Slavery In Aviation

In article , Tom S. wrote:
However, that doesn't exist at the vast majority of airports. The planes
are owned by the flight school, and your typical 18-23 year old
instructor isn't going to be able to afford their own plane to give
instruction in (unless Daddy's rich). They don't have the experience yet
to seriously go freelance either (virtually all the freelancers I've met
had at least 600-700 hours of real world flying before starting
instructing, and hence had something to bring to the student over and
above the neophyte instructors the flight school had.

Why does this pseudo-instructor feel he needs to work at THAT particular
airport?

Once again, it's the means. It's all very well yelling "So MOVE!", but
as you undoubtedly know, unless you can be bankrolled by someone
who will take the risk, opening your own flight school from the
position of the vast majority of flight instructors is not possible -
they simply don't have the resources. They probably don't have the
resources to even move away from home!

So the position they are in: either flight instruct for poor pay at
a flight school that doesn't respect its employees, or not flight
instruct at all.

Show me your entraprenurial spirit and tell me how YOU would solve that
dilema!

We are not talking about me. (For the record, I am a self-employed
software consultant making enough money to overhaul a very old house,
that has so far cost me more than overhauling both engines on a Baron,
so I *think* i might just be managing there). We are talking about the
typical young CFI who doesn't have the resources behind them. If I
wanted to start a flight school, I could have done so. However, I'd
rather fly for fun quite frankly, and do something else as the day job.

So MOVE!

No. I happen to like the Isle of Man.

And they wonder why so many thinks the world (or XYZ Company) owes them a
living.

No, nobody's saying that. What I am trying to explain (but obviously
failing) is that a good employee-employer relationship is built on
mutual trust. Exploitation of young, often life-inexperienced CFIs who
don't yet have access to any significant resources is just not on.
Saying that they aren't entrepenurial doesn't make it any more
acceptable. Many flight schools would do much, much better if the owners
showed not only respect, but more entreprenurial spirit than they are
now! Why do so many people not realise that mutual trust and respect
between employees and employers is often a very important part of a
successful business?

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
...
In article , Tom S. wrote:
However, that doesn't exist at the vast majority of airports. The
planes
are owned by the flight school, and your typical 18-23 year old
instructor isn't going to be able to afford their own plane to give
instruction in (unless Daddy's rich). They don't have the experience
yet
to seriously go freelance either (virtually all the freelancers I've
met
had at least 600-700 hours of real world flying before starting
instructing, and hence had something to bring to the student over and
above the neophyte instructors the flight school had.

Why does this pseudo-instructor feel he needs to work at THAT particular
airport?

Once again, it's the means. It's all very well yelling "So MOVE!", but
as you undoubtedly know, unless you can be bankrolled by someone
who will take the risk, opening your own flight school from the
position of the vast majority of flight instructors is not possible -
they simply don't have the resources. They probably don't have the
resources to even move away from home!

So someone else has to provide the means AND can't set the rules under which
that ASSOCIATION constines to exist?



So the position they are in: either flight instruct for poor pay at
a flight school that doesn't respect its employees, or not flight
instruct at all.

Show me your entraprenurial spirit and tell me how YOU would solve that
dilema!

We are not talking about me. (For the record, I am a self-employed
software consultant making enough money to overhaul a very old house,
that has so far cost me more than overhauling both engines on a Baron,
so I *think* i might just be managing there). We are talking about the
typical young CFI who doesn't have the resources behind them. If I
wanted to start a flight school, I could have done so. However, I'd
rather fly for fun quite frankly, and do something else as the day job.

So MOVE!

No. I happen to like the Isle of Man.

You can't have your cake and eat it, too.'

And they wonder why so many thinks the world (or XYZ Company) owes them
a
living.

No, nobody's saying that.

Not directly, no. They're a bit more sophisticate than that.

What I am trying to explain (but obviously
failing) is that a good employee-employer relationship is built on
mutual trust. Exploitation of young, often life-inexperienced CFIs who
don't yet have access to any significant resources is just not on.

That's all true but it's a whole different issue. We're talking about
purported "slavery" in a voluntary association. That would be mutaully
exclusive.

