NatGeo

Proposal here, who wants to join me and chip in $100 each to support the (100 pilots sued by Sothern Airways Express)?

We can easily stop this garbage company from taking advantage of the newbies.

Lets start a crowdfunding list:

1. Natgeo
2. ......
3. .......
4. .......
5. ......

QRH Bingo

And how exactly are they taking advantage of newbies? Unless I am missing a large piece of information, these individuals signed a training bond with a known, shady operator, and then left, violating the contract. Even if one were to cite safety concerns, that does not exempt them from a signed contract.

NatGeo

You sound like you would fit just fine into one of these companies managment roles.

captjns

Not a prayer! These Baes in the Woods, who elegidly contain the mental capacity to become pilots, lack the capacity to be educated consumers. The old saying goes... Tuition comes at a high price.

JohnBurke

Laughable.

Why pay money to "support" someone who signed a contract, in their effort to break that contract? I didn't sign the contract, nor did I break it. These individuals were happy to sign to get what they wanted. If they have a legitimate claim, then they can make it in court. Thus far, little, if anyting, has been offered but disgruntled employees who are talking out of their depth, working their first job. They have no experience against which to compare their complaints, and sound more like crying children than wronged professionals.

No, you can't, and no, we can't.

QRH Bingo

Well hang on now... There is a way. Stop applying. Once the applicants dry up the company must change or close the doors.

followingdreams

We are a few days away from someone posting "Can anyone tell me about the QOL at Southern Air? I am aware of their training contract but I really believe its the right company for me and my family. Only helpful responses please!"

JohnBurke

We can't correct it, and the poster to which we've both replied can't correct it, but you're correct: the applicant can prevent the problem by refusing to sign the contract. The Huffington Post article, and others, note that the pilots interviewed didn't leave prior to 1,500 hours. They stayed in the "unsafe" enviroment until they had their minimums to go to a regional or elsewhere, and then they broke their contracts. Take the mone, and run. Surprise, surprise; the contract holder sues.

The complaints include things such as "putting the wrong F/O on the manifest AND making him sign the manifest and fly like that for weeks just because they're lazy as fuc@$ and didnt want to add the F/O to the system." (Southern Air Exp sues 19 former pilots) This hardship ignores the simple pen-and-ink fix. Should one quit and incur a lawsuit over this? Most would say no.

The complaints include, "having non PC-12 mechanics work on the planes." (Southern Air Exp sues 19 former pilots) Of course, there's no such thing as a "non-PC-12" mechanic, any more than there's such a thing as a "PC-12 mechanic." If the company has a maintenance program that requires a specific internal qualification, then mechanics must meet that, but the FAA does not issue type ratings on mechanic certificates. Merely two possible ratings (airframe, and powerplant), and an authorization, and if the company elects and holds the shop certification, may also use non-certificated mechanics to do the work (eg, working under a repair station certificate, etc). If the pilot is aware of illegal maintenance, by all means show it, but that's not the allegation. The mechanic certificate is broad enough in scope that the mechanic may be working on a balloon repair one morning, a helicopter in the afternoon, and a turbojet or radial fixed wing that night. Is the complaintant electing to police what mechanics do the work, and to enforce what certification, qualification, experience, etc, that mechanic has?

The complaints include, "They over work you, you call in fatigued and they try to scare you by telling you that they will suspend you if you do and so much more...yeah, Id rather get sued." (Southern Air Exp sues 19 former pilots) The "airline" is operating under Part 135, with Part 135 duty, flight, and rest regulations? The allegation is not that pilots have been forced to operate outside those regulations, but that the pilot is fatigued. If a pilot is routinely fatigued and yet gets legal rest, one should look at the pilot. If a rare fatigue call-in occurs when the pilot is getting legal rest, then the pilot needs to be heard and the fatigue call respected. If numerous fatigue calls are occurring when pilots are getting legal rest, to the point that flights are getting cancelled, an operator can justifiably scrutinize the pilot. If the pilot elects to sign a contract at 250 hours, work until 1,500 hours under those conditions, then resign because "it's unsafe" or "fatiguing," and then expects to be let out of his contract, the argument doesn't hold water.

