Pay for Training on a King Air

This forum has been developed to discuss flight instruction/University and College programs.

Moderators: Right Seat Captain, lilfssister, North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako

gr8gazu
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 878
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2006 7:10 pm

Post by gr8gazu »

duncn4 wrote:
Hopefully not those that do so at the long-term expense of others so that their immediate dreams can be realised.
It is a tough pill to swallow guys but people have done it for a long time.

I didn't like it when I was starting out either and have never hired someone who offered to pay for their training but it does happen.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
duncn4
Rank 0
Rank 0
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 9:31 pm
Location: YYJ

Post by duncn4 »

gr8gazu wrote: I didn't like it when I was starting out either and have never hired someone who offered to pay for their training but it does happen.
Good on you.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Walker
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1070
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2005 11:17 pm
Location: Left Coast... (CYYJ)

Post by Walker »

gr8gazu wrote:Walker, I am curious as to why you have a self determined right to work as a pilot but dicriminate based on age when it comes to others that may displace you.

This situation is and always has been a reality and Mr. Jones will most likely meet with some success by paying for his own training.

I think your rant is misplaced in this thread and in fact is more of a tantrum.
Hahahah! LOL A tantrum! Christ I have to admit I don’t think iv been accused of one of those in a while :) Where to start…..
Well instead of swinging pointless insults back @ ya, I think for the sake of the thread ill simply RE explain my previous post:

I do not have any more or less of a right to work than anyone else. NORE did I suggest in my last post that I did. I do not consider myself to be one who discriminates; nor do I have any fear of being displaced by anyone, I can hold my own weight thank you.

I have no doubt that someone who pays to work can find success; that was not the point of my post. The point was simply that the act of paying for a job results in a dead weight loss to society. IE it is NOT an efficient thing for the industry to allow, IE it is not something that a reasonably socially conscious person should do.

If at the age of 45 someone wants to enter the industry well by all means go ahead; I would caution them that it is a long trek and if you are from the older generation you probably thought that having children was also “the right thing to do” so once again just be sure you know what you’re getting into with this industry. BUT the fact remains that most would agree that the industry in general is royally F’d up, and it is my opinion that pay to work scams are a contributor.

As stated in the last post it is my belief that there are too many of us out there; this industry is too easy to enter (I said enter not stay in.) I will point out that I am an instructor, if I was someone who put my own desires before societies then I don’t think I would be trying to convince people to not enter aviation; it is in my best interest (from the point of view of having more students) to attract as many suckers as I can. However thankfully I am still an idealist.

Now truth is in the next 20 years this issue of having too many pilots will likely solve its self (IE fuel exhaustion, environmentalists etc...) But in the meanwhile the fact remains that paying to work IS bad for the economy, and as such it would be inconsiderate to partake. (If you would like to argue this as a fact than please by all means form a concise rebuttal!!!!! I have Thursday off and need entertainment!!!)
---------- ADS -----------
 
gr8gazu
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 878
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2006 7:10 pm

Post by gr8gazu »

Walker wrote: The point was simply that the act of paying for a job results in a dead weight loss to society. IE it is NOT an efficient thing for the industry to allow, IE it is not something that a reasonably socially conscious person should do.
Firstly, I didn't see anywhere in the original post that Mr. Jones was offered employment if he paid for training or signed a bond. He is simply wanting to purchase advanced training to make himself more marketable. I don't understand you connection to the economy and I do understand the mechanics of the economy. By taking training, he is actually stimulating a segment of the economy. The industry has always gone through ebbs and tides and always finds a balance even though there are occaisional short term under or over supply issues. The aquisition of education for self betterment and placement in the market does not assault society nor morality or ethics but it is widely accepted in any market economy.

quote: I would caution them that it is a long trek and if you are from the older generation you probably thought that having children was also “the right thing to do” so once again just be sure you know what you’re getting into with this industry. BUT the fact remains that most would agree that the industry in general is royally F’d up, and it is my opinion that pay to work scams are a contributor.

