bobbysamd
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2001
- Posts
- 5,710
P-F-T v. Pleasure Flying
Putting down a chunk of change to purchase time in an airplane is not P-F-T. In the final analysis, it is only pleasure flying. Expensive pleasure flying because it is multi engine. There is nothing wrong with pleasure flying. I did plenty of pleasure flying before I became a professional pilot. I paid for time in the Baron in which I earned my multi to build proficiency. It was all dual.
Once again, pay-for-training is when a company at which you've been hired to be a pilot demands a payment from you to cover the cost of your training at that company as a condition of your being employed at the company.
The prostitution aspect manifests itself in many ways. One way is when the difference between getting the job and not getting it is your willingness and ability to pay for your training. Let's say we have two equally credentialed pilots, both of whom would be fully qualified to work for any commuter. The company in question offers jobs to both. One is willing and able to pay for training. The other pilot cannot (Note: for the moment, I am avoiding "will not." "Will not" and "cannot" are separate issues.). The pilot that can pay gets the job. So do others who, once again, can pay for the training. The basic unfairness of this scenario should be clear.
Another example is a so-called FO training program. I will NOT mention the name of the one that everyone, including me, has bandied about. This is a situation where a person, say with a fresh Commercial-Instrument-Multi, wants a fast track to an airline. We know that although Uncle Sam says you're qualified to be an airline FO at 250 hours, most airlines say differently. However, other airlines give you the chance to qualify, but as a condition of qualifying, you have to pay them money for that privilege. In return for remitting the money, the company will train you and let you fly as a crewmember for a specified number of hours. The issue in this scenario turns on the question of if you would otherwise be hired at an airline at 250 hours (Mesa cannot be included because it does not offer employment to students upon their enrollment at its school. Employment offers, if extended at all, come after students finish the MAPD program). The answer, obviously, is "no." So, to get these jobs, you must pay. No pay (for training), no job. A wild card in this equation is whether you will be kept on or be shown the door after you fly off the time the airline promised. Add to this idea the question if the "experience" gained will be viewed by others as real, legitimate 121/135 experience or as expensive pleasure flying. That seems to be a major issue.
No matter what industry in which you're working, you have to ask yourself if any job is worth paying for your training, as a condition of employment at a company, as I've just discussed. I've worked in three different businesses; aviation is the only business I've seen where as a condition of being hired you have to pay for your training at that company. Personally, I find that to be very demeaning. If you are willing to be demeaned, don't be surprised if your employer treats you accordingly.
For the posts above, after you get past the government's requirements, it's the insurance company in large measure who determines who is best qualified for a job. There is quite a bit of subjective criteria as well, such as the applicant's experience and ability.
Hope these comments help.
Putting down a chunk of change to purchase time in an airplane is not P-F-T. In the final analysis, it is only pleasure flying. Expensive pleasure flying because it is multi engine. There is nothing wrong with pleasure flying. I did plenty of pleasure flying before I became a professional pilot. I paid for time in the Baron in which I earned my multi to build proficiency. It was all dual.
Once again, pay-for-training is when a company at which you've been hired to be a pilot demands a payment from you to cover the cost of your training at that company as a condition of your being employed at the company.
The prostitution aspect manifests itself in many ways. One way is when the difference between getting the job and not getting it is your willingness and ability to pay for your training. Let's say we have two equally credentialed pilots, both of whom would be fully qualified to work for any commuter. The company in question offers jobs to both. One is willing and able to pay for training. The other pilot cannot (Note: for the moment, I am avoiding "will not." "Will not" and "cannot" are separate issues.). The pilot that can pay gets the job. So do others who, once again, can pay for the training. The basic unfairness of this scenario should be clear.
Another example is a so-called FO training program. I will NOT mention the name of the one that everyone, including me, has bandied about. This is a situation where a person, say with a fresh Commercial-Instrument-Multi, wants a fast track to an airline. We know that although Uncle Sam says you're qualified to be an airline FO at 250 hours, most airlines say differently. However, other airlines give you the chance to qualify, but as a condition of qualifying, you have to pay them money for that privilege. In return for remitting the money, the company will train you and let you fly as a crewmember for a specified number of hours. The issue in this scenario turns on the question of if you would otherwise be hired at an airline at 250 hours (Mesa cannot be included because it does not offer employment to students upon their enrollment at its school. Employment offers, if extended at all, come after students finish the MAPD program). The answer, obviously, is "no." So, to get these jobs, you must pay. No pay (for training), no job. A wild card in this equation is whether you will be kept on or be shown the door after you fly off the time the airline promised. Add to this idea the question if the "experience" gained will be viewed by others as real, legitimate 121/135 experience or as expensive pleasure flying. That seems to be a major issue.
No matter what industry in which you're working, you have to ask yourself if any job is worth paying for your training, as a condition of employment at a company, as I've just discussed. I've worked in three different businesses; aviation is the only business I've seen where as a condition of being hired you have to pay for your training at that company. Personally, I find that to be very demeaning. If you are willing to be demeaned, don't be surprised if your employer treats you accordingly.
For the posts above, after you get past the government's requirements, it's the insurance company in large measure who determines who is best qualified for a job. There is quite a bit of subjective criteria as well, such as the applicant's experience and ability.
Hope these comments help.
Last edited: