Training Bond issues

[Illya Kuryakin]

Pity we don't have the collective balls not to sign in the first place. For those dumping on the OP, LEARN TO READ!
For the rest of you DONT SIGN BONDS!! MORONS!!
Illya

[valleyboy]

Pity we don't have the collective balls not to sign in the first place. For those dumping on the OP, LEARN TO READ!
For the rest of you DONT SIGN BONDS!! MORONS!!
Illya

That's trying to convince a 23 year old to stop thinking with his little head!!!!!!!!!

Now I just experienced the lowest of the low, some carriers are real bottom feeders ---- A guy works out his training bond but does not want to stay with company "A" and sign another bond (initial training I can understand, a little but to require a training bond for each aircraft and even on same aircraft when changing seats after being employed for 2 years at the same company is just immoral and I suspect illegal but I drift) so he gives notice with the idea of walking across the street to a competitor (with no training bond and a better schedule). So the guy works out his commitment but company "A" hits him with a "non competition" clause and state they will take him to court. Now that is the low of the low. I have never been in favour of "slave bonds" but I think I have just seen something that is completely off the scale. There are better solutions but I'm beginning to think these companies are caught in the dark ages and are just too stupid to realise it. It will eventually bite them in the ass but as I have said many times before we are our own worst enemies.

[trey kule]

People like you are the reason we have bonds in this industry to begin with.

Yep. And look at how many posters are trying to help the OP shirk his commitment

You signed the bond. You left early. Pay up.

[Illya Kuryakin]

People like you are the reason we have bonds in this industry to begin with.

Yep. And look at how many posters are trying to help the OP shirk his commitment

You signed the bond. You left early. Pay up.

Kind of thought we were against endenured servitude? Again....we are a bottom feeding, scum sucking vat of hotdog water as an industry. It sickens me so.....
Illya

[PilotDAR]

When the newly trained pilot left the employ early, did they leave with the type endorsement for the trained type, as a personal "asset"? That asset to you was not intended to be discounted from the agreed cost, should you choose to leave the agreement early.

The alternative employment arrangement could be: "Yeah, we'd like to hire you, come back with a type endorsement on XXX type, and we'll get you started with no training bond.". Would that be preferred? Perhaps that is an approach to be considered for those who dislike the training bond opportunity...

[Illya Kuryakin]

Companies "worth" working for don't bunt pilots. Other industries don't bond employees. The folks defending this draconian practice are mostly those already bonded. I've done courses without bonds. It should be the cost of doing business. The end from me on the subject.
Illya

[godsrcrazy]

Illya i understand your frustration. Unfortunately i can't agree with it. I know many pilots the minute they get a new endorsement they update their resume and start sending it out. When you ask why its always the same response. Just keeping my name out there. Its not they aren't happy were they are at the time. Most would take the upgrade and leave for a few pennies more pay to a company that didn't have to pay to give them an endorsement.

There is a simple way to get rid of Bonds. PPC and Type endorsements are owned by the company that provides them. Every company should have to give you a new type endorsement and PPC.

[PilotDAR]

I'm a 25 year volunteer fire fighter for a rural municipality (+10,000 population). Though there are 65 fire fighters on our roles, we would typically only see 2/3 of that group on any regular basis. We are modestly paid (about 1/6 of what my airplanes day job pays). My training and experience within this fire department have qualified me a "level 1 & 2 firefighter", which accreditation would cost me more than $10,000, were I to take any of the college courses available (of which my daughter is a full time instructor at one). Recently, our fire department has been hiring 5 to 15 recruit fire fighters every two years or so - attrition.

Full time fire fighting is very competitive employment to seek. A few years back, my daughter achieved position six for four hiring positions in a GTA fire department, out of 3600 applicants. Oh, by the way, each of the 3600 applicants had to pay around $100 to apply! So, aspiring fire fighters will go out of their way to get their foot in the door - including being hired as a rural volunteer.