I don't see the parallels of advanced training to having children. Are you saying your parents should have regret or that they were socially irresponsible? :)

Furthering your skills and knowledge through advanced training is not a "pay to work scam." It is not affordable to most of us so it is not commonplace. I am sure most would do the same if it were affordable in order to compete. If you left your flying school with a bare commercial licence, you would have a tough time finding employment. People typically decide on a route whether it be military, bush or instructing to achieve their ultimate goal. They then position themselves by acquiring advanced training such as an Instructors, Instrument or Float rating. Mr. Jones' suggestion is no different.

quote: As stated in the last post it is my belief that there are too many of us out there; this industry is too easy to enter (I said enter not stay in.)

I agree that entry is too easy. The only ways to control that is to make it so expensive that only the elite can afford it, make it so difficult that only PHD's can handle the eduacation or form a mandatory association that limits the number of students. None of the above are ever going to happen as they infringe on civil rights and do assault the market economy and would require world wide compliance. The market always finds its own level which is the most basic supply and demand principle.

quote:Now truth is in the next 20 years this issue of having too many pilots will likely solve its self (IE fuel exhaustion, environmentalists etc...)

It will, but not for those reasons.

quote:
But in the meanwhile the fact remains that paying to work IS bad for the economy, and as such it would be inconsiderate to partake. (If you would like to argue this as a fact than please by all means form a concise rebuttal!!!!! I have Thursday off and need entertainment!!!)


I disagree with your statements relative to the economy.

Sorry, it couldn't be concise as per your request but your statement was too lengthy to make it that way. Enjoy your day off. Don't spend it all online!! I do have to work so I have to go. BTW, I don't consider this an argument, just a discussion from two different viewpoints. I too had similar opinions at one time but time, experience and the realities of the world have proven those opinions incorrect.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Mr. Jones
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 48
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2006 8:28 am
Location: CPJ5

Post by Mr. Jones »

When I was considering Pay of Training I wasn't really thinking of it as Pay for Work. I can see from the many posts here there isn’t a distinction between the 2 concepts. What I had in mind was, Pay for Training with a Training focused company rather than an operator that was just focused on saving money. I envisioned a Training company that delivered high quality training and demonstrated excellence in all aspects of the operation. Apparently none such an outfit exists.

My other consideration was straight economics. I did up a five year plan comparing income and expenses for the 3 different ways to enter the market: Pay for Training, Instructing and Ramping. In my plan, Pay for Training was more economical than the other 2 options even though I would have to invest some capital at the start. One thing I didn’t factor in was the potential lack of upgrade path from FO to Capt. My assumption was that I could be a Capt after 2 years and therefore have a higher income. Take this assumption away instructing looks better because you are building PIC time and could maybe make Capt sooner than ramping. Ramping seems like a tough deal wage wise and time wise. You are learning but not filling your log book. Six months of ramping would be reasonable but 18 to 24 months is not in my mind.
---------- ADS -----------
 
iaflyguy
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 20
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2006 6:39 pm
Location: ON

Post by iaflyguy »

Mr. Jones, I am impressed with your initiative. It seems you've looked closely at the industry and are simply attempting to get as much information as you possibly can to make a clear and logical decision.

If you approach whatever flying job you end up with, with this same clear thought and focus, your career will be a success whatever route you choose.

Good luck, the industry needs more pilots with your attitude!!
---------- ADS -----------
 
goldeneagle
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1294
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2006 3:28 pm

Post by goldeneagle »

Mr. Jones wrote:My other consideration was straight economics. I did up a five year plan comparing income and expenses for the 3 different ways to enter the market: Pay for Training, Instructing and Ramping. In my plan, Pay for Training was more economical than the other 2 options even though I would have to invest some capital at the start. One thing I didn’t factor in was the potential lack of upgrade path from FO to Capt. My assumption was that I could be a Capt after 2 years and therefore have a higher income. Take this assumption away instructing looks better because you are building PIC time and could maybe make Capt sooner than ramping. Ramping seems like a tough deal wage wise and time wise. You are learning but not filling your log book. Six months of ramping would be reasonable but 18 to 24 months is not in my mind.
You are on the right track here with this mindset. Keep in mind, most of the posters here are still early in a carreer, and have no concept of starting a second carreer, but starting from a point where capital investment is a viable choice. I've made 3 carreer changes in my life, and I can see where you are coming from. You want to fly, and, feel you can afford to kick start yourself into a better 'starting position' than most. That's a totally valid concept, one thing to keep in mind, your years of real world experience are valuable. I've been there, done that.

