Help with a training contract
 

Hello everybody.

I have been reading every post on here regarding training contracts because I myself need some advice.
I had to break a year-long contract half way through due to personal reasons. I know its not good, but it is something I had to do.

I have now received a letter from my former company's lawyer demanding the money for the agreement.
I have been in contact with lawyers, but the process is long.
Has anyone else been through this recently?

The contract was not notarized.
I live in a different state than the company.
I am not using the type rating that I got with the last company.

Thanks for any advise

That Depends
 

Definately....Lawyer!!!

Three things I'd never get from a pilot (and I am a pilot)

Investment advice

Tax advice

Legal advice

Are you a man of your word or not? You signed it you should pay it

Absolutely consult a contract lawyer to see what they can do for you, all of them say they can win your case so rather than charge ahead with a lawyer at your side, I would set a dollar limit on your legal defense and make it pretty low ($1000). Find a lawyer located in the county the case will be taken to the judge.

This is just me speaking not a lawyer, but I urge you to strongly consider setting up a payment plan for paying out your training contract because getting reamed by a contract lawyer hired to defend you is almost certainly a worse option than simply paying the contract out. These cases often (always) end up in a war of escalation between the two sides, with the only real winners being the lawyers collecting legal fees. Justice is expensive. You are a humble pilot, lawyering up is not a move you want to make in your position. The time to avoid these situations is BEFORE signing a contract, which is now gone.

Thanks for the advice so far.
I obviously did not plan or want to be in this situation. But because of family matters I could no longer remain at the company.
I have set up a prelimanary payment plan. I am however waiting on my lawyer.
I just mainly wanted to know what I can expect or here personal experiences with this matter.

I love when people say this when they don't have any idea what the circumstances are.

I will tell you I am a man of my word but I am debating on breaking my training contract where I work. I signed it and had every intention of staying the year. Problem is my company seems to come up with new policies and "regulations" out of thin air. None of these were in affect when I signed my agreement. As far as I am concerned when they change the terms that voids the agreement.


I am not at he lawyer point and am trying to stick it out but I won't feel a bit guilty if I leave early.



Don't judge people unless you are in their shoes.

I have been flying for a part 135 operator. I finished the training and after completion they gave me a training contract for one year. I thought this was bogus but I wanted to keep the job so I signed it for fear I would be fired. It's been more than six months and I got a job at a regional. Should I be forced to pay back the contract? No type rating was received as it was training in a twin otter. Thanks for your input.

Usually they do that before the training, that is strange. Why don't you talk with the operator and see what they are going to do or can do?

Circumstances dictate leaving, like the OPs situation...however, leaving for a regional on a whim probably won't be viewed good by that company. For the life of me I can't understand the quick jumps after 6 months.

I did a year and everything was golden to move on...but I guess everyone is different.

It's not on a whim, I flew for a season and the busy season is over. They want to upgrade me early next year but I don't want to spend 2 years here. Need to get into the 121 system before it's too late. Thanks for your advice

Help with a training contract
 

Main question is whether or not the company was in a right to work state. Training contracts are not legally enforceable in right to work states, as either party has the legal right to terminate employment at any time. That doesn't mean they won't have an attorney draft a letter to bully you into paying. They may even file suit to pressure you into paying, but it would be thrown out in court.

The way I look at it is training pilots is a part of doing business, and should be shouldered entirely by the employer. Employee retention is a separate matter entirely and is based on a number of factors, most of which are controlled by the employer, although there are exceptions. Training contracts are an immoral method of shifting operating costs to the employee, and seem to be used extensively by unscrupulous operators that have an attorney on retainer already to protect themselves in their other shady dealings.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I fell into the training contract trap myself. I signed a one sided agreement for one year to cover the "costs" of my training in a sh@t box 402b freighter. After 8 months or so I lost my medical, during which time they sent me a letter of termination. Six weeks later when I got my medical back and went to work for a different (much better) operator, I received several letters from their attorney demanding payment of the contract. I knew the law well enough to know they had no case, as it was a right to work state. So I threw the letters in the trash and never heard another word about it. They knew they had no case.

