Insurance is not nearly as restrictive as it used to be. The market is soft right now and underwriters are doing things they never would have done 3-5 years ago just to get business...and the premiums on these more liberal policies are lower than previous, more restrictive ones.

I'm kind of like Josh in that I'm violently opposed to a prorated training contract...but I don't like indentured servitude (which training contracts essentially require) and I do think a company vastly lowers its turnover potential if it provides a good balance of compensation and quality of life. A company wouldn't hesitate to terminate you if it was in its financial best interest, so why should a pilot not have the same ability? Additionally, when hiring a pilot you have to look at the candidates and judge their 'risk' of being a short-time vs. longer-term employee.

I am, however, violently opposed to a pilot paying for their own training out of pocket, subsidizing an individual or corporation operating a multi-million dollar aircraft. I fully understand why some would do this (to better themselves), and deals are often struck for a company to pay part and the individual to pay part, but I think companies who REQUIRE this of their pilots expose their cheapness to the Nth degree. My feelings on this exclude contract pilots, who bear all the financial risk of paying for their own training as a business expense.

My boss asked me about a training contract for the pilot we hired last year (over a pilot who was typed in our aircraft) and I very firmly voiced my opposition to such a thing, using the reasons above...that was the last he's spoken of the topic. If he came to us tomorrow and pushed training contracts on us, I'd ask him many pointed questions about his logic behind requiring them...but ultimately, if the terms were fair I would sign it with only a little hesitation.