I went to fla a few weeks ago to visit some schools. I haven't posted my opinions on any because I have been busy but I wanted to make a quick comment here. The guy from RAA was very rude and unprofessional after I told him that I wasn't going to visit there because they just couldn't match the total package that Aviator (and some other schools) offered.
When I talked to the guy at RAA prior to visiting the Fla schools he was very nice and professional. He answered all of my questions and encouraged me to visit RAA as well as others. He also asked what schools I was going to visit and I told him. I pretty much knew that RAA wasn't going to win out just because of price for what was offered. It just didn't make sense. But he would call me every couple of weeks just to "check in" anyway. Finally I caved and told him that, if I had a chance, I would make a visit on a monday as I was on my way back to the Orlando airport. After visiting all of the schools, including Aviator, I had already made a decision on where I wanted to take my training. Instead of visiting RAA, my girlfriend and I spent the rest of our time in Florida "on vacation".
I didn't call RAA to let them know that I wasn't going to stop in (I should have) but it's not like I had an appointment. I just said I would stop by on my way back if I had a chance.
I got a call from RAA a day later and he asked me why I didn't stop in. I told him that I had already made my decision and thanked him for the time he spent with me. He immediately went in to a "slamming" mode on the other schools that I had visited and especially the one I chose. He had obviously called the schools and then chose to slam parts of the school that he determined as inferior. For instance. One of the schools uses the Cessna computer based training. He blasted all over that, saying that it was inferior because there was no instructor (which is not true). It was interesting that he chose the computer based training to insult because it was one of the things that I wanted most in a school. I sit in front of a computer all day, it's very comfortable for me to learn that way so his opinion of that didn't hold water with me. But anyway... He also picked on a different school because they had a 100 hour maintenance schedule instead of a 50 hr. It quickly became a very unprofessional phone call and my perception was that he was insulting me for not coming to RAA because I could not have done my homework on picking schools. Well... that couldn't be less true, which was why I didn't visit.
Anyway.... I'm not saying to not visit. But I definitely did not have a good experience and thought it was worth mentioning.
I'll post my opinion of Aviator when I get a chance.
PFT (acronym?) with Colgan? Forgive my lack of understanding. I'm new to the art of shopping for flight schools.
I thought I had it all figured out when I received a UPT slot with my National Guard unit, but now that lazy eye has disqualified me with the military, I am now in the business of shopping for a flight school.
I'm sorta new at these acronyms myself but I believe that PFT stands for "Pay for Training". You can do a search for PFT here on the JC Forums. Colgan Air is a United Express Carrier that flys the Saab 340 and the Beech 1900. I believe their HQ is in Viginia.
PFTT is looked down upon by the pilots in the industry. Basically it shows you don't have any self respect and undermines labors negotiations with management. Why would management increase wages when there are people willing to pay to get a job?
"PFTT is looked down upon by the pilots in the industry. Basically it shows you don't have any self respect and undermines labors negotiations with management. Why would management increase wages when there are people willing to pay to get a job?"
PFT is looked down upon by SOME pilots. And how does it show a lack of self respect? It may undermine your point of view, but it's legal. If "labor" doesn't like it, "labor" can gather a general consensus and change the laws.
I would say about 8/10 pilots would look down upon you if you did PFT. Why the hell would you want to pay for your job anyway. And its not like you get to keep the job, most places kick you out on the street after 250 hours
To me it shows a lack of self respect because you are willing to pay someone to "let" you work for them. Isn't that great of the company to allow you to work there. You are right, not all pilots look down on it. I should have said it appears to me that most pilots look down upon it. I am not a pro-pilot yet. That is just the feeling I get about the issue. I can understand why most pilots would look down upon it. It seems pretty simple that once you have the skills for a job, they (the company making money by using your skills) should pay you to do your job. Maybe I am wrong, but I don't think so. In any case, he asked so I answered.
Aloft I thought Colgan's deal was pay for job. Was I wrong?
For what it is worth Marine, I understand why people do it, but as an outsider looking in, I can also see the negative consequences of that choice on the industry without getting all huffy about it.
It's a half emtpy / half full arguement I suppose. I wish I had the money to do PFT. But if I did, I'd probably just buy a plane instead! I see it simply as a choice, an opportunity for those with the money, time & desire. Both the PFT employee and pilot get something they want from the arrangement. Some people strongly feel it will aid their career. I haven't seen any studies pro or con.
Negative consequences for the airline industry? I don't understand. It seems to me that the industry is benefitting by this. Negative consequences to pilot wannabe's? Perhaps, depending upon one's perspective.
The thing about PFT/PFJ is that it's something pilots shouldn't have to do. I can't think of another industry where, after being offered and accepting a job, you have to pay your new employer to train you to perform that job to their standards. In every other industry--heck, in every other segment of THIS one; rampers and gate agents, for instance--employee training is simply a cost of doing business. It's particularly insulting in a field where an individual must invest $50-100k in training just to qualify for the job. The problem is, people want the job bad enough to do it--especially in markets like the early '90s and now.
Shooter: Colgan is a PFT operation; once you're hired, if you don't meet certain experience mins, you have to cut them a check to cover their training costs. Gulfstream and Alpine are PFJ--you pay them to fly a certain number of hours in the right seat, and once you're done with the agreed-upon hours, you're out.
[ QUOTE ]
Negative consequences for the airline industry? I don't understand. It seems to me that the industry is benefitting by this.
[/ QUOTE ]
This discussion's been had a million times. Please explain how you think the industry benefits from this. Its always entertaining for me to listen to suckers try to justify and defend PFT.
