Connect and get the inside scoop on Airline Companies

Welcome to Airline Pilot Forums - Connect and get the inside scoop on Airline Companies

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ. Join our community today and start interacting with existing members. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free.


User Tag List

Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 08-29-2019, 09:39 AM   #11  
In a land of unicorns
 
Joined APC: Apr 2014
Position: 175 FO
Posts: 2,775
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Excargodog View Post
Excuse me, but did you even READ the Mesa case? It absolutely WAS NOT a totally different scenario.

A few excerpts:











So, at least in the state of Arizona, you are absolutely WRONG. This was a training contract for INITIAL FAA REQUIRED TRAINING. Specifically, it was for a type rating and Indoc training that the defendant DID NOT HAVE. It was specifically for training costs, not for a bonus, RTP training, or flying hours necessary to qualify for the ATP. It was for his indoc and type rating.

The pilot lost initially and he lost on appeal. And THAT has been the history in all of these cases. Granted, oftentimes the employer just lets it go because the sums involved donít warrant the effort, but any one of these cases can go to trial, and then what happens?

Easy. Every single background check that is ever done on these individuals is going to show that they reneged on a contract with their employer.

If you donít think that is going to adversely affect their employability, then more fool you.

Moreover, if you actually READ the other articles, it shows training contracts to be enforceable in California as well. As for libel or slander, truth is an absolute bar to winning cases for either of those. Saying someone reneged on a contract when they actually DID renege on a contract is legal in all jurisdictions of the US.
You don't understand the difference here.

You can have a binding training contract, assuming there is consideration. Consideration in the Mesa case was the training(type rating) he received, which can be transferred to any other employer.

What BF is referring to are contracts with NO consideration. eg. You promise to work for A for X amount of time, and A only provides their company specific training, but nothing that is of value outside A. Most 135 training contracts are like that, especially the ones for non-type rated equipment, and they are not enforceable because they lack consideration (and often would be unconscionable due to the excessive value and/or one-sideness of the contract).

You might want to read the Acknowledgement case and especially how the court interpreted the statute they used (2802 or something like that IIRC), and understand the difference between a training contract providing you a type rating, or training contract just for company specific training.

One of the requirements for a contract to be legal and binding is that it needs to have consideration. Something of value for both parties. An arbitrary training contract often does not have that. In the case of Mesa, they provided a type rating, something that has value. That makes the contract legal.

CA is actually one of the better states, because in CA employer can not go after the employee for legal costs in employment litigation.
dera is offline  
Old 08-29-2019, 10:07 AM   #12  
Moderator
 
tomgoodman's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: 767A (Ret)
Posts: 5,467
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dera View Post
One of the requirements for a contract to be legal and binding is that it needs to have consideration. Something of value for both parties. An arbitrary training contract often does not have that.
Well, it might. At common law, consideration can be something of value given up by the promissee, whether or not the promisor later retains any benefit from it. The company-specific training was of prospective value at the time of signing, and it did cost the airline time and effort to deliver.
tomgoodman is online now  
Old 08-29-2019, 10:57 AM   #13  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 2,633
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dera View Post
You don't understand the difference here.

You can have a binding training contract, assuming there is consideration. Consideration in the Mesa case was the training(type rating) he received, which can be transferred to any other employer.
I ABSOLUTELY understand. He stated - and I quote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bahamasflyer View Post
Sorry, but those cases are apples vs oranges to what the OP is asking and the examples I'm listing.

Those cases, as well as the Mesa one you linked, are completely different because those cases involved either the employee taking bonus money (voluntary) or tuition reimbursement (also voluntary).

Before you responded I made it very clear that those situations would indeed likely cause courts to rule in favor of the employers.

Myself and the OP are talking about employers demanding reimbursement for costs that are MANDATORY for employment. Not only mandatory in terms of company policy, but also required by the FAA for training.

Two totally different scenarios.
He stated that a contract for mandatory training required by the FAA such as type-rating would not be enforceable. The case I cited demonstrates that it is. It was NOT two different scenarios. You cannot agree with me about the MESA case and disagree that Bahamasflyer was wrong about his interpretation. Well, you CAN I guess, since you have, but you would be wrong.

And while I would agree that a contract requires consideration on both sides, I would disagree as to what sort of interpretation the court’s of various states would put on what constitutes consideration. In the California case the fact that the LAPD had sent prospective employees to the state police academy was deemed adequate reason to enforce a training contract, although other required training called for by the job was not. That decision implied that some portability of the benefit to the individual was necessary, but it was the first such ruling under California law. Previous court cases held otherwise. And not all cases will be decided in California.

My point in rebutting Bahamasflyer was not to attempt to justify training contracts, merely to point out that laws vary from state to state and many employers will indeed go after you - and often successfully - if you renege on a contract, particularly renege as egregiously as the Mesa case.