The only other contract I ever signed was a company that payed for my first type rating. I made sure to cross out any sections I didn't agree with and also added an addendum that stated if I was terminated for any reason other than gross misconduct that the contract would be null and void. They had their lawyer look over my revisions and accepted it, then paid for a full Gulfstream type for me. Don't be afraid to make changes to these contracts, and don't sign anything that you wouldn't or couldn't comply with in the worst possible circumstances. That's my advice.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I agree with most of your statements, particularly that companies should shoulder the cost of training pilots and contracts are a sign of poor faith on their part, generally speaking. The over-abundance of naive pilot labor in this country has made the exploitation of entry level pilots easy and profitable, and it continues as we speak.

However I think you are dead wrong that right to work states somehow nullifies a training contract with an employee there. Unless the contract says in it that termination by the employer nullifies the contract, it most certainly is binding in some/ many states and it is enforceable under some/ many state laws. States may vary in how they treat these contracts, the issue is not really debatable here therefore, but to make a blanket statement that if the state is a right to work state then a contract is valid because of that, is not correct and could lead a serious and costly mistake on the part of an applicant pilot.

Signing a training contact is serious business and not to be taken lightly. These contracts are for a lot of money and are both enforceable and enforced in many cases. Good faith in the beginning does not equate to an easy way out in the end. If you "skipped out" (employer's viewpoint) on a training contract and did not later hear from the courts, then consider yourself lucky. This is why I urge pilots to think hard about plan B when it comes to signing these contacts. At the very least take a copy and talk it over with a lawyer first. At the very most, never sign one.

We also have had a lot of threads here on this, use the search window at the upper right to locate them.

Yes. You signed the contract. Now you want out. Your responsibility.

You indicated that it's a one year contract. If htis is the case, then the fact that it's been six months is irrelevant unless the agreement is prorated, or has a clause indicating that you must remain the full 12 months for any relief.

You indicated that you felt the contract was improper, yet you elected to enter into the contract anyway. I'm not sure what it is that you think you're saying, but what you're actually saying is that you entered into the contract. Whether you thought it was legitimate or not is irrelevant. You say you signed it to get what you wanted. You did get what you wanted (the job). Why do you feel that simply because you don't want it any more, you aren't or shouldn't be beholden to the terms to which you agreed?

Whether a type rating was received or not is irrelevant (unless one of the terms of the contract was receipt of a type rating). You appear to be intimating that you don't think you got much out of the contract (except for the job...the reason you signed the contract), and therefore you think you shouldn't be beholden to the agreement.

Simply because you didn't get typed, it's been six months, and you once thought the contract was "bogus" doesn't negate the fact that you signed for it, it's been less than 12 months, and you did get the job.

Now, what are you really trying to say?

Right to work doesn't negate a training agreement, any more than it negates a work contract between a labor group and an employer.

Under right to work doctrine, either the employer or the employee may sever the work relationship at any time. The Employer is not required or bound to keep the employee employed. The employee is not required or bound to stay with the employer. That does not change an agreement to pay for training received. Right to work impacts the ability to stay employed or separate, but not other contractual obligations entered into between the employer and employee.

An example would be a loan taken out by the employee from the employer. If the employee signs an agreement to pay back a pay advance, but elects to leave the employer before that money is repaid, then the money doesn't simply become a gift from the employer. The now-ex-employee must still repay the money. Likewise, if the employee has agreed to a value of money for training, separation of employment (termination or resignation) doesn't negate the obligation on the part of the employee.

Don't confuse right to work with a financial agreement between employer and employee. Right to work means neither party is obligated to retain/work for the other. A training bond or agreement is different; it's a contract to pay for training received, and prescribes penalties for failure to abide the contract. That may be a prorated cost of training, a joint signature loan, or other means of financing training under which the employee/ex-employee is obligated for all or part.

