Paying For Company Training

[R22Captain]

I've been on another board recently that has mostly fixed wing members here in Canada. Over the last while there has been a huge problem with low time guys going out and buying PPC's to get jobs over guys who have been working on the ramp for X number of years.

Does this ever happen on the heli side of things? I have not heard of it happening at the company I work for....but maybe the shinmey paint is blinding me. 🙄 :hide:

Or would going out and buying a 206 endorsment and mountain course and other such ratings and experience be the same thing. :down: :blink:

 

[Auto Relight]

Yes it does happen.

Not as much here as in FW, but the schools these days are pushing the 206 endorsement pretty hard. This summer I heard of two guys paying for all or part of their endorsements, and talked to a third who was told he had to, but didn't.

I personally think it's a terrible practice. Under CARS, a company must provide 5 hours intailly company trianing anyway, so why should the new pilot pay for it? Wasn't the 60k they just spent enough? I feel that the it's the operator's responsiblility to provide the endorsement for the type of machine they use. Can you imagine a guy with 4000hrs on lights paying for a Medium check?? Don't think so.

Any company you would want to work for in the long term will pay for it. It's one of the signs of a good outfit.

AR

 

[R22Captain]

The company I'm currently with has taken R22 guys and trained them in the past....so hopefully they'll take another :unsure: All the otehr "rampies" I'm working with are 206 endoresed except for 1. I keep reassuring myself that 10 hours on a jetbox won't mean much when it comes down to hiring time. I guess we shall see.

I agree I'd never work for a company that wouldn't want to invest the time in training me. I've now paid for fixed and rotary wing license in the past few years. I'm broke! :blink:

 

[sharky]

The most I've heard is "IF you had a (206/22/44) endorsement, then we MIGHT have a position for you"

But I'm sure more shady practices do occur.

 

[shaggy]

i had to pay for my first endorsement after getting on with my first boss. it wouldn't have been so bad if he had charged us the machine rated but no $800/hr for the H500D. it stings quite a bit after forking out the $$ to get the licence. i don't think that anyone should have to pay for an endorsement if it is required in order to fly any one of a companies machines. i think the chances are generally slim that an employer would give the pilot a cut of the profits that are earned by that individual by flying his aircraft (on top of the wages that (s)he already earns. i could be wrong as i haven't been around as long as many guys but i don't knwo of many profit sharing schemes out there.

 

[cap]

R22Captain ------ if you gotta pay for it, then take a walk. If ALL the companies want you to pay for it, then take a walk to another career. Do the former, but the latter won't apply because not ALL companies are "scum-bags". No matter where you go in any profession you will eventually meet up with "flaky operators".

 

[Albert Ross]

This is the subject of my latest article in Vertical

Phil

 

[RDM]

Rarely do I make negative comments here regarding our industry but this "practice" of paying for a PPC or type endor is ******* insane.

I heard of a operator whom wanted to bond current employees who were selected to be checked out on a new type. They were told that if you leave before X number of years we will bill you for the type endorsement. Several pilots said fine, we will agree to that....BUT, if we exceed those number of years we will expect a bonus....nuff said, nothing signed and the ball still rolls.

Any operator who askes or expects a low or high time pilot to pay for such a thing, are well ****'em.

 

[twinstar_ca]

does this not fall under the topic of "professional development"?? if you are worth hiring, then you should be worth some investment on behalf of the employer... by the same token, i think the employer does deserve some benefit from his investment in you as well... kind of a double edged sword as there are likely those out there who might bail once the endorcement is gotten, so to speak...

having said that, in the organization i work for, professional development has been one of the 1st items to get the red pen come budget time... it's very frustrating regardless of what industry you earn your bread and butter from...

 

[cap]

A company hires an employee and trains them after some time,,,,,,then they take their chances. Trying to get them to sign some paper saying they will stay with the company for "X" amount of time is fine and good..............but Canadian Case Law will tell you that they're "whistling in the dark" and don't have a leg to stand on in court. It was ruled as "indentured servitude".........your company does not "own" your services.

 

[Blackmac]

Food for tinking aboot:

If and only if we had a viable association, this is an item that good be addressed by the assoc.

We would in all likely hood have an employment section for pilots governed by a section of peers who will require pilots provided with training to remain with said company for X time period and being paid in accordance with industry standards.

Posibilities are-unlimited.

Cheers, Don

 

[Auto Relight]

I agree that an association of some type would help.

It's one thing for an employer to ask that the pilot signs a "bond" where after two years she/he is free to go. It's another asking said pilot to pay outright for the rating.

Bonds are fairly standard these days in FW, and they are usually pro-rated over the life of the PPC. 5k over 2 year, you leave after one, they want 2500. Many people sign these thngs, but as one other posted said, they don't mean a thing in court. I haven't heard of one case where a departing employee has been made o pay.

Where the slope gets slippery however, is when the employer co-signs a loan with the pilot for X amount, and then the employer pays it back with interest over the life of the PPC. If the pilot leaves, he still is responsable for the loan and the employer stops paying - seen that one played out a few times.

There needs to be some security for the company, as many pilots depart soon after getting typed on something. I guess with rotary the numbers are smaller on average than FW,(not including S76, S61, Puma etc) but I do see their point. In a perfect world, company and employee whould treat eachother well and we wouldn't have this issue. Not a perfect world!

But having deparate low-time guys pay for an initial endorsment is wrong. Those that do, contribute to the problem, because as we all know there are 100 guys waiting that first job.

AR

 

[flying monkey]

What's the difference between buying an endorsement and buying a licence?

Why get the licence without the endorsement?

It's like buying a car without tires. You may need winter tires or summer but you ain't going very far without them.

 

[Albert Ross]

But companies fly different machines, and they make money out of you. Type ratings should be the "cost of doing business" (they are tax-deductible) - and what's wrong with companies trying to make people want to stay in order to recoup their investment? Most of them seem bent on trying to chase you off.

Phil

 

[Auto Relight]

Phill,

I don't understand your post, are you condoning paying for PPC's? It's the cost of doing buisness for the company - not the pilot.

AR