So we'll hire (yes, I'm a tax payer too) worthy applicants for recruit fire fighter positions (15 this spring), and cover the cost of their training, and equipment. They'll jump right in, and seem excellent in their participation. Then the job applications start going out, and we see less of some of these eager recruits. Often, after six months, to a year, we stop seeing them, as they pursue other interests, or are hired full time - good on them! Except we have to hire, and train more eager people.

This is very costly to our modestly funded township, and creates a taxpayer burden out of proportion to the benefit, when a one year recruit leaves. We do not require training bonds, nor coming with the Level one fire fighter course accomplished, as we would hobble our own hiring efforts - we need the people! So we bear the cost - and it's noticeable. Unsurprisingly, departing recruits have never offered to pay back some of the training costs from which they were the beneficiary. Oh well, we didn't ask them too, it's tax payer funded...

I was offered type endorsement training on a large turbine twin, if I'd go and fly. I considered it, but knew that I would not commit to enough flying to repay the offer, so I declined - I thought that the moral thing to do, as I was unwilling to make that investment myself. I'm not going to speak poorly of an operator who would like to assure a return on their investment in very costly pilot training.

[jpilot77]

I like how it's always put on the pilots shoulders for jumping ship with a PPC or type rating. But it never gets layed on the company who only hire if you have a valid PPC.

[5x5]

I like how it's always put on the pilots shoulders for jumping ship with a PPC or type rating. But it never gets layed on the company who only hire if you have a valid PPC.

That's a real easy one - if you don't agree with the practice, don't apply with them.

This whole discussion is simply about personal choice. If you don't mind a company requiring a bond, go ahead and apply (but realize you do have a commitment to honour it). If you don't approve of a company that only hires PPCs, don't apply.

But in either case, like everything in life, don't expect everyone to share your point of view.

[jpilot77]

I like how it's always put on the pilots shoulders for jumping ship with a PPC or type rating. But it never gets layed on the company who only hire if you have a valid PPC.
That's a real easy one - if you don't agree with the practice, don't apply with them.

This whole discussion is simply about personal choice. If you don't mind a company requiring a bond, go ahead and apply (but realize you do have a commitment to honour it). If you don't approve of a company that only hires PPCs, don't apply.

But in either case, like everything in life, don't expect everyone to share your point of view.

Oh I agree, I was bonded at one point in my career and I actually delayed my departure to the airlines to make it to the end of my bond.

[sampsonmcd]

I'll never understand why half of the pilot community insists on shooting themselves in the foot.

50% believe bonds are ok, and working the ramp is totally normal.

50% believe that bonds are sleazy and the ramp work undercuts pilot wages and value.

In my opinion, we should all be working together to improve conditions and wages across the board for all pilots. The problem is that it has been going on for far too long, and a large percentage of todays working pilots participated in bonds and ramp work. They are trying to justify themselves because of guilt, but we all know that if they were faced with the better option they would have taken it. We have done this to ourselves, and will continue doing it until we all agree we deserve better.

You ask kids attending the big flight schools now and they will be first to tell you they are going straight to Jazz and Encore. The mentality is already changing. They actually expect jobs out of flight school, which was never really a thing in the past! As they should, when you invest that much money in a career you need to have job prospects. The flight schools have been selling off CPL's for years without any responsibility to the industry. Now that we are seeing employment agreements being put into place, the shortage of those willing to work the ramp or take bonds will increase.

If we really want to see improvements for everyone, these practices must stop. The buck stops with us. Some companies will need to go under because they cant retain pilots or afford to pay proper wages. Look no further then the US. The 1500 hour rule buried some of the regionals who were paying slave wages. Now, a few years later regionals are hiring like mad, paying better and giving signing bonus. Even the majors are increasing wages down south! Supply and demand! Up here we have created more ways to cut wages with low cost carriers and agreements.

It is all related, and we must work together. Nobody likes or wants bonds and ramp work. In fact, I would argue its one of the main reasons people break their bonds, they develop such a disdain for the company. They leave because they feel like they are being taken advantage of. Its not good for anyone. Nobody is winning here.

We need to work together, we need to find solutions.

[PilotDAR]

Nobody likes or wants bonds and ramp work.