If you sign the agreement, you're picking up one end of the stick. Pick up one end of the stick, and you pick up the other.

Question, how is that training "paid for" if the employee abides by the contract and does not terminate his work? Is it "paid for" by him performing his services for the company?

I agree with this post 100%. I just wish more young pilots realized what they are getting into with these damned training contracts. They simply do not realize it is just like buying a car or a house- you absolutely WILL hear from the company law firm if you wig out on the contract, and in some cases you will even hear from a company law firm about paying up even when you were let go for no reason of your own. It is serious business, and contract lawyers do not play around with contract lawsuits. The way to deal with these contracts is to talk to your lawyer before you sign one, and avoid signing one altogether.

I've seen two instances where a situation like this has shown up in a PRIA. Not good.

That depends on the terms of the contract. Such contracts and bonds shouldn't be necessary at all, but pilots at large tend to be a dishonorable lot; I've worked places where seven pilots in a row took the type rating then ran to another employer for a few dollars more, or to be closer to home. Such individuals were the root cause of these training contracts in the first place.

Some training contracts set a monetary amount which is owed at the outset. The contract is prorated so that every month the employee owes less if he or she leaves. A 12,000 dollar 6 month agreement, for example, means that if the employee takes the training and runs, he owes the full twelve grand. After a month, he owes ten grand. After two months he owes eight grand, and so on.

I've seen other arrangements in which the employer cosigns a loan taken out by the employee; every month the employer pays the loan off in increments. If the employee leaves, the employee is stuck with the loan.

In other cases, the loan, or bond, or agreement is adjusted against a paycheck, and in still others, the individual pays for it up front, and is gradually reimbursed.

The purpose in every case is to provide strong financial incentive to honor an arrangement.

I do not like such arrangements, and abhor those who seek payment up front from a potential employee. One who pays for a job isn't really an employee; more of a hobbyist. Unfortunately, training bonds, agreements, and various arrangements won't be going anywhere soon, largely due to the dishonor of those who take the training and run.

This thread is a great example of that. The poster unabashedly tells us that he simply signed the agreement to get what he wanted. Having got it, his concern is not how to honor his obligations, but how to get out of them scott free.

"I didn't think I'd really have to pay it back" isn't really a legitimate excuse to get out of one's legal debt.

In the last few of years I have come to understand exactly how new aviators have ruined not only the entry level Part 91 and 135 jobs in this country, they have also ruined the regional airline market for entry-level airline pilots. This group comes along willing to work for a chance to fly and the hope of a big airline career, and they willingly accept any kind of treatment and pay in the process. Low end airlines take advantage of this exact mentality and over time quality of life and pay goes to hell, which is where the entire industry is today. The nature of the job is that it caters to the exploitation of dreamers, and the domestic entry level pilot is not the kind of person who puts facts ahead of some flung hopes they cling to. These onerous training contracts are symptomatic of the same thing- workers applying to jobs to support some vision of grandeur without much (any) regard for the actual position they have to take to get there. The main message I echo here is therefore that one should apply to and accept a job because they want that job, period, not some other job that comes later. Only when this mentality prevails among entry level pilots in this country will the actual work life for all pilots improve.

Lots of good points here..... to me it goes back to the statement..."how good is your word".... telling someone to sign a contract because "its not enforceable anyways".... is just wrong. Not going to argue the pro's con's of a training contract. For me, it is as simple as this... you sign the contract.. generally these contracts agree that you will receive some sort of training paid for by the company and in return you are agreeing to stay at that company for a set period of time. Now... if you want to leave early you have two choices ... pay off the contract or fight it. Fighting it says to me that you are not willing to live up to the agreements you have made. Caveat.. there are always circumstances beyond one's control, in that case still... its a matter of paying your debts. NO need to flame I am sure there are plenty who don't agree with my thoughts ....thats fine.