And if they do choose to raise a stink about you, it can only hurt you because it doesn’t matter if ultimately you win or lose, once it becomes a court case it becomes a matter of public record and it will turn up on every background check the HR department of future potential employers do on you and you would be naive in the extreme to believe they won)t hold it against you.


https://blog.aopa.org/aopa/2014/09/0...ing-contracts/

Last edited by Excargodog; 08-29-2019 at 11:14 AM.
Excargodog is offline  
Old 08-29-2019, 11:06 AM   #14  
In a land of unicorns
 
Joined APC: Apr 2014
Position: 175 FO
Posts: 2,775
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tomgoodman View Post
Well, it might. At common law, consideration can be something of value given up by the promissee, whether or not the promisor later retains any benefit from it. The company-specific training was of prospective value at the time of signing, and it did cost the airline time and effort to deliver.
But that goes against the premise of employer having to bear costs of doing business, and transferring that cost to the employee is not allowed.

That is how FlexJet lost their case in TX. And that was one of the main points in the Acknowledgement cases. It's not case law, but it gives a good insight on the subtle difference between generic- and company specific training.

This varies state by state, but in TX and CA, if the training is company specific, and only obtainable from that company, then a contract using that as consideration is generally not enforceable.

Also, a lot of these contracts are unconscionable simply because the monetary value attached to them. You can't reasonably say your 135 SIC Caravan training was worth $25k over 2 years, non pro-rated.
dera is offline  
Old 08-29-2019, 11:15 AM   #15  
In a land of unicorns
 
Joined APC: Apr 2014
Position: 175 FO
Posts: 2,775
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Excargodog View Post
I ABSOLUTELY understand. He stated - and I quote:



He stated that a contract for mandatory training required by the FAA such as type-rating would not be enforceable. The case I cited demonstrates that it is. It was NOT two different scenarios. You cannot agree with me about the MESA case and disagree that Bahamasflyer was wrong about his interpretation. Well, you CAN I guess, since you have, but you would be wrong.

And while I would agree that a contract requires consideration on both sides, I would disagree as to what sort of interpretation the courtís of various states would put on what constitutes consideration. In the California case the fact that the LAPD had sent prospective employees to the state police academy was deemed adequate reason to enforce a training contract, although other required training called for by the job was not. That decision implied that some portability of the benefit to the individual was necessary, but it was the first such ruling under California law. Previous court cases held otherwise. And not all cases will be decided in California.

My point in rebutting Bahamasflyer was not to attempt to justify training contracts, merely to point out that laws vary from state to state and many employers will indeed go after you - and often successfully - if you renege on a contract, particularly renege as egregiously as the Mesa case.

And if they do choose to raise a stink about you, it can only hurt you because it doesnít matter if ultimately you win or lose, once it becomes a court case it becomes a matter of public record and it will turn up on every background check the HR department of future potential employers do on you and you would be naive in the extreme to believe they won)t hold it against you.
I believe BF was referring to an average Part 135 training contract, where the company provides training that is required, by the FAA, for employment at that company but that cannot be transferred anywhere else (such as a company training course in equipment you have already been typed with, or equipment that does not require a type rating).
And then attaching some ridiculous dollar value to that contract.
That's not valuable consideration, that's a cost of doing business. Almost all states have statutes that require employer to bear all costs of doing business and not allowing them to be transferred to the employee.

Those are the contracts that usually are not enforceable. They lack consideration, and are often unconscionable.
If they provide you with a type rating, or any skill that can be transferred, then pay up or man up and work the deal.

That Mesa case is ridiculous. The guy had zero chance to be successful. That case had consideration (ATP and a type rating), it wasn't unconscionable (easy to show that a type rating costs tens of thousands of dollars) and he hardly worked any of the contract so he couldn't show lack of damages because he provided ample return for their investment. Stupid to take that to court. His lawyer should be ashamed.

Agree with the last paragraph, choose your battles and keep your name "google-clean".
dera is offline  
Old 08-29-2019, 11:22 AM   #16  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 2,633
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dera View Post
But that goes against the premise of employer having to bear costs of doing business, and transferring that cost to the employee is not allowed.

That is how FlexJet lost their case in TX. And that was one of the main points in the Acknowledgement cases. It's not case law, but it gives a good insight on the subtle difference between generic- and company specific training.

This varies state by state, but in TX and CA, if the training is company specific, and only obtainable from that company, then a contract using that as consideration is generally not enforceable.

Also, a lot of these contracts are unconscionable simply because the monetary value attached to them. You can't reasonably say your 135 SIC Caravan training was worth $25k over 2 years, non pro-rated.

Flexjet lost their case in Texas due to fraud:

Quote:
Miller was hired with the promise that he would receive a type rating right away and regular six-month recurrent training. Miller believed what Flexjet told him, he said, because marketing material at the time assured shareowners that they would always fly with two type-rated pilots who received recurrent training every six months.

