Airline Pilot Central Forums - Help with a training contract

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joepilot84 (Post 1754387)

You're a real Internet tough guy, aren't you?

Where are you coming up with this stupidity?

The only person talking about being "tough" is you. Then again, you come from the toughest conditions on the planet, don't you? This tough thing is very important for you, isn't it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joepilot84 (Post 1754387)

You loaded airplanes in the snow in Southeast Asia?

Not a lot of snow in southeast asia, but in southwest asia, yes. Which one have you flown in?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joepilot84 (Post 1754387)

You claim I back peddle, yet fail to show a single example of that.

Well, let's see...

Your first attempt was post 11 in which you said that training contracts aren't enforceable in right to work states. This of course was wrong. You also incorrectly stated that such a contract would be thrown out in court. In post 12 you went on to say that your own case, fired from one job, not pursued by the employer over your contract, proved the contracts weren't enforceable. Non sequitur logic, and wrong; a poor argument, but we'll come back to that.

You globbed onto an article regarding flexjet in post 25, didn't bother to read the title stating that there were no winners, and used that to claim the pilot who bailed on his contract had set a precedent. You were wrong about his "win," you were wrong about the precedent, and you were wrong about the decision of the court. Again you held up the incorrect statement that "these contracts are completely unenforceable from a legal standpoint."

From what school did you get your law degree? You've formally stated that you're giving legal advice. BAD idea.

In post 26 you start to back away saying "who cares," and then you go on to talk about dishonoring your contract if you felt so inclined. You went on to give bad counsel once more about the training contract not worth the paper upon which it was written (untrue, but not entirely a lie as apparently you simply don't know better).

In Post 28 you went on to choose your source poorly, relying upon the attorney for the pilot who broke his contract, never bothering to get good data or understand the article (particularly laughable, as the article title stated there was no winner), and once again reiterated your bad counsel that the contract isn't enforceable. You state that precedent was set...a glaring error for a shadetree attorney like yourself.

In post 31, you attempt to argue precedent, but as it's lost ground, you fall back to a new tack, claiming that "most companies" don't deliver on their promises. You have nothing to back that up, of course. You also assert that in the "majority of these cases," the companies don't collect. Still waiting for you to back that one up, too. You can't, of course.

In post 37 you start your anatomy measuring contest (which you lose)
You do say for the record that you don't "sign anything one sided," then go on to say that you did sign a "one sided" contract and that you got "screwed;" apparently you don't do it but you did do it anyway. You're sure to say that your "abilities and experience" allow you to modify contracts so you don't "get screwed." Must be nice. What law school was that you graduated from, again?

It's post 39 when you really start to backpeddle, as well as slide left a bit far. You assert that any company with an employment agreement not sending you to "sim school" is a "bottom feeder," and yet reverse yourself on the training agreement issue to say that "it's a different story when they are sending you to school." So employment contracts are, or are not okay? You go different directions there. You really can't back up the assertion that companies requiring employment contracts are "bottom feeders." You're willing to sign them when it suits you...say, for a 402 job, or to get a GIII type. Some might call that hypocritical. Others, simply back peddling.

Back peddling further in post 43, you can't use statistics or evidence to show that the majority of contracting companies are bottom feeders, and can't show anything that supports your assertions about the "majority of companies" that you made previously. Instead, you fall back on "logic." Logic tells you it must be so, therefore, it must be so. A majority is a quantifiable value, however, while "bottom feeder" is subjective, but rather than defer to numbers of something to qualify your subjectivity, you've tried to apply logic to both, when it has no place in either case. Logic has no place in qualifying "bottom feeder," and it doesn't cut the mustard when you've asserted a majority value.

When confronted with your errors, you cried in post 46 that you were being attacked. You told us that you "had" to sign the contract "because the company was terrible," as though that was in any way, shape, or form a valid reason for signing the contract. No, you signed it to get what you wanted, end of story. You wanted to fly that 402, and so you did. It isn't the only training contract you've signed, either. Imagine our utter surprise to skip forward to post 49 when you tell us "Training contracts are bullsh@t bordering on extorted indentured servitude." Yet you sign them to get what you want. Back peddling if ever there was, and we see that the goose and the gander are worlds apart (at least, in your world, that is).

Post 49 is where you really start pressing this "tough" line; you live and work in the toughest place on the planet, presumably making you one tough guy, something you return to again in post 53. Still unable to support your previous points, of course, now you fall back from your previous points and logic to simply talking about yourself, your accomplishments, and your hard, difficult life. Once more you attempt to puff your chest and measure anatomy (and in what appears to be a trend, you lose, given that your experience appears rather mediocre at best). What you don't do is support anything you've claimed previously by backing it up with facts, links, or anything but opinion. You tried falling back to "logic," but now we're down to what you've done in Alaska.

By the time we get to post 53, you're doing everything but challenging to a gradeschool fight by the flagpole, still harping on toughness, and apparently very hung up on where it snows and where it doesn't (it might interest you to know that there are some very "tough" places in the world--on that very planet you invoked previously--that have harsh conditions that don't involve snow. This you'd know, had you experience operating in those locations).

So, wrong on all counts, unable to back anything up, and now rabbiting on about toughness and snow, your points are invalid and do poor service for a shadetree attorney. Training contracts are enforceable. Those who would follow your counsel are well informed to steer clear; what you have to offer may be tainted, and certainly isn't well researched, as you don't know your topic well at all. Those who would seek direction in these matters are best advised to find an attorney of their own, pay the fees or retainer, and pursue action only based on the paid guidance of that mouthpiece. Such should also be advised to live up to what signatures they provide, and to think twice before signing, so as to cut down on the need for second guessing after the fact.

If any of you are ever cornered in a bar over a wager involving the toughest place on earth, track down joepilot84: he will point the way.