I don't see how a bond is any problem whatever - if you are planning to fulfill the commitment you made when you were hired. If you dislike a bond, negotiate to hired under different terms - perhaps with the type rating already on your license.

As for ramp work, it is nothing to be ashamed of. I did my time back in the early '80's and I'm proud of it! It was the place where I proved myself, and was seen to be a loyal and effective airline employee, and I was well promoted from there. It is an available rite of passage for a person and a pilot, just like being a maintainer. I have a lot of respect for people who have worked their way up, doing the unglamorous along the way...

[sampsonmcd]

PilotDar, respectfully, I think you may be missing the point. In my opinion its not so simple, it goes quite deeper then you may imagine.

Bonds can be problems for many reasons. Many pilots have taken them because they felt like they did not have better options. We have the upfront bond, and the training agreement.

The upfront bond, is basically paying to fly. Most pilots leave flight school with $50K-100K of student debt. This leaves them with a desperate situation. They have to get employed by any means, or dont pay off student debt (which is probably cosigned). I know of a few pilots who have had to resort to asking family members to help them take out $10K+ for these jobs. The financial stress on these individuals will often result in human factors issues that make their way into the cockpit. This also creates problems for those individuals who do not have access to extra money, how do they move up if they cant afford to pay the price? What if the company goes under, what happens to your money? (Jetsgo).

I suggest reading the following viewtopic.php?t=102297

Training agreements, while still considered bonds by many are usually a bit more honest. You agree to stick around for a certain amount of time, and they company doesn't require you to go get loans. However, they still pose problems to many individuals. They are not normally negotiable. What if you need to leave early due to a family sickness? What if the company asks you to do things you are uncomfortable with such as flying overweight, or busting minimums? Naturally, the professional pilot would be put in a very difficult position. You leave early and pay up or risk legal action, or continue to operate within a safety culture that contradicts your very self worth as a pilot.

I know you mentioned you don't see any problems with bonds. However, I have to ask. If you were faced with any of the situations I mentioned, what would you do to improve it? To me that is the issue, what can we do to help our fellow pilots other then birate them?

Working the ramp is always a controversial subject here. Many of you did it and felt you had to. However, I'm willing to bet if you had been offered the job you really wanted you wouldn't have felt the need prove your flying skills on the ramp. For many, it doesn't work out. I can think of 8-10 people I know off the top of my head who had really, really bad experiences. Spending 1-2 years+ under the impression it will lead to the job they really want in a cockpit. I've seen good pilots go down this road and it led to their departure from the industry.

Its not about those who HAVE been successful taking these career paths. We can respect each other enough to see we all have different routes. What is important though is when it doesn't work out. How do we improve the industry for everyone? We should always be striving to make aviation better, improve our wages and working conditions. If we all imagine the perfect employment situations, very few will conclude we should continue these practices. Lets aim higher!

[PilotDAR]

I admit to not having all the answers, and I have the advantage of looking back upon my early days, I'm no longer among them. Yeah, my time on the ramp was not the most interesting thing I have ever done, but in hind sight, that work made me a better person, and my devotion to the job was noticed, and very beneficial to my advancement in aviation. During my ramp time, I sure learned a lot about airplanes, and factors affecting dispatch!

In the mean time, I can't knock a training [payment] arrangement which may be agreeable to two informed parties. The training is an investment, which is based upon actual costs (the operation of the aircraft). That cost has to be covered somehow. If the operators never felt that they were on the losing end of that investment, they probably would not be thinking training bonds at all.

Ultimately, the piloting experience which newer pilots seek has a very real cost associated with it. There are no surprises with that, and few ways to minimize those costs.

[rookiepilot]

I'll be to the point:
Anyone who doesn't like the economics of a bond contract to ensure a company investing 10's of thousands of dollars into training recoups that investment, is free to start their own operation without bonds. Stop complaining and start a business. Not sure what part of that is so complicated. It's a personal choice as we have in life.

Next, graduating with 100 K in debt is sheer stupidity in my view. Grow up, work day and night and live cheap. And don't rely on parents. Do it yourself and build character as many have done.