When you do the mathematical anlysis, there's a few hidden gotchas about this industry that will not appear obvious on the surface. You are calculating on an upgrade to captain in 2 years, but, there's a big gotcha there. For the type of equipment you are considering, you pretty much need the ATPL to get the seat. The ATPL has minimum requirements for PIC time. You can trade SIC time for half of those requirements, on a 2 for one basis, but, you cannot bypass the other half. Without the PIC, you cannot upgrade the license. Without the license upgrade, you are not going to get the left seat. It would be wise to re-visit your plan and calculations, and consider just when/how you will get the PIC requirements for the ATPL. There's a lot of options, but, this is one of the ugly realities of this business, folks that start off in the right seat get stranded in the right seat, and often have to step out of thier track and degrade themselves to some single engine bug smasher for a year to get the PIC time.

Another thing, if you are airline oriented, no need to worry about that left seat. Airlines are driven by seniority numbers. We are in a hiring boom now that's been ongoing for a couple of years, the cycle will start to cool off soon. Anybody that takes a mainline seniorty number today has enough 25 year olds ahead of them on the seniority list, it's going to be a 15 to 20 year wait for a left seat. That'll put you at age 60, with mandatory retirement staring you in the face. No airline is going to do the left seat upgrade if you have only a year or two of service left before you hit mandatory retirement. So, in essence, a captain seat at mainline is out of the question, it'll never happen on your timeframes.


Your concept is right, the homework needs a little more digging. In the real world, a commercial pilot license means First Officer. The captains chair is going to require the ATPL, so your plan better go all the way thru to attaining that license. Without it, you are not going to meet the financial objectives you seem to have in mind, and, obtaining that license is going to change your budget for the program. I dont remember the exact numbers off the top of my head, it's been a LONG time, but, I believe you need 1500 command time, or, that can be replaced by 750 command and 1500 first officer. There's also a requirement for 100 night, some actual ifr, etc. The rules may say a commercial pilot can sit in the left seat, but, out here in the real world, that's not how it works, that only applies to piston engine airplanes. Turbine operators pretty much across the board will require the ATPL before they put you in the left seat. that's going to delay your pay increase by a year or so from what you have planned.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Mr. Jones
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 48
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2006 8:28 am
Location: CPJ5

Post by Mr. Jones »

Goldeneagle,
I did pick up on the upgrade path issue but had not tied it to the ATPL requirement. Your point makes a lot of sense and I now fully understand why PIC is so critical. Too bad it is so hard to get.

Cheers
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
172pilot
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 141
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 11:03 am
Location: Canada

Post by 172pilot »

Good thread. If i work my ass off in another career outside of aviation, and at 30 decide I want to spend my hard earned dollars on training to get some hours on a twin then why is this so bad?? I don't understand why some on this board think you MUST work the ramp/toss bags/fly up north. For instance, say I have cash and buy 300 hours for king- air training (in the US or whereever) then pursue a FO job. I can't blame them - nor would I blame myself. Not everyone takes the same route. I have two friends who, after roughly seven years are FO and recent captain with major airlines. They never paid their dues unless you consider flying FO to start for a small commuter (in the south) with twin turboprops to be paying your dues. I know another 767 pilot at AC who never went north. He got on as a FO in southern AB after his CPL. Worked there for about 5 years and went right seat at AC. I know i'm off topic here but they all got on with minimum time and did quite well without flying up north or tossing bags.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Walker
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1070
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2005 11:17 pm
Location: Left Coast... (CYYJ)

Post by Walker »

“NOT” paying your dues was not the concern most of us on here have… The issue at stake is “working” for one of the “pay to work” operators. Where you pay them $X XXX and they put you on commercial runs. The Issue here is how an operator like that effects the rest of the industry on a microeconomic & macroeconomic scale. Now without busting out graphs on deadweight loss, social benefit, demand and supply functions etc… think about it in a very simple sense.

