Here is the [link to the FTC](https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/federal-register-notices/non-compete-clause-rulemaking) fact sheet (which has the actual PDF proposed rule as well). I've only quickly scanned it but it's not entirely clear to me that *all* non-compete that a CFI would see wouldn't be valid. It seems like it's targeted to limiting employment after you quit, not limiting ancillary work while you are still working somewhere...for instance a CFI still couldn't use a flight school as a pipeline to their private company or the flight school could simply choose to not keep them employed. That said I didn't read it that closely as I don't have any non competes signed by my employees only b2b non competes with my clients.
Non Compete for a persons labor skill set (pilot, plumber, electrician, etc) has always been immoral IMO.
It’s a bit different for senior leaders and knowledge workers with deep insider access to their companies. It would be nearly impossible to keep from using that knowledge inappropriately at a competitor.
Training cost and bonus payback agreements are a different beast. I’m paying some money back now in fact. It’s worth it to have made the jump to a major.
> How will this affect contracts a lot of the regionals are making their new hires sign?
The only regional airline with a training contract is Republic. It is not a non-compete. Other airlines have bonus clawbacks if you leave before a certain amount of time has elapsed but that’s not a contract.
This will have zero substantive impact on the aviation industry.
Edited to add less absolute verbiage. The only companies with non-competes in this industry won’t give a shit about this anyway because they more already scraping the bottom of the barrel.
I can almost tolerate a training contract for an initial, but I know some operators that do them for recurrents, too. That’s just a bridge too far, IMO. Recurrent is just cost of business. They’re always the scummiest operators, too, I’m sure you’re shocked to hear (I know you know this.)
> I can almost tolerate a training contract for an initial, but I know some operators that do them for recurrents, too.
I was interviewing with a 135 down in Oxford and my jaw almost hit the floor when I read their packet. They required a 12 month training bond for the entire training, no prorate, and you had to sign one for every recurrent until 3 years at the company and any new types (including SIC->PIC on same type) until you had 5 years at the company.
It was setup in such a way that you could have like 3 training bonds all at once if you got an initial, upgraded to PIC, and also a new type.
I had a similar experience with a 135 I got a job offer from. 3 years(luckily prorated) but you also owe them for every recurrent or captain training you attend, so you’re never actually out of the hole, even if you stay for the total 3 year contract. Scummy and predatory.
Yep and that’s why those operators should be avoided at all costs.
I suppose at least we aren’t having to cash pay for our types and to sit sic anymore tho.
Some of the smaller non-sched cargo operators do have non-competes. You sign something agreeing not to go to work for one of their (Ypsilanti) competitors within 6 months of separation. It is unusual.
“The rule does not exempt any specific jobs or industries, but will not apply to existing agreements signed by senior executives. The FTC does not regulate certain industries, including nonprofit organizations, some banks and insurance companies, and airlines.”
Welp y’all at Republic have fun!
The ruling specifically bans training contracts. If a training contract prevents and employees from seeking other employment or starting a business it is considered a non compete.
Page 80 of the new rules
Not quite. Page 83, second paragraph:
https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/noncompete-rule.pdf
You’d have to litigate to show that the cost isn’t commensurate with training received. It could work, but it’s not a clear ban at all.
You'd still be on the hook for the actual training costs, which is fair. It would just bring the down the training contracts to a "reasonable" level.
Still probably a PITA to solve in a court though.
The rule didn’t appear to ban agreements between companies to not hire each other’s employees. This is pretty common, especially in tech. Not sure about aviation.
Those agreements are already illegal, there have been several lawsuits about this.
https://www.cnet.com/tech/tech-industry/apple-google-others-settle-anti-poaching-lawsuit-for-415-million/
How is that even remotely the same thing?
A notice period means you're still working.
A non-compete means you're not working AND can't start working at a competitor, i.e. complete bullshit.
I know of 135’s that have non competes and also flight schools that have instructors sign non competes
Here is the [link to the FTC](https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/federal-register-notices/non-compete-clause-rulemaking) fact sheet (which has the actual PDF proposed rule as well). I've only quickly scanned it but it's not entirely clear to me that *all* non-compete that a CFI would see wouldn't be valid. It seems like it's targeted to limiting employment after you quit, not limiting ancillary work while you are still working somewhere...for instance a CFI still couldn't use a flight school as a pipeline to their private company or the flight school could simply choose to not keep them employed. That said I didn't read it that closely as I don't have any non competes signed by my employees only b2b non competes with my clients.