Saying that they aren't entrepenurial doesn't make it any more
acceptable. Many flight schools would do much, much better if the owners
showed not only respect, but more entreprenurial spirit than they are
now! Why do so many people not realise that mutual trust and respect
between employees and employers is often a very important part of a
successful business?

Again, that's a whole different issue (people management skills).

So try again and stick to the point, please, instead of going off on
tangents.

A company is run for the OWNERS, not for the EMPLOYEES. Having good
relations with employees is a good idea, but NOT having good relations IS
NOT slavery.

In article , Tom S. wrote:
So someone else has to provide the means AND can't set the rules under which
that ASSOCIATION constines to exist?

They can set some of the rules, yes - but not ALL of the rules. Labour
laws say that they cannot set all of the rules - some are set by
legislation. If you don't like the labour laws, then MOVE! :-)

You can't have your cake and eat it, too.'

Sure you can.

A company is run for the OWNERS, not for the EMPLOYEES. Having good
relations with employees is a good idea, but NOT having good relations IS
NOT slavery.

Oh, I never disagreed with that point. I just contend that running a
company in such a way that there isn't a mutual employer-employee
respect and trust is grossly stupid.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 14:29:19 -0700, "Tom S." wrote
in Message-Id: :


So someone else has to provide the means AND can't set the rules under which
that ASSOCIATION constines to exist?

Not of the rules she sets violate the prevailing law. There's a
technical term for such an individual: criminal.

[...]

A company is run for the OWNERS, not for the EMPLOYEES. Having good
relations with employees is a good idea, but NOT having good relations IS
NOT slavery.

And failing to pay employees for their labor is actionable in most
states.

Dylan Smith wrote in message ...

Once again, it's the means. It's all very well yelling "So MOVE!", but
as you undoubtedly know, unless you can be bankrolled by someone
who will take the risk, opening your own flight school from the
position of the vast majority of flight instructors is not possible -
they simply don't have the resources. They probably don't have the
resources to even move away from home!

So the position they are in: either flight instruct for poor pay at
a flight school that doesn't respect its employees, or not flight
instruct at all.

With respect, Dylan, and with some ignorance of the job market in
UK, it does seem as though there must be other alternatives.

For example, seems to me the flight instructor could work at another
job for a bit, save money, pool his resources to share apartments
and such, and work for a better flight school somewhere else.

I do agree completely with (what I take to be) your point that
not everyone has the enterpreneurial spirit, nor should it be
required as an alternative to being treated like spit.

OTOH harkening back to the start of this thread, I'm pretty sure
you don't disagree that being treated poorly or unfairly
on a job is no wise equivalent to slavery, theft, or murder.

No, nobody's saying that. What I am trying to explain (but obviously
failing) is that a good employee-employer relationship is built on
mutual trust. Exploitation of young, often life-inexperienced CFIs who
don't yet have access to any significant resources is just not on.
Saying that they aren't entrepenurial doesn't make it any more
acceptable. Many flight schools would do much, much better if the owners
showed not only respect, but more entreprenurial spirit than they are
now! Why do so many people not realise that mutual trust and respect
between employees and employers is often a very important part of a
successful business?

Very well put!

Sydney

"Snowbird" wrote in message
om...
Dylan Smith wrote in message
...
No, nobody's saying that. What I am trying to explain (but obviously
failing) is that a good employee-employer relationship is built on
mutual trust. Exploitation of young, often life-inexperienced CFIs who
don't yet have access to any significant resources is just not on.
Saying that they aren't entrepenurial doesn't make it any more
acceptable.

I don't think anyone here said is was "ACCEPTIBLE"!

Many flight schools would do much, much better if the owners
showed not only respect, but more entreprenurial spirit than they are
now! Why do so many people not realise that mutual trust and respect
between employees and employers is often a very important part of a
successful business?

And towards customers as well. Yet we have the new phrase of "Customer
(NO)Service".

Must be missing from that new "fix-all", the MBA schools. :~)


Very well put!

Yup...and irrelevant to the thread (as you pointed out).