How on earth is training required to perform a job to serve an employer in any way similar to a loan? Training is not a gift. Yeah you could argue that it makes your prospective employee more marketable, but it's required in order for you to utilize your employee. If your employees are leaving one after another, maybe the employer should look at themselves and ask what they can do to retain their employees. Usually better compensation, benefits, schedule, safety culture, quality of life on and off the job will do the trick. I understand protecting your investment and I understand honoring your word, but locking people into training contracts because it is the only way you can get people to stick around screams bottom feeder operation to me.

Whomever said that it is? Certainly not me.

One method used to secure the cost of training is a loan; how it's done varies. Some employers advance the cost or deduct it from paychecks, others require the employee to cosign a loan. Training is not similar to a loan, but similarity is not relevant. We're not discussing similarity here. The employer incurs a cost in training, and expects that the person receiving that training will remain for a period of time. The employer asks the employee to enter into an agreement to remain. If the employee remains for the agreed period of time, no problem. If the employee terminates the contract early, then the employee bears some of the cost of the training. This is an upfront agreement into which the employee not forced to enter.

Whether a loan is similar or not to training has nothing to do with anything. It's not supposed to be "similar." It's a financial issue. The training is expensive. The employee is asked to give a minimum term of service upon receiving that training, or is allowed to leave prior to that term if he or she bears a portion of the cost of that training. Some employers cosign a loan with the employee, making the employee financially party and liable to the costs of the training.

Also irrelevant. Gift or not, the training is expensive. You can argue whatever you like, but a type rating has considerable value. Go buy your own GV rating and tell me it doesn't. Given that many employers will not hire you without your already being typed, either you pay for it yourself or get someone else to pay for it. If someone else pays for it, you're getting a very big enhancement to your professional qualification that opens the door to you at other employers.

If employer A hires you but doesn't pay as much as employer B, then so be it. This does not justify taking the training at employer A, then running to employer B. If you agree to work for employer A for a period of time because you want the job and because you want the type rating, then have the honor to fulfill your obligation to employe A. If you don't want to do that, then don't take the job. Go see if employer B will hire you.

Much of the time, employer B wants that type rating. Your ability to go get hired by employer B comes from getting the type rating at Employer A.

Bottom feeder? I worked for a very good charter operator that sent pilots through Flight Safety for a type rating on one of several aircraft. Their pay was not as great as others, but they were well established. They had very good maintenance, and good equipment. We had seven pilots in a row, each a military aviator, who came aboard with a handshake and an agreement to remain with the company for 12 months following being typed. We didn't use a training bond. No contract. No loan. No money up front. No paycheck deductions or reimbursements. No signature.

Each of those aviators, supposedly men of honor in uniform, took the money and ran. Seven in a row. One got a job closer to home. Another hired on with another operator while still at Flight Safety, before the type was even complete. Another grabbed the promise of an instant upgrade, and so forth. Seven in a row. No skin off their nose. They were accustomed to the training being given them. Taxpayers gave it, and now my employer gave it. Nothing new. They checked another box and made their move, leaving the employer stuck with the cost of their training, and no employee to do the work.

The cost of training isn't just the cost of training, however, when it comes to replacing an employee. The cost of recruiting, lost trips, and the overall cost of replacement, including background checks and other administrative expenses, is considerably more.

Guess what the company did after the seventh welcher bailed dishonorably? If you guessed instituted a training contract, you'd be right.

If you seek employment with a company that has a training contract, then fill the term of the contract or pay the price. Don't expect that simply because your interest in the job has faded, so has your financial obligation. If you don't want to sign the contract, if you don't want to incur that obligation, then DON'T TAKE THE JOB! Is that so complicated?

I find training contracts and bonds to be quite distasteful. They exist, however, due to the dishonor of those who have come before, who were quite willing to wet the bed in which everyone lay, all for their own selfish interests. This is the fallout.