Yes, negative consequences for the airline industry. Or, more specifically, for the pilots in it. It works out great for the management- they can pay pilots •! because jobs are so competitive some pilots are willing to cut corners, take the easy road, and get paid •! (after they drop $25,000+ of course). That lowers the standard for everyone except management- who is fat dumb and happy laughing at all of the idiots who are willing to shell out tens of thousands of dollars to pay for training that the airline should be (and used to) pay for once they hired someone.
"The problem is, people want the job bad enough to do it..."
How is that a problem? It's all about choice.
The industry benefits by cheaper labor costs. An informed choice makes someone a sucker? A gambler, maybe, but not a sucker. What's to justify? It's legal and beneficial in the eyes of those who use it. What corners are cut? They meet the minimum req's. How is it the "easy road"? Easy only (perhaps) in the time it takes to build hours. The easy road is being a private pilot in 1968 when airline hiring was at a bizarre extreme.
What I think would be a good compromise is multi-year contracts. The airline pays for the training once you're hired and you are legally bound to work for X number of years. Should you leave early there would be a substantial financial penalty &/or all airlines would have reciprocal agreements not to hire pilots who break contracts without pre-establish agreed upon reasons. This is why I am for one all encompassing pilot union for all commericial turbo-prop & jet part-121 carriers.
thanks for the clarification Aloft. I was confused over which was which.
I understand your viewpoint MarineNav. I agree with a training contract. I can understand the employer needing to cover themselves that way. This wouldn't be the only industry they are used in. But paying the cost of your company specific training I think is wrong.
[ QUOTE ]
And how does it show a lack of self respect?
[/ QUOTE ]
MarineNav ... where do you work now? Would you ever consider paying your boss to work there? I seriously doubt it. So why then does it magically become ok to do it in the world of aviation?
Anyone who pays someone else to work has no self respect - it's about one step below prostitution because at least hookers are getting paid to take it in the ... - and is simply looking for the fastest way to "get a job." There are no shortcuts in this (or any) field. Suck it up and put your time in like everyone else.
"MarineNav ... where do you work now? Would you ever consider paying your boss to work there? I seriously doubt it. So why then does it magically become ok to do it in the world of aviation?
Anyone who pays someone else to work has no self respect - it's about one step below prostitution because at least hookers are getting paid to take it in the ... - and is simply looking for the fastest way to "get a job." There are no shortcuts in this (or any) field. Suck it up and put your time in like everyone else."
There's no magic involved. It simply is not illegal.
It's OK because it's not wrong or immoral or unethical.
It's between informed and consenting legal entities.
It's what the market will support.
We live in a capitalist society.
The pilot employment field is very competitive.
There are willing participants on both sides.
It a means to an end, a stepping stone to a future job, not the job itself.
What you look upon as "work", such as "paying" to fly for Alpine Air, others look upon as an opportunity with a set financial cost.
My line of work doesn't require me to "pay to work" nor would I pay for my current job.
Do people that pay employment agencies to help them find jobs lack self respect as well?
"Put your time in like everyone else!" What's that supposed to mean? There is no standard. Everybody put's their time in. We all still have to meet the same minimums to fly 135 or get hired by a regional or major airline. Some people just choose to put more money in than others.
Unless & until we all value things (time, money, location, quality of life, schedule, etc.) exactly the same & think the same way, we will all do what we feel is best for ourselves. The price (literally & figuratively) that each us of is willing to pay is different. How is one supposed to know when they've "put in their time". Who is the judge? What is the standard?
If you think it's wrong, than change the law! Just as you wish everyone had to "put their time in" others wish that all the airlines had the same hiring requirements.
Can a person that lacks self respect feel truly happy and good about what they are doing, about pursuing a worthwhile career, about making their life better?
I'm not going to get into a mud-slinging contest with you - nor was that the intent.
I just wanted to point out that if you were not willing to pay to work at the job you currently hold why would you consider doing it just to fly an airplane? It's abuse (by the employer) and to subject ones self to that for the hopes of landing a job is, in my opinion, demonstrating a lack of self respect.
Furthermore, the fact that someone is paying to occupy that seat takes that seat away from what would otherwise be a paid pilot - albeit not very much - but paid nonetheless. If you use the argument that the aircraft is certified for single-pilot ops it's a rather counterproductive stance. If it's single pilot-ops how, exactly, are you going to log time? It won't be SIC. And you won't be touching the yoke on anything but the 135 legs and companies don't get paid unless the flight is 135 (or 121) etc. - meaning there won't be a lot of 91 "repositioning" legs. So your opportunity to actually fly the aircraft is very limited. Yes you may be exposed to the aircraft (systems, "line" flying etc.) but you could get the same exposure in a simulator for far less.
As far as the "time" comment goes I was simply pointing out that the vast majority of people flying to day have put much more time and much more work into getting to where they are than plopping down $50k to "work" for someone else and ride around in the right seat. The "time" comment meant get your ratings, get your CFIs, instruct, work freight (as a paid pilot) and work your way up the chain.
250 hours of Metroliner (insert ay other freight airfram here) time isn't really going to make you that much more marketable than the CFI - who someone has taken a risk with in terms of employing - with 250hrs dual given.
It may not be illegal. But it sure as hell is immoral.
It all comes back to: if you wouldn't pay your current employer to work in the job you currently hold why on earth would you do it to fly an airplane?
The whole point of flying professionaly is to figure out a way to do it on someone else's dime. There are plenty of ways to build time and get paid for it (or at the very least break even). To pay someone else to "work" for them as some variation of a cargo loader/first officer is, in my opinion, dumb.
I don't expect to change your view on this but just think about it. The issue is very simply - why would you pay someone to work for them?