Story ID: 017
AINsight: Training Contract Ethics and Accountability
By: Sheryl Barden
Caption: Bonuses and incentives might be better than training contracts to keep pilots at flight departments that just paid for their new aircraft type rating.
Word Count: 529
I’ve never been a fan of pilot training contracts—a legal document that binds a pilot to a flight department for a set period after earning a type rating or the pilot owes the employer for some portion of the training investment.I’ve always thought of these agreements as a red flag, and I know I am not alone. To many, it suggests a low-paying job or a toxic work culture.But given the high cost of type ratings and the difficulty to obtain them today, I’ve been thinking about the pros and cons of contracts for initial pilot training and also about the moral obligation that a high-cost investment in training requires of both parties. In business aviation, it’s not uncommon for a skilled pilot to join a flight department and have his/her initial type rating paid for by their employer. It’s also common for an existing pilot to receive a type rating when their company purchases a new aircraft. However, a type-rating will increase the pilot’s competitiveness and earning potential. Once hiring managers find out, they’ll be calling. So, employers need to offer commensurate compensation coupled with a level of life balance and a healthy work culture in return.The assumption is that the pilot will be a long-term employee, amortizing the training cost over time. But the current pilot shortage has challenged that. And many operators have seen their investment walk out the door for myriad reasons.  So, I am starting to hear more about the resurgence of training contracts to protect the employer. If some sort of agreement is indeed needed, what stipulations should go into a pilot’s offer letter? Is it okay to obligate them to stay for two years, or just one? It’s a case of give and take on both sides. An agreement should be written fairly to protect both sides. An employer should guarantee fair compensation and provide expectations for a positive workplace culture.  A training agreement that says, “If you leave, you have to pay back part of the training,” is a negative way to enforce retention.“But there are other ways to skin the cat,” explained aviation attorney Katherine Staton, a partner at Jackson Walker. “A more positive incentive might look like…‘We're going to give you a type rating and if you stay six months, we'll give you a $10,000 bonus.’”Deciding to leave after a significant investment raises moral and ethical questions. If an employer keeps their word and offers a fair schedule and wage increase, it seems fair that the pilot should repay that employer at some level—preferably through service.One person I know of who left his employer for that “job of a lifetime” negotiated a sign-on bonus with his new employer so he could repay his former employer. Not because he had to, but because he felt a moral obligation to do so. Sheryl Barden is the president and CEO of Aviation Personnel International and a current member of the NBAA advisory council. The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and not necessarily endorsed by AIN Media Group., plain_text