This add had me pondering the question, do companies supplement thier maintenance side of the business as well?
There is obviously a cost to endorsing AME's to type specific, but in all my years in this business I've never heard an AME complain about having to pay upfront for training.
Seats are currently available for a ‘Boeing 757-200 Maintenance Initial Type Course Training’.
The training will be hosted by Skyservice Business Aviation, and administered by Kelowna Flightcraft ATO in Calgary, Alberta. The course is Transport Canada approved. The training will begin mid-October 2011 and is four (4) weeks in duration.
Cost per seat is $5,000.00. This does ‘NOT’ include travel and/or accommodation. Students are responsible for their own accommodation and associated costs.
PS: I searched AME training bond and the first 3 pages were all pilot bond related.
mbav8r wrote:This add had me pondering the question, do companies supplement thier maintenance side of the business as well?
There is obviously a cost to endorsing AME's to type specific, but in all my years in this business I've never heard an AME complain about having to pay upfront for training.
Seats are currently available for a ‘Boeing 757-200 Maintenance Initial Type Course Training’.
The training will be hosted by Skyservice Business Aviation, and administered by Kelowna Flightcraft ATO in Calgary, Alberta. The course is Transport Canada approved. The training will begin mid-October 2011 and is four (4) weeks in duration.
Cost per seat is $5,000.00. This does ‘NOT’ include travel and/or accommodation. Students are responsible for their own accommodation and associated costs.
PS: I searched AME training bond and the first 3 pages were all pilot bond related.
This is NOT a "bond". I could go out and purchase a 757-200 type rating on my pilot's licence. That would not be a "bond" either. It wouldn't be a particularly intelligent use of my savings account either. The short answer to the question, would be....no.
This is not a bond because of the pure fact you are paying for it.
I have heard of some companies(the ones flying the heavy Iron) make their AME's sign a bond when they get put on an endorsement course. These are usually 6 weeks long and the AME is still getting paid, so the company has invested time/money into them.
If they were to quit the company before the set time expired, it only makes sense for the balance to be paid back to their employer.
Probably in the M1 world this might not apply as much.
I didn't mean to imply the above was a bond, just the add made me ponder the question of bonds for AME's.
I thought hypothetically if an employer were to send a guy on that course it would cost the company about the same as sending a pilot to flight safety for a 1900 type rating, hence the question do AME's sign a bond? it sounds like it, by warbirds response.
The above is exactly as Doc described, some young fresh out of school AME goes on this course in an attempt to get on with a 57 operator, essentially as discussed numerous times on here, buying a job.
Except in many cases it is not buying a job. A new AME is an apprentice and buying a type course would essentially be useless.
But perhaps an independent contractor buys a rating and it winds up being a much better investment than a pilot buying a type rating for the same aircraft. At average contract rates the type course would be paid off in far less time than a pilot trying to do the same thing.
Though when I did contracting on 757-200s, I did not have an endorsement nor did I feel the need to buy one.
The usual "bond" agreement is for two years for an ame put on a course. The legality of this has been challenged, and beaten in court, as the training is considered to be necessary if the type is operated by the company. Basically, they're not doing you a favor(they treat it as if they are), but they need it for operating the business.
That being said, there are way too many who have and continue to sign the ridiculous things because they have no spine, so it continues.
A guy is going to be pretty much $10G in the hole after that, and recovering that working in canada is going to be a hard slog, especially contracting. Biggest problem is many companies/agencies do not pay more than 2 bucks an hour for the aca privilege(if that), so you can begin to see why it ain't a good investment. I've been down the same road and would not do it again. If you have no previous experience on type, a complete waste of time to do this.
I don't think they are getting a whole lot of interest in the offer because it came out almost 2 weeks ago, and they just stickied it in the maintenance forum.Most likely because many know its a shite investment or nobody has the cake to spare.
Biggest problem is many companies/agencies do not pay more than 2 bucks an hour for the aca privilege(if that), so you can begin to see why it ain't a good investment.
Pat, in addition to the $2 per ACA, you also forgot: Babysitting ten apprenti who don't know what the fvck they are doing, appeasing middle-management on why the plane isn't done, then explaining why there was a mistake when you did the jobs faster, and spending hours upon hours filling out and auditing paperwork.
Yep, all that also, lol! We've both seen it/lived it, but it still blows my mind how many chumps willingly sign the contract.
Remember at kfc when 5+ year guy was "given" the 580 course?? It was like watching peacocks in mating season, and they didn't blink an eye about signing away another 2 years. I remember once when a guy was given the 727 course as his first endorsement....some people were ready to explode because he had jumped the pecking order. 30+ year old airplanes that next to nobody even then was operating anymore and people felt so hard done by when they got "overlooked"....
Typically on large aircraft, individual tasks are signed by the person doing them and can be anybody who has received company training and who the powers that be feel is knowledgeable to do the task. Then an inspector with an ACA signs off the whole work card or each task as appropriate. Some items--especially on US registered aircraft--are Requiered Inspection Items (RII) and require two inspectors to inspect and sign.
Basically what it boils down to is you spend most of your time looking for inspectors. Pretty rare for companies to give contractors ACAs, though type courses confirm to the employer that you have a baseline knowledge of the aircraft.
In regards to the ad. Some contractors pay for their own courses to look better (find more work). Some companies might see the ad and send their own people on it.
In regards to bonds; bonds are not required for most companies, unless that company cannot keep people and turn over is too high.
Lots of companies give courses with no bonds to AMEs.
Some courses are worthwhile for an employee like a 737 NG or Dash 8, but 580 or 727 course is more for the employer (in the end all are for the company, as I don't need the course for personal reasons). But it depends on the course and how good it is on your resume. So if a company wants to sign me sign my money away for a rare course it has to be worth it for me. If it's a course that is good for the marketability of my resume it changes my perspective.
Back to the original question, NO AMEs should not be responsible for the $$ of the course.