The loan is a mechanism to put teeth in a training contract, ie make it enforceable or at least create more consequences for non-compliance.

As to why an employer needs a training contract...99% of the time it's because it's a horrible place to work and nobody would stay. 1% of the time it might be because you're getting a G-V/650 type and the employer has a legit interest in some ROI on that very expensive and marketable type.

This is not correct, not even close. As others have pointed out, there is a difference between a contractual employment agreement and what is considered a "right to work" state. The misnomer "right to work" stems from the Taft-Hartley Act (1947) which was enacted to prevent agreements between companies and unions coercing employees, as a condition of continued employment, to become members of a trade union (and therefore pay dues). There are variations among the states on the level of prohibition on the requirements of union membership and dues mandated. None of these, however, interfere with the basic Constitutional right of "freedom to contract." A contract can be formed between consenting parties on just about any conceivable subject, provided it does not violate public policy or any laws (also cannot be unconscionable). Also required is a benefit to both sides with mutual voluntary consent.

You are incorrect. Look at the precedent setting case of flex jet, the court found that they had no claim whatsoever to a contractual agreement. http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-ne...aining-lawsuit
These contracts are completely unenforceable from a legal standpoint.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

That being said, who cares. I signed a two year agreement when I got typed in the gulfstream. If the company was royally screwing me I'd leave regardless. Since they've honored their word I stay and work hard. Honor goes both ways, and a training agreement isn't worth the paper its on, it's the word that matters.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

That is not a precedent setting case. No mention of what court nor any language from a higher court's judicial opinion. It was a "jury" case which doesn't decide issues of "law". Jury's decided issues of fact. Regardless that the article you cited is devoid of any real legal language, there was enough verbiage to deduce that the reason the jury found 'no contract' was that the parties did not reach a mutual understanding of the agreement. If you read my previous post you'll note that a "mutual agreement" is a contract requirement. There was no language that the contract was void on its face or that it violated any public policy or law. The jury merely found that "the parties did not agree on the interpretation of ‘training.’" [emphasis added]. So, these contracts are still enforceable.

"Wiley believes that this case sets a precedent for disputes between pilots and employers who insist that employees repay training costs if they leave before an agreed-on period of time has passed. “Now there is an actual case that got fought through to the bitter end,” he said. “This contract’s not worth the paper it’s written on.”"
That is a direct quote from the article.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

This is true, but it is still technically not a precedent setting case. IF, Flexjet had appealed, and an appellate or higher court had issued a "binding" opinion on the specific issue of whether these type of contracts where enforceable, then maybe we could talk. However, the only question answered in this case was whether Miller and Flexjet had "a meeting of the minds" (to use legalese) concerning the terms of the contract. You see, if the contract was found to be void on its face we would have seen a flurry of class action lawsuits on this very issue. The lawyer here was just throwing out talking points to make the case sound more important than it really was -- a simple, run of the mill contract dispute; not a precedent setting legal behemoth.

Your statement is entirely untrue.

Did you bother to read the article that you linked? You assert that Miller won, establishing precedent, when that didn't happen at all. In fact, the title of the article is "No clear winner in flexjet training law suit." You understand what his means, yes?

The suit between Miller and Flexjet went nowhere because both parties defaulted on their contract. Had flexjet given Miller his type and the training as agreed, Miller wouldn't have had a leg on which to stand, and yes, the contract would have been enforceable. There was no valid contract within which to seek relief, as both parties actions negated the value of the contract. Read, next time.

Apparently you read what you want to read, and disregard the rest.

What Wiley believes or doesn't believe is superfluous. Wiley is attorney for Miller, not the judge. Wiley is biased strictly to the interest of his client; neither party won. Flexjet was unable to collect, and Miller's law suit was unsatisfactory. The claims and counterclaims were null on account of both parties having defaulted on the agreement.