Lastly, hate to burst the bubble, graduating with a CPL or MBA entitles you to exactly zero in life. Zero.

You're not entitled to a high paying job with any piece of paper right out of the gate, cause you don't yet know anything. Gotta earn your way up the ladder with that entry ticket.

Sorry to burst the balloon of the self entitled.....


And to the OP -- it's a contract. Period. Pay up. Negotiate, fine, but fulfill your contract agreed to in good faith. No one forced you to sign it.

You only hurt yourself when you decide contracts aren't worth honouring. If you don't believe that, not professional about that, maybe you don't believe you need to conduct your flying in a safe manner, either. That's what I would think.

[Cat Driver]

Before you sign a bond make sure it is written in a fair and just manner.

Such as you agree to pay back the cost of training you pro rated over an agreed to time frame.

Never pay money up front.

As a businessman in aviation I would not train any pilot unless they signed a bond to repay me.

[Invertago]

Here is another situation I'm curious of opinions about I signed an agreement to reimburse the company for my training if I left with in a year. I was told the exact amount depends on the us exchange rate so they didn't put the exact value on the agreement. Other company pilots told me was between 10-12k. 6 months later the company decides to hire externally rather then promote from within leaving me (I was fully qualified for the promotion) stuck. I start looking at other jobs then the owner tells me the costs were over $20k. He's adding in all the hotels airfare, wages, meals etc in USD. I had figured it was just the cost of the flight safety fees. Just would like to gather some opinions. I'm likely going to stick it out the remaining 6 months just to leave on a good note but I'm feeling a bit jaded. Oh and yes I now realize signing an agreement even just a basic non legal paper with out the exact cost written on it was stupid and would never do it again. Nor would I agree on a 20k bond especially for a 208. Anyhow thoughts...

[valleyboy]

on it was stupid and would never do it again. Nor would I agree on a 20k bond especially for a 208. Anyhow thoughts...

Damn - I hope they supplied a ample supply of KY free of charge -- I would be worried as an operator that upset pilots could possibly cost me far more than 20 grand. That's where these narrow minded guys don't get it.

There is only one thing wrong with bonds and that there are just that in the worse sense of the word. Notice no one refers to them as contracts until crunch time. From my experience the worst offenders offer no protection to the pilot in any way. The newest trend is to maintain the full value until end of training. In this case it would make far more sense just to pay up front, what's another 10 or 20 grand on top of your original training and license costs. Operators also have the trait to over inflate the cost since training on MT legs is used and abused(TC is finally starting to crack down on this). I know it's easy to sit here and judge but I would certainly try and call an operator's bluff. Offer to pay up front and also see if they would accept less for a cash deal. If they turn you down you now know for sure it's all about cheap labour and cutting costs for them and you are just fodder. At the end of the day the cost of training is more of an excuse to lure people into servitude. Unfortunately it has become the norm. It has also reduced the job opportunities for a group in the 1000 to 1500 range. From my perspective I would rather upgrade a 600 hr F/O than hire a direct entry captain of 1000hrs especially if he or she had no time on type. In my books there is very little difference between a new commercial and 1500 hour pilot. Their skills are very similar and at that point the only difference is a few more hours of decision making. I don't want to rain on anyone's parade but in my mind don't even consider yourself approaching experienced pilot level until you are looking at the north side of 1000 hours x 10 -- it's all relative but in the canadian commercial business and training this is how it is. Until you have been in the biz for 10 years your are not an "experienced pilot" There is a difference between "hand and feet" and experience.

[Old fella]

To the original poster. Can't help but to reiterate, seek qualified legal advice (labour law)before forking over your money. Seeking legal advice doesn't suggest or say that you will get away without paying if you signed a legal and binding contract, nor should you expect such. That what a qualified lawyer will delve into- legal and binding and as well, terms if any on the contract/bond. Insist on an itemized invoice on monies owed and how the balance was arrived at before you release funds if it has been determined you are responsible. Also if it is a training bond, may be able to use against your taxable income, worth looking into. Finally don't let yourself be bullied, get the facts and qualified advice is essential.