blaine

So there ya go. First year FO's don't get jack for pay, no union job protection, highest chance of getting furloughed, no vacation time, reserve away from home, etc. I would be outraged if the union tried to say one word about a sign on bonus. They have no business interfering with that part of the airline. If you ask me, the union is no friend of the first year FO. As much as I support the unions, they don't always have to be involved in every little thing an airline does to operate.

IBPilot

James, the same can be said about your question....the pilot group/union wants to up pay across the board to attract pilots and have leverage. Giving a $ bonus to attract starry eyed flight instructors to a stagnant upgrade/crappy contract/whtever the case may be won't do crap when it comes to signing a new contract because most of those new guys will vote yes on whatever bone the company throws them. It hurts the pilot group overall. They are not saying no to new hire bonuses to be mean.

JamesNoBrakes

My point was more towards drilling down to the leverage issue. I agree though.

Magpuller

I have yet to hear of a single instance of a "training contract" being enforced bonus or not. The legal precedence has already been set, i.e. Great Lakes Case, they don't typically hold up in court even when considering a bonus.

I've read the text of the RAH promissory note and it's constitutionality questionable. The note requires the signor to surrender their right to a trail by jury. That clause in itself is highly questionable, not legal in most states and can likely be successfully challenged by simply telling the court you have changed your mind. No contract supersedes your constitutional rights period. And the fact that such a clause is in the promissory note at all probably invalidates the agreement in whole. But, and there is always a but, how the Indiana civil court system proceeds with this is what will you will have to deal with. Courts, especially civil, don't always follow past precedence or the COTUS with contract law. The note makes you sign an agreement to be subject exclusively to the Indiana court ruling on the issue. That also is legally problematic for RAH as if you are not a resident of Indiana, even if they win and you are no longer employed by a Indiana employer they likely would not be able to collect. For example, they sue you and win, but you work for a Virgina employer, RAH would have to take their case to a Virginia court to garnish your wages and get an "order to pay" and that is where a jury trial would come back into play despite the note you signed. Could they win a 2nd case against you in Virginia or another state? It's possible. But it's not likely they would bother with it considering the complexity of dealing with a second court jurisdiction.

Some would argue that by signing the document you are validating that clause. However, being that if you don't sign the document you don't get the job it can be argued with expert legalese the promissory note was signed under duress.

This isn't simple obviously. But, I have researched this as my nephew is starting at RAH under this contract next month. I have not been able to find a single case filed in the Indiana court system. That seems to indicate that RAH has not been suing pilots over the note. It appears that the agreement and note is a "threat" and not one that they will take action on beyond the withholding of your final paycheck and a letter asking you to pay the balance.

Folks should understand that RAH probably does not want to spend the time or the legal cost in resources and/or funds of pursuing collection of this agreement. Though they certainly can, beyond the final paycheck and nastigram there doesn't seem to be any evidence, at least none that I have been able to find, that anyone has ever actually been sued over the agreement.

Ultralight

[QUOTE
Folks should understand that RAH probably does not want to spend the time or the legal cost in resources and/or funds of pursuing collection of this agreement. Though they certainly can, beyond the final paycheck and nastigram there doesn't seem to be any evidence, at least none that I have been able to find, that anyone has ever actually been sued over the agreement.[/QUOTE]

Except if one guy gets away with it the flood gates could open and everybody would start leaving with their middle fingers extended.

What are they going to do though? I doubt a 1-2 year F.O has $20,000 lying around, and if they did, would they give it to RAH because thats the agreement?

Might come back to bite them in the ass if their new employer asks for a reference, but I guess that's a whole new legal arguement.

Magpuller

Except if one guy gets away with it the flood gates could open and everybody would start leaving with their middle fingers extended.

What are they going to do though? I doubt a 1-2 year F.O has $20,000 lying around, and if they did, would they give it to RAH because thats the agreement?

Might come back to bite them in the ass if their new employer asks for a reference, but I guess that's a whole new legal arguement.[/QUOTE]

A court can't just seize every bit of cash a person has due to a civil award. Thankfully, the laws don't work that way. If you sign then break the agreement here is the process:

• RAH must sue you and win in Indiana then the court will issue an order to pay. If you refuse the order the court will issue a wage garnishment order.
• Your new employer has to be served with the garnishment order. However, you must live in a state where wage garnishments to collect civil awards are legal.
• Your state of employment must also recognize the legality of the RAH agreement. So even if they allow garnishments on a civil award, but the RAH note is not legal in your state of employment then you can get an injunction to block the garnishment.
• It gets even more complicated if you don't live in Indiana, work for an employer in another state but reside in a third state. If you work in again, say VA, but live in FL, VA allows the contract but FL does not or does not allow garnishments for civil awards, you can then sue RAH in a FL court to overturn the civil award.