The complaints include, "gate agents ****ing everything up because nobody knows how to do their jobs." (Southern Air Exp sues 19 former pilots) One might be forgiven for seeing a poster with no other industry experience, who signed a contract at 250 hours to get what he wanted, who still works for the operator (by his own admission), and who wants to do everyone else's job. He seems to want to be director of HR, director of maintenance, and apparently ground services, too. In my limited few decades in the industry, I've found I have my hands full just doing my job. Perhaps a few-hundred hour pilot is more adept at multi-tasking beyond his job description, and perhaps that justifies breaking the contract. Perhaps a judge will see that, too. Perhaps not.

The complaints include, "HR isn't much better, with one HR person threatening an Israeli Jew with getting his work visa removed if he left the company..." (Southern Air Exp sues 19 former pilots) I'm not sure why the nationality or religion need be a part of this complaint (would it have mattered if the subject was a Hungarian Jew, or a Polish Jew, or perhaps an Israeli Catholic? Did the company sponsor a work visa? Think about it.

We read "Also, with me, I saw their listing on climbto350.com. I applied knowing they had a "year long contract." Well, as I recall, it never specified that it was AFTER you upgrade to PIC. That wasn't made known to me until I got to Indoc and the first thing they do is fingerprint you and make you sign the contract with the "updated PIC qualifiers." (Southern Air Exp sues 19 former pilots) One wonders at what point the gun was put to the applicants head, that forced him to sign the contract. He signed it to get what he wanted. He signed it, having been informed, and determined that he was willing to accept those terms, to get what he wanted. He states that he still works there. Are fatigue and poor maintenance, and unqualified mechanics all acceptable until one has 1,500 hours, then become unacceptable? Does one become more fatigued at 1,500 hours? Or does one simply have the bare minimum to jump ship and only then does one cry foul that he was forced to sign a contract...the same applicant who new when he applied?

https://onemileatatime.com/news/sout...-suing-pilots/

There are a number of ways to gain experience (and hours) when one has a wet commercial ticket. Signing an objectionable contract is not the only way. It happens to be the way that these pilots chose.

The industry is rife with less than stellar operators who do business under a 135 certificate, and that are managed by those who are not pilot-friendly. One doesn't have to tool around the dogpatch for long to figure this out, or to have experienced it first-hand. If one's big complaint is making a pen-and-ink change on flight paperwork, and one is operating within the flight, duty, and rest constricture of the regulation, and one knowingly signed the contract (buyer beware and do one's research beforehand), unless one has evidence justifying breaking the agreement, one shouldn't be surprised or particuarly anally-wounded that the contract might come due.

https://onemileatatime.com/news/sout...-suing-pilots/

On its face, a pilot promised 55 an hour as a captain, getting paid 21 an hour as a F/O seems like a cut-and-dried matter. Unless of course the pilot didn't make it as a captain and "wasn't ready," and was paid at the level of his performance. Having enough hours to be captain doesn't mean one is ready to be a captain. Varioius articles indicate that employees couldn't live on the wage, and left, incurring contract penalties. Most of these appear to be 250 hour pilots who chose not to tow banners, flight instruct, drop jumpers, fly pipelines, or other entry level jobs, and who signed a contract, knowing the wages, and who subsequently complained that the wages were insufficient. It's a bit like jumping out the door of the airplane, knowing one's altitude, and then comlaining that it's too far too fall.

https://onemileatatime.com/news/sout...-suing-pilots/

Generally we check to see if we're wearing the parachute before we go out the door; that old-tyme (yet still sage, valid, and relevant) counsel to look before one leaps. One takes the job, knowing the age, knowing the contract, and then departs becuase one can't live on the wage, then complains about the contract?

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/south...b0bfc227bf9b9d

Go figure.

AvSec

Answer here, nobody.