Say there are three companies. Company A,B, and C. A and B are normal businesses; all three compete with one another. All three have to pay expenses such as insurance, fuel, rent, advertising, financing charges, maintenance, wages, etc… This being aviation, margins are very tight compared to other industries. Say for example A,B, and C are making 10%. Now imagine that company C starts searching for pilots who are willing to pay to fly. Company C now no longer has to pay wages, they don’t have to pay for company training, AND they have an alternative source of income. As a result they can fly that same contract than A, and B were fighting over for substantially less than anyone else. Because the world revolves around the lowest cost bidder, A and B loose the work to C. This forces A and B to further lower price in an attempt to compete with C. As a result margins decrease evermore; putting pressure on everyone affiliated with A and B. B decides that they can no longer compete in this market, so they leave. A and C pick up the left over work from B. C continues to be able to underbid, A has to tighten their belts more and more; they start to cut back on as many expenses as they possibly can; until one day while on a run to YVR my buddy Wess has his plane blow up because of a $10 gasket. Company C now after defeating all the competition has the ability to become a monopolistic competitor; and starts to raise prices; which go into the shareholders pocket.
Now there are definitely other issues involved here too that may very well be pertinent: Such as one could argue company C may also be a somewhat shady operator if they are willing to treat their workers like that in the first place. To keep a steady flow of “paying” pilots after someone has their 300 hrs it would be beneficial for the company to “let them go” so they don’t have to start paying their workers. This results in having a glut of inexperienced pilots behind the wheel, simply because there is no financial incentive to keep anyone experienced around.
NOW to my knowledge no “pay to work” business has actually ever been brought up on charges for a section 50 violation of the Competition act (Predatory Pricing.) However I bet that has to do with the fact that aviation is probably the ONLY sector where something so stupid could ever come into existence in the first place. But just for all the OTHER operators out there, ill give you a little nugget of gold:

http://www.competitionbureau.gc.ca


The Competition Act (4)

Part VI
Offences in Relation to Competition

Illegal trade practices

50. (1) Every one engaged in a business who

(a) is a party or privy to, or assists in, any sale that discriminates to his knowledge, directly or indirectly, against competitors of a purchaser of articles from him in that any discount, rebate, allowance, price concession or other advantage is granted to the purchaser over and above any discount, rebate, allowance, price concession or other advantage that, at the time the articles are sold to the purchaser, is available to the competitors in respect of a sale of articles of like quality and quantity,

(b) engages in a policy of selling products in any area of Canada at prices lower than those exacted by him elsewhere in Canada, having the effect or tendency of substantially lessening competition or eliminating a competitor in that part of Canada, or designed to have that effect, or

(c) engages in a policy of selling products at prices unreasonably low, having the effect or tendency of substantially lessening competition or eliminating a competitor, or designed to have that effect,

is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.


_______
These laws have been created for a reason, and that reason is to protect the economy AND society… If you want to pay for training then please do, but if you pay for 300 hrs in a kingair you better not be flying paying passengers around during that time; because id hedge a bet if anyone ever wrote the competition bureau; you’d have the RCMP busing down your door taking your computers and paperwork away…
FYI the CB is used to protect competition and the economy… If someone is in violation of part of the act it does NOT require those being harmed to do anything more than report the violation. This is because this is NOT a case of civil law; rather a violation of the act is handled under criminal law… IE if you feel someone is in violation of the act all you have to do is have you and two of your compatriots send a total of 3 (three) written letters to the CB and they are bound by law to launch an investigation.

Now if anyone feels that iv missed a point here please let me know; I may be young and nieve to many things, and perhaps I really DON’T know how things work, but the way I see it, pay to work operators only damage the economy. YES granted they DO fulfill a market for those willing to pay to work; but I would argue that the NB (net benefit) derived from that is not even remotely close to the NC (net cost) that society(aka the economy) experiences as a result of their operation. Now just to put out a tiny bit of clarification, this rant is NOT a result of me being upset that others have an advantage over me. I am lucky enough that should I so choose I too could “buy” 1000 hrs on an turboprop…. However would it be morally reprehensible to???? Personally I have decided it would be….

