Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Qatar Airways demands payment for training from terminated flight crew

ukaviation.news

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 53 posts

Re: Qatar Airways demands payment for training from terminated flight crew

#31

Post by arethuza »

LatteLazy wrote: post #22
C1sc0cat wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually not most countries strictly limit /regulate this sort behaviour and if your made redundant I suspect that the employer would not be able to recover anything. Unfortunately employment practices in that part of the world are Horrific - its just normally poor navvies employed on building sites get the worst of it - see some of the coverage of the word cup construction in Quatar

It's not illegal in the UK either I'm afraid. In fact, it's standard. Im not saying this is nice or positive. Just that it's totally legal and pretty standard. I know because my first proper employer did NOT put this clause in my contract. Then they tried to introduce it for me and others after adding it for new employees. So I (we, there were 5 of us) actually sought legal advice. The lawyer was surprised it wasn't…

A manager at a previous employer thought it would be a good idea to get people to sign a letter saying we'd be liable for training costs if we left within X months of taking the training.

Like most people I simply ignored the request!

Most of the training I was getting was hyper specific to particular financial/ERP applications that if I left I'd be running away from ever seeing those applications again....

Re: Qatar Airways demands payment for training from terminated flight crew

#32

Post by xwdv »

onetimemanytime wrote: post #20

Training was done in 2013 apparently. Still hasn't paid it by working for 7 years? Makes no sense.

He hasn’t worked, he’s been training and dicking around. Imagine just being paid to learn about your job, without ever really producing any value, for the past seven years.

Re: Qatar Airways demands payment for training from terminated flight crew

#33

Post by Shivetya »

xwdv wrote: post #32
onetimemanytime wrote: post #20

Training was done in 2013 apparently. Still hasn't paid it by working for 7 years? Makes no sense.

He hasn’t worked, he’s been training and dicking around. Imagine just being paid to learn about your job, without ever really producing any value, for the past seven years.

well based on the comments on this story they should just work as a full time poster on HN, not reading the story by automatically knee jerk responding how vile the company is.

this story comes down to a contract dispute, the pilot signed an agreement as part of being given training and if the company is guilty of anything it is guilty of letting it go for this many years.

sometimes the little guy is at fault

Re: Qatar Airways demands payment for training from terminated flight crew

#34

Post by nujabe »

gazoakley wrote: post #21

More background here: https://onemileatatime.com/qatar-airways-fires-pilot/ https://viewfromthewing.com/qatar-airways-firing-pilots-and-... It's suggested in the first article that the pilot had failed to pass the necessary exams: "The other side of the story here is that the pilot has spent the past six years completing a two year training course, and still hasn’t passed any of the tests necessary to become a pilot.…

Fair play to me!

Re: Qatar Airways demands payment for training from terminated flight crew

#35

Post by iguy »

LatteLazy wrote: post #22
C1sc0cat wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually not most countries strictly limit /regulate this sort behaviour and if your made redundant I suspect that the employer would not be able to recover anything. Unfortunately employment practices in that part of the world are Horrific - its just normally poor navvies employed on building sites get the worst of it - see some of the coverage of the word cup construction in Quatar

It's not illegal in the UK either I'm afraid. In fact, it's standard. Im not saying this is nice or positive. Just that it's totally legal and pretty standard. I know because my first proper employer did NOT put this clause in my contract. Then they tried to introduce it for me and others after adding it for new employees. So I (we, there were 5 of us) actually sought legal advice. The lawyer was surprised it wasn't…

An important distinction here is surely between voluntary departure, and being laid off. What did the clause you mention cover?

Seems like a fair concern for a company not to have their freshly trained employees get poached by the competition the day they start being useful. (Although IMO it would be better to structure it as a lower salary while in training and a bonus which vests in a year.) But people they have decide to fire is a different matter.

Re: Qatar Airways demands payment for training from terminated flight crew

#36

Post by mcv »

squnch wrote: post #28
vinay427 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't tell if you're serious, but Qatar has had a long history of migrant worker abuses and exploitation, perhaps most globally publicized due to the FIFA World Cup controversies. This Qatar Airways incident is rather benign by comparison. Migrant/foreign workers make up almost 90% of their workforce according to this article, which honestly makes much of Qatar seem dependent on something resembling indentured serv…

There’s a word you have skirted around: “slavery.” Qatar is a slave trafficking state and deserves a total embargo far more than Iran or Cuba does.

It's a disgrace that all countries are not already boycotting the FIFA championship in Qatar. Slavery is just one of the many things wrong with the decision to hold the championship there, though it's definitely the worst.

Re: Qatar Airways demands payment for training from terminated flight crew

#37

Post by [deleted] »

LatteLazy wrote: post #25
chrisseaton wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it not still the case that that almost all commercial pilots come from people leaving the military or has that changed?

I don't know to be honest. I don't think so, as there are really not many military pilots compared to commercial? But I'm no expert. Quickie edit... Google says the RAF has 1830 pilots and the Navy about 200 more but the UK has over 10,000 commercial pilots. So I guess at least half the commercial pilots trained outside the military. So they're either self funding or getting these employer funded loans?

[deleted]

Re: Qatar Airways demands payment for training from terminated flight crew

#39

Post by growse »

gazoakley wrote: post #21

More background here: https://onemileatatime.com/qatar-airways-fires-pilot/ https://viewfromthewing.com/qatar-airways-firing-pilots-and-... It's suggested in the first article that the pilot had failed to pass the necessary exams: "The other side of the story here is that the pilot has spent the past six years completing a two year training course, and still hasn’t passed any of the tests necessary to become a pilot.…

Why would they hire someone so incapable in the first place?

Re: Qatar Airways demands payment for training from terminated flight crew

#40

Post by LatteLazy »

iguy wrote: post #35
LatteLazy wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not illegal in the UK either I'm afraid. In fact, it's standard. Im not saying this is nice or positive. Just that it's totally legal and pretty standard. I know because my first proper employer did NOT put this clause in my contract. Then they tried to introduce it for me and others after adding it for new employees. So I (we, there were 5 of us) actually sought legal advice. The lawyer was surprised it wasn't…

An important distinction here is surely between voluntary departure, and being laid off. What did the clause you mention cover? Seems like a fair concern for a company not to have their freshly trained employees get poached by the competition the day they start being useful. (Although IMO it would be better to structure it as a lower salary while in training and a bonus which vests in a year.) But people they have de…

Morally there is a difference but legally there isn't. In the uk, the clauses I have seen all say (some variation of) "leave our employ for any reason".

I can understand why. If you don't have to pay 130k back as long as you get fired, that's a huge incentive to get yourself fired right?

I think it's a dumb problem caused by governments failing to fund training/education. But as long as that's the case, people need to read their contracts and only sign things they understand...

Post reply on HN