still in business after 38 years, albeit operating gereatric old Hawkers that so many pilots on this forum like to rubbish. I would like to point out that when said same pilots are offered a full time job with a free type rating and no bond our Hawkers suddenly seem to regain their youth!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Near Stuttgart, Germany
Posts: 1,095
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
There is never a moral issue about paying off the remaining liability on a type rating bond and leaving...
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: uk
Age: 75
Posts: 588
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Joe
There certainly is a moral issue about paying off the bond. For small companies there is not only the financial burden of the training cost but also there is a huge amount in time and effort into getting a new pilot productive. He/she does not become productive untill about 500hours/18 months into the job. So to do that all over again if the person moves on is highly disruptive and costly. This probably does not affect large companies, but for us 1 pilot represents 16% of the pilot workforce and to loose one at short notice is highly disruptive. That is why I do not bother to bond. I do not want your "morally correct" guy to leave before he gets useful to us. Luckily for me no one ever has.
There certainly is a moral issue about paying off the bond. For small companies there is not only the financial burden of the training cost but also there is a huge amount in time and effort into getting a new pilot productive. He/she does not become productive untill about 500hours/18 months into the job. So to do that all over again if the person moves on is highly disruptive and costly. This probably does not affect large companies, but for us 1 pilot represents 16% of the pilot workforce and to loose one at short notice is highly disruptive. That is why I do not bother to bond. I do not want your "morally correct" guy to leave before he gets useful to us. Luckily for me no one ever has.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: chances are, not at home
Posts: 334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even better; your pilots like working for you and what you offer in exchange - The way it should be to keep people - You dont need bonds. But they are a legal way of amortising costs if people leave - That should be the sole purpose of a bond. Unfortunately poor employers do use them as a tool to drive down terms. The worst place I ever worked at used a £25,000 bond for 5 years (not for me thankfully), hoping no-one could afford to leave the very poor terms. Dozens did leave, nearly all scarpering and giving two fingers up to the bond (successfully in the end, because the bond was demonstrably excessive). So what did that company achieve? - If they had added the training and productivity losses to the pay packages instead, they would have been better off and kept happy staff.
However, sometimes people have to leave good companies for life reasons (eg spouse relocation), so there needs to be an out for them, and fair bonds ensure they cover costs. They needn't feel bad about it.
A sure fire way of having resentful and poor performing staff is to make them feel they are trapped there.
However, sometimes people have to leave good companies for life reasons (eg spouse relocation), so there needs to be an out for them, and fair bonds ensure they cover costs. They needn't feel bad about it.
A sure fire way of having resentful and poor performing staff is to make them feel they are trapped there.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Never paid for a TR and I don't think I ever would. The most have had to agree to was a 2 year bond and when that was up further TR with the same company were not bonded.
It cost us all enough to get to an employable point, why should we pay to work now?
It cost us all enough to get to an employable point, why should we pay to work now?
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: uk
Age: 75
Posts: 588
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bose
I agree with you. Let me re-emphasise , the major cost to me is not the $25,000 for the type rating course but the time and effort in bring that person up to the point where he can fly without a training Capt/line trainer. For a pilot in his first job this takes a huge amount of resources.
Consequently I alway turn down the wannabees who offer to pay for their own TR. These guys will probably walk away when something better turns up which is just what I do not need. Anyway, pilots should not pay for their T/R costs whether it is Ryanair, Easy or me. If pilots simply stopped doing it the industry would get better for all..
I agree with you. Let me re-emphasise , the major cost to me is not the $25,000 for the type rating course but the time and effort in bring that person up to the point where he can fly without a training Capt/line trainer. For a pilot in his first job this takes a huge amount of resources.
Consequently I alway turn down the wannabees who offer to pay for their own TR. These guys will probably walk away when something better turns up which is just what I do not need. Anyway, pilots should not pay for their T/R costs whether it is Ryanair, Easy or me. If pilots simply stopped doing it the industry would get better for all..
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: FL450
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have difficulty seeing what exactly a bond is. If I am working for a good guy I won't have any desire to leave so why do you feel the need to chain me to your company? Only if you are a bad company to work for and know all will leave at he first opportunity? Well, it's self structured.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: italy
Age: 56
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i was in flight safety for my recurrent training in January 2013.
Last week i got a new job (same aircraft,different company)
the FAA did not accepted my recurrent training, so next month
i have go again flight safety and do another recurrent training.
Looks like the FAA not longer care for your old training if is done
under another company certificate and the same is for the intial
type rating,also if you get a type rating and don't fly that specific
airplane for 12 month you have to get another full type rating.
so what is suggest to all FAA pilot don't pay for any TR because
company can't use it
Last week i got a new job (same aircraft,different company)
the FAA did not accepted my recurrent training, so next month
i have go again flight safety and do another recurrent training.
Looks like the FAA not longer care for your old training if is done
under another company certificate and the same is for the intial
type rating,also if you get a type rating and don't fly that specific
airplane for 12 month you have to get another full type rating.
so what is suggest to all FAA pilot don't pay for any TR because
company can't use it
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: I can see it from here.
Posts: 678
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ra4000
I have not heard this before. Who informed you that the FAA did not accept? Normally recurrent training is signed off at the TRTO and is produced on request. Was the paperwork sent to your old company as they were the account holder? if you have a new type rating issued it requires a new licence issue, there has never been a requirement to "fly the aircraft" as the initial was performed on a FFS and the rules of 61.58 and PIC check still apply, where are you getting your information from?
If I am working for a good guy I won't have any desire to leave so why do you feel the need to chain me to your company? Only if you are a bad company to work for and know all will leave at he first opportunity? Well, it's self structured.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Near Stuttgart, Germany
Posts: 1,095
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Spot on
Last edited by what next; 19th Feb 2013 at 08:08.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: italy
Age: 56
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
is for part 135.
let me start,from the top.
my current job is 91,but my boss keep the plane to a management
company so we doing 91 and 135.
my new job is 135 and the FAA want a totally new recurrent training
what the FAA try to do is to stop freelences to work with different
company,after the lear 60 skid off the runway few years back.
so every time you change company part 135 you need a new rucurrent
or new initial if you are more than 12 months out of currencty
let me start,from the top.
my current job is 91,but my boss keep the plane to a management
company so we doing 91 and 135.
my new job is 135 and the FAA want a totally new recurrent training
what the FAA try to do is to stop freelences to work with different
company,after the lear 60 skid off the runway few years back.
so every time you change company part 135 you need a new rucurrent
or new initial if you are more than 12 months out of currencty
