That's why I said most cases. Also, I was only referring to what a training contract and why regional airline pilots loathe them. There is nothing wrong with signing one if you want to work there and feel that it is a good fit for you. You would probably stay at least year anyways.

When a good company has a training contract, it is like insurance, they probably won't need it, but its there if they do.

When a "POS" company has a training contract it works in like I described it. Especially at a non-union company like Lynx, it gives management little incentive to improve working conditions because no one leaves, thus their practices don't cost them any additional training money, they have you.

The problem with a training contract, is that all too often it is almost a punitive tactic. Some employers forget that they owe something back to their employees and having a training contract nullifies the only true and moral economic solution to the employees' problem, finding a new job and leaving.

Our problem lies in the how training contract is used and why it exists, not the simple fact one exists. The way things usually work in this industry, we have to be a suspicious bunch and the existence of a training contract raises red flags.

That being said, I do feel and I think most pilot's would agree that we do owe our employer something when they spend the time and money to train you. Its just a year and I think the majority of us would just stick out the year and get out.

However, no one likes getting taken advantage of, wouldn't you agree?

Also, you are correct in saying that no one forces you to work for a company and we all have to make responsible decisions. In many ways, this incident is a great example of that.

Clear as mud?

Checko