When he went to FlightSafety International in Tucson, Ariz., for the two-week initial training course in the Learjet 60, however, ďthe final step of the type-rating ride never happened. That was standard practice in the industry for them.Ē

After Miller left Flexjet, the company asked him to pay $4,750 toward his training costs. He refused, and in October 2005 Flexjet sued him. Miller countersued, according to Flexjet, ďclaiming common law fraud, fraudulent inducement, fraud by nondisclosure, negligent misrepresentation, consumer fraud and declaratory judgment.Ē

On February 8 the jury issued its verdict, and neither Miller nor Flexjet received any damages. Miller claims that he ďwon,Ē mainly because Flexjet representatives admitted that they lied about the type-rating promises. During one of the pre-trial depositions of Flexjet chief pilot Rick Handschuch, Miller said, ďhe admitted that what was promised to owners was not delivered.Ē

The jury didnít find that there was a contract, Wiley said. ďIt denied Bombardierís contract claim.Ē While it didnít award any damages to either party, the jury also found that Bombardier Flexjet engaged in deceptive trade practices against Miller, according to Wiley.
They promised the man a type rating and didnít give him one. THAT voided the contract. And Iím not saying that some or all of these contracts are conscionable, Iím saying that many of them ARE legal and even signing and reneging on contracts that courts later void can hurt your career.
Excargodog is offline  
Old 08-29-2019, 11:49 AM   #17  
In a land of unicorns
 
Joined APC: Apr 2014
Position: 175 FO
Posts: 2,775
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Excargodog View Post
Flexjet lost their case in Texas due to fraud:
They promised the man a type rating and didnít give him one. THAT voided the contract. And Iím not saying that some or all of these contracts are conscionable, Iím saying that many of them ARE legal and even signing and reneging on contracts that courts later void can hurt your career.
The main point of the FlexJet verdict was that there was no valuable consideration, so there was no contract. Not what was promised.
If they had given the type rating, the contract would've been much stronger. Now it was just an SIC gig, and the court agreed that was not worth anything outside FlexJet.
That's a common 135 training contract. And that one wasn't enforceable because it gave no value to the employee outside FlexJet.
dera is offline  
Old 08-29-2019, 12:32 PM   #18  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 2,633
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dera View Post
The main point of the FlexJet verdict was that there was no valuable consideration, so there was no contract. Not what was promised.
If they had given the type rating, the contract would've been much stronger. Now it was just an SIC gig, and the court agreed that was not worth anything outside FlexJet.
That's a common 135 training contract. And that one wasn't enforceable because it gave no value to the employee outside FlexJet.
No, what the defendant asserted and what the jury ruled was that there was no contract because of fraud, that Flexjet had deceived the defendant into believing he would get not just the training but the type rating.

Pilot wins lawsuit against Bombardier Flexjet: Firm used deceptive practices, jury finds

A couple excerpts:

Quote:
Pilot wins lawsuit against Bombardier Flexjet: Firm used deceptive practices, jury finds
(Dallas Morning News, The (KRT) Via Thomson Dialog NewsEdge) Feb. 9--A Dallas jury has found Bombardier Flexjet's contract with a former pilot unenforceable, saying the Richardson-based private jet company used deceptive practices in promising pilots promotions and training.
Quote:
The jury returned its verdict Monday, finding that the contract was invalid and that Flexjet had used deceptive trade practices, said Rob Wiley, attorney for Mr. Miller.

However, the jury awarded Mr. Miller no damages in his countersuit against Flexjet, and he probably will have to bear his own legal costs.

Mr. Miller estimated his legal expenses were about $70,000, but he believes he's among the very first pilots to successfully challenge Flexjet's pilot contract.

"It was a real education for me," he said
So yeah, the jury ruled that the contract was invalid because of fraud, NOT that such contracts were invariably unenforceable. In fact, the plaintiff and his lawyer did not even make that claim.

And talk about a Pyrrhic victory - $70K in legal fees to avoid giving Flexjet $5280? Thatís a loss in my book.

But basically we are saying the same thing, you and I. Many of these contracts truly are unconscionable although enforceability varies from state to state.

But nobody ought to be left with the idea that itís no big deal to sign without thinking or to renege on them, because it's NOT
.
Excargodog is offline  
Old 09-08-2019, 03:49 AM   #19  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 12,950
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LFroese View Post
I've signed an employment contract with my current employer but I have a pretty good opportunity to go elsewhere. I'm wondering if I can get some advice as to whether or not the contract can be enforced. It's not pro-rated for time already employed.
You signed a contract. Skip all the lawyer and legal stuff in this thread. You signed the contract and you should honor it. Failure to do so reflects on your character. That should be far more valuable to you than any other consideration.
sailingfun is offline  
Old 09-14-2019, 07:45 AM   #20  
FNG
 
VOLLU's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2015
Position: Holding onto the tail.
Posts: 52
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sailingfun View Post
You signed the contract and you should honor it.
It's not as simple as that. Although this original poster wants to bust his contract merely because he has a "pretty good opportunity to go elsewhere," what about a situation where the employer breached the contract by blatantly and intentionally misrepresenting compensation, schedule, QOL, opportunity for advancement, etc? Do you think the pilot is still morally precluded from seeking a way out?
VOLLU is offline  
 
 
 

 
Post Reply
 



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes


Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta? Guard Dude Delta 198365 Today 05:24 AM
Amerijet To Vote on Ending IBT Representation White Cap Cargo 47 09-16-2019 09:01 AM
I'm ready to vote on the TA. Mitch Rapp05 United 49 11-22-2013 07:13 AM
ALPA Officers Salary Scale old gasser Union Talk 28 06-08-2008 12:31 PM


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:31 AM.