-walk
---------- ADS -----------
 
Mr. Jones
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 48
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2006 8:28 am
Location: CPJ5

Post by Mr. Jones »

Walker,
In your example company C found an advantage in the fact they could increase revenue and lower expenses and therefore increased their margins by offering "Pay for Training". I don't know of a company out there who doesn't strive to increase margins. I doubt that the Competition Bureau would consider this an issue because there is nothing stopping companies A & B from engaging in the training market.

Now there are safety concerns to be considered. For example just because company C decides to offer “Pay for Training” this doesn’t mean that they should skimp on maintenance and other safety areas. If companies choose to be negligent in safety, how do we stop this?

As for having inexperienced Pilots, yes, this could be a concern for passengers, but the pilots both Capt and FO do meet the legal requirements to perform their duties. Perhaps the licensing standards would have to change to remove this concern? Also maybe the company needs to disclose to their customers that they have pilots operating aircraft that are on a “Pay for Training Program”. Maybe this practice needs to be restricted to 2 crew cargo ops?

At the end of the day there is a market for “Pay for Training” which can generate income into the aviation sector which could be considered a benefit to the economy. However, this does start to create a higher entry barrier the pilot profession which could reduce the supply of new pilots which could drive pilot wages up which could increase rates which could reduce demand for aviation service which could reduce the demand for pilots which could lower pilot wages. Who knows what true effect “Pay for Training” has on the economy.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
172pilot
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 141
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 11:03 am
Location: Canada

Post by 172pilot »

Hi Walker,

The only problem with what you say in your econ example is that if there is a market for PFT then why can't company A and B also be involved in this. Sorry for coming off like a prick. If there is a market, businesses will fulfill it - morally right or not who am I to say. I'm passionate about aviation. I think people should make a good wage (in any field) but the world is ultra competitive and people will do what it takes to get the education. Too much supply of people willing to do the job - and all it takes is the CPL and some hours which isn't a huge barrier to entry. And it's not just aviation in this situation. I guess there is a fine line between a company that says sure we can give you King Air time if you pay the 30G and by the way, you'll fly freight for us compared to those companies who treat it as pure training and fly the plane empty. I'm wondering though, maybe some companies in order to offer reduced training fees should operate in a manner where the commerical part is a subsidy to your training?? I don't know.. i'm just tossing ideas around.

Anyway, i appreciate your passion to keep the wages and industry to the highest standards. I'm in a position of conflict myself. I'm 28 and would love to fly commercially and I don't have a ton of hours. On the bright side, I've saved up a large chunk of cash over the years. I can buy a plane if I want and build time doing some serious X/C but I'd still like some twin training - navajo or king air. Now, the question is... is it wrong if I buy 100 hrs of training in this type of aircraft? Or, what about the 'training' programs in the US where you fly FO for 200hrs and pay upfront then get paid min wage?? I think in the US it is more acceptable. A buddy of mine flies for United now and did something similar starting out.. .he did get paid for the FO flying but it was min wage and he did have to pay for the initial training on type.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
mark_
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 101
Joined: Tue Apr 11, 2006 7:39 am

Post by mark_ »

Mr. Jones,

Best of luck in your aviation endevour. I say more power to you for seeking the additional training. I'm sure that many of the younger nay-sayers on this thread would do the same if they could.

Regards,
Mark
---------- ADS -----------
 
Puddle Jumper
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 74
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 11:31 am
Location: UK

Post by Puddle Jumper »

Mr. Jones,

Go for it. You do whatever it takes to get your resume on top of all the others on file. :twisted:

Walker,

Welcome to the real world of cut-throat business buddy - shocking isn't it?

Anyway, here's an easy one for you; Apart from the cost involved, what is the difference between paying for an instructor rating in order to get a job with a commercial flight school, and paying for a B200 PPC in order to get a job with a commercial operator?

A. Nothing
B. Bananas
C. Tuna fish
D. A piece of wood

Answers on a postcard please.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Post Reply

Return to “Flight Training”