Again, this is not a simple depending on your residency and relevant state laws. This is just s guess, but I'd be surprised if RAH took this all the way to a garnishment order.

twebb

If you don't want to sign the contract, don't go to the company. If enough people do that, they will drop that requirement. If you do go to the company and sign the contract, man up, and pay the people. There is more than enough information out there to understand what a company is like before you sign on. I don't agree with contracts for employment, but I do agree that even a handshake a man should honor.

ZBowFlyz

A court can't just seize every bit of cash a person has due to a civil award. Thankfully, the laws don't work that way. If you sign then break the agreement here is the process:

• RAH must sue you and win in Indiana then the court will issue an order to pay. If you refuse the order the court will issue a wage garnishment order.
• Your new employer has to be served with the garnishment order. However, you must live in a state where wage garnishments to collect civil awards are legal.
• Your state of employment must also recognize the legality of the RAH agreement. So even if they allow garnishments on a civil award, but the RAH note is not legal in your state of employment then you can get an injunction to block the garnishment.
• It gets even more complicated if you don't live in Indiana, work for an employer in another state but reside in a third state. If you work in again, say VA, but live in FL, VA allows the contract but FL does not or does not allow garnishments for civil awards, you can then sue RAH in a FL court to overturn the civil award.

Again, this is not a simple depending on your residency and relevant state laws. This is just s guess, but I'd be surprised if RAH took this all the way to a garnishment order.[/QUOTE]

Sounds like a big expensive headache to me

Magpuller

I agree. but also disagree. I think companies that make pilots sign these types of agreements deserve the hassle of having to collect on them if warranted. There are only what, 2 maybe three airlines left in the US that does this? The training contract is dying. They aren't ethical and it's really pretty absurd that an employer charges their employees for the cost of doing business. I doubt anyone here would disagree with that. And insofar as "manning up" and paying what you owe I don't think that's the way to see it. The more RAH pilots that leave before year two for a better job the more likely it will be for RAH to do away with the agreement. So it's a double edged sword...

One can say don't goto RAH if you don't want to be liable for the contract..But in some cases RAH is the right move despite the nature of the beast and then what, a pilot should have to sit there for two years and turn down a more lucrative job due to a contract that should not exist in the first place?..Busting the contract is obviously the job of the union, but when the union fails to step up then it's up to individuals to stand up against nonsense...

In my opinion this isn't about an honorable obligation towards a debt but the imposition of an unjustified debt and an individual's right to say "hell no." RAH HAS to type their pilots....so does every other airline. If they really and truly feel that the EJet training is that costly to their bottom line then they need to proceed like SWA and only offer employment on that airframe to those who are already typed. It's my position that the first act of dishonor (the existence of a training contract) when it comes to stuff like this negates a pilot from honoring the debt ethically and RAH should reap what it sews.

STR8NLVL

To play devil's advocate, in the past many companies including RAH required new hires to pay for their own training. The training contract came about as a way to not force a new hire to do this while avoiding being abused by pilots who come just to get a type rating or get current and then leave after becoming more marketable.

The 170 type provided has value and has allowed several FO's to be hired without any PIC time. I would say your assertion that a mass exodus would lead to them doing away with the contract is exactly the opposite. If there becomes a lot of guys leaving before the end, they will start enforcing the contract in earnest to nip it.

For the record I've known guys to leave without hearing a word and I've seen some guys leave and be sent letters from the attorneys. I have no idea what the difference was. But I wouldn't sign it expecting that they'll let it go, as they don't always.

You also left out one other possibility that I've seen them use, sending the contract to a collections company and causing you the inability to secure credit for a house or other major purchases until its satisfied.

I happen to agree that a man's word is his honor. I don't like the contract. But I don't think staying two years after them spending $40,000+ on my training is too much to ask. So when I signed it, I put the possibility of leaving out of my mind for two years. If you can't handle that commitment, take a 145 or Q slot or go somewhere else.

They won't drop it because too many are leaving. They'll drop it when it impedes their ability to recruit, as they did for 145 and Q positions.