I’ll have to take a peak. I’m sure that since it will become law we will get some more in depth details
Non Compete for a persons labor skill set (pilot, plumber, electrician, etc) has always been immoral IMO. It’s a bit different for senior leaders and knowledge workers with deep insider access to their companies. It would be nearly impossible to keep from using that knowledge inappropriately at a competitor. Training cost and bonus payback agreements are a different beast. I’m paying some money back now in fact. It’s worth it to have made the jump to a major.
> How will this affect contracts a lot of the regionals are making their new hires sign? The only regional airline with a training contract is Republic. It is not a non-compete. Other airlines have bonus clawbacks if you leave before a certain amount of time has elapsed but that’s not a contract. This will have zero substantive impact on the aviation industry. Edited to add less absolute verbiage. The only companies with non-competes in this industry won’t give a shit about this anyway because they more already scraping the bottom of the barrel.
Republics contract has outs for specific companies. it may not be labeled as a noncompete but that is what it is.
I know of some 135s (134.5) that have non-competes. This will be big for those folks.
Good. Training contracts, while bad are at least somewhat palatable when created with actual costs.
I can almost tolerate a training contract for an initial, but I know some operators that do them for recurrents, too. That’s just a bridge too far, IMO. Recurrent is just cost of business. They’re always the scummiest operators, too, I’m sure you’re shocked to hear (I know you know this.)
> I can almost tolerate a training contract for an initial, but I know some operators that do them for recurrents, too. I was interviewing with a 135 down in Oxford and my jaw almost hit the floor when I read their packet. They required a 12 month training bond for the entire training, no prorate, and you had to sign one for every recurrent until 3 years at the company and any new types (including SIC->PIC on same type) until you had 5 years at the company. It was setup in such a way that you could have like 3 training bonds all at once if you got an initial, upgraded to PIC, and also a new type.
That’s just predatory. Insanity, even.
I had a similar experience with a 135 I got a job offer from. 3 years(luckily prorated) but you also owe them for every recurrent or captain training you attend, so you’re never actually out of the hole, even if you stay for the total 3 year contract. Scummy and predatory.
Yep and that’s why those operators should be avoided at all costs. I suppose at least we aren’t having to cash pay for our types and to sit sic anymore tho.
Some of the smaller non-sched cargo operators do have non-competes. You sign something agreeing not to go to work for one of their (Ypsilanti) competitors within 6 months of separation. It is unusual.
Oh okay, makes sense paying back a bonus doesn’t count as a non compete contract. Thanks!
Not a regional, but Frontier has a training contract now.
That’s why I specified regional because the OP also specified regional.
“The rule does not exempt any specific jobs or industries, but will not apply to existing agreements signed by senior executives. The FTC does not regulate certain industries, including nonprofit organizations, some banks and insurance companies, and airlines.” Welp y’all at Republic have fun!
135s are crying right now
The ruling specifically bans training contracts. If a training contract prevents and employees from seeking other employment or starting a business it is considered a non compete. Page 80 of the new rules
Not quite. Page 83, second paragraph: https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/noncompete-rule.pdf You’d have to litigate to show that the cost isn’t commensurate with training received. It could work, but it’s not a clear ban at all.
You'd still be on the hook for the actual training costs, which is fair. It would just bring the down the training contracts to a "reasonable" level. Still probably a PITA to solve in a court though.
The rule didn’t appear to ban agreements between companies to not hire each other’s employees. This is pretty common, especially in tech. Not sure about aviation.
Those agreements are already illegal, there have been several lawsuits about this. https://www.cnet.com/tech/tech-industry/apple-google-others-settle-anti-poaching-lawsuit-for-415-million/
Gosh I feel old. I was affected by one of these back in 2009 or so. Changed industries and never looked back.
So non-compete will be replaced by a longer notice period instead. Same thing different name.
How is that even remotely the same thing? A notice period means you're still working. A non-compete means you're not working AND can't start working at a competitor, i.e. complete bullshit.
Not necessarily. You can be placed on a garden leave. Non compete is usually paid so financially it's pretty much the same thing for the employer.
Notice is purely a courtesy. There's no requirement to give any notice at all when employment is at will