He didn't have to pay the contract, did he? Most companies don't deliver on their promises, and if they do, then there is no reason to break contract. The fact is that in the majority of cases, companies fail to collect on these agreements.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

You obviously have an unflappable preconceived notion on this issue. He did pay part of the contract (if there ever was a true contract) by working for Flexjet as long as he did. It was his duty under the alleged terms to remain employed for a certain period of time. Therefore, every day he was employed he was fulfilling a portion of his contractual obligation. Why do think they only sued for a portion of the outstanding balance?

Cite the majority of the cases.

In this case, "not paying" didn't set a precedent. Almost certainly he spent more in court and attorney fees than he "saved" by not honoring his word.

Most companies don't deliver on their promises? Got something to back that up? I certainly haven't seen that to be the case, and I'm willing to bet I've worked for a LOT more companies than you.

Who are these companies that aren't fulfilling their "promises?"

Please see bolded text above. And I'll raise this salient observation with the notion that the cost was even higher to Miller. The time, energy and lost sleep invested in attempting to vindicate his almost untenable position.

Thanks a ton, JB and Obi.

It's a huge disservice to others, highly misleading when people come here and say

• companies never take these contracts seriously and just about never collect on one of them

• just sign any contract you want because you'll be skipping happily along to Delta Airlines soon anyway

• these contracts are not based on valid contract law, I heard that Right to Work laws makes any contract invalid. You can skip town and not pay because they can't come after you, it's all just for show.



Rather, the exact opposite is the case-

• they do matter in a purely ethical, moralistic sense of keeping your word

• they are legally binding in most circumstances

• the companies do hire lawyers to come after pilots who break them

• some companies actually misuse such agreements as a basis for suing unlucky pilots who are fired for no cause or fault of their own

Always a pleasure, even though I'm new here. :-)

Ok, that has been my experience, but I've only worked for seven 135 operations, and a few flight schools, as well as a couple part 91 gigs. How many companies is it that you've worked for again? I don't fault them for it, but I've seen a whole lot of selling expectations that can't be delivered upon. That being said I don't personally sign anything one sided. As I said before, I've only signed one contract that was one sided and they ended up screwing me when I temporarily lost my medical. They sent me letters, and when I contacted an attorney, he gave me the exact advice I passed on previously. Take it for what it's worth, but it was the case with that particular contract. That being said, I did fulfill my portion of the contract to the best of my abilities. After that occurrence I rewrite whatever contract is presented to me to make it fair and balanced. IE, I add the terms that I previously described, to make sure I can't be screwed. My abilities and experience however allow me to do that. I wasn't in a position to do that when I had 1000hrs and was trying to get my first multi IFR job. You can disagree with what I say all you want, but I speak only from my personal experience.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Counting full time, seasonal, relief, temporary, contract, government, corporate, airline, charter, fractional, and other duties listed as recent experience, it's seven pages of short-listing by name, address, phone number, and brief description. I will leave it at that. A few more than you; yours wouldn't fit on page one. Go back beyond recent experience (what's not needed for a background check, security clearance, or a typical job application), and it's a little more extensive.

Perhaps I haven't signed on with those bad companies that you seem to run into that make up the "majority" of them. Perhaps I've just been lucky.

Perhaps. Seems to be the case more often than not that any company using training contracts without sending people to sim school is a bottom feeder operation. It's a different story when they are sending you to school.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

"Sim school?" You mean providing aircraft specific training in the form of a recurrent or a type rating?

The industry standard is a six month commitment for recurrent flight training, twelve months for a type rating.

I've never seen a "training contract" where training isn't part of the equation. Certainly there may be cases where a company might have a contract for training and then fail to provide it, but that's really neither here nor there, as the company has defaulted on their agreement.

Have you worked for companies that required you to sign an agreement to remain a period of time, when no type rating or training was part of the bargain? Why would you enter into such an agreement?