Leaving with a bond?

[rookiepilot]

That's why the concept of "honour" on this thread is hilarious.

I run a small company and know other who do too. THE worst issue is employees, bar none. It's not even close, and irrelevant how they are treated. There are a lot of irresponsible employees out there who simply don't care, and that is the fact.

When I hire another small business, I always also try to deal with the owner, because they care about customer service. The employees (often) don't, and the drones at a big company are (often) brutal, besides being brain - dead.

Edit. There are lots of very NICE folks out there. It's rare in my experience, to find those that treat their employer's company, with the same care they would their own.

[ayseven]

Mr Rookie, you are so right, although I wouldn't have worded it that way. Employees can be nice people, but they do show their colours eventually. I ain't starting another business anytime soon...

[Bede]

I run a small company and know other who do too. THE worst issue is employees, bar none.

But it was you that did hire them, no?

A friend of mine has a 702/703 outfit with only pistons. For some reason, he has very low turnover. Rumour has it that he's very good to work for.

[rookiepilot]

I run a small company and know other who do too. THE worst issue is employees, bar none.

But it was you that did hire them, no?

A friend of mine has a 702/703 outfit with only pistons. For some reason, he has very low turnover. Rumour has it that he's very good to work for.

That's true, Bede. A good company starts at the top.

Now if it was your small -- 703, would you enforce a bond?

If you so, then you're not a nice employer, any more.

If not, how do you financially survive and recoup training costs, if multiple people get a PPC and then leave?

I get, it would be great to be a "nice guy" -- and being nice to work for, you wouldn't have that problem. Everyone would stay for years, no bonds, and the cash would roll in.

I'm curious if those saying so, would risk BK, potentially their family's security, on that assumption.

[valleyboy]

That is only part of the reason. The other side, is that the samller 703/704 operators keep clinging to the 700 hours mark. If they

This was the policy - hire at 250 or less even and have them progress to left seat. Doing the math it took between 18 and 24 months to aquire an ATP so with that rate of turn over life was tolerable. Guys come due for upgrade and the bolt as soon at jazz or encour called. The hiring process was painful because of having to supply aberration days leave more than once. It truly put a scheduling load on others because it was usually short notice after schedules were already published. Funny thing - the rest of the pilot body (small company) weren't happy filling in either.

[derateNO]

What really impacted the 703/704 and even small 705 operators was when the level 2 guys dropped their basic qualification for holding an ATP and grabbing guys with 700 hours. Prior to that you could hire a person into the right seat and upgrade on look at close to 2 years of service out of that candidate. No bonds need just treat people well and keep them happy even with a slightly lower salary. As stated money isn't everything and a reasonable schedule with time off and not trying to push people out with heavy aircraft and poor wx. Most get it and are happy to build time but now that has been undermined and we see the present shit show. It will be interesting to see all the back tracking when the industry starts heading for the trough in this cycle.

That is only part of the reason. The other side, is that the samller 703/704 operators keep clinging to the 700 hours mark. If they would drop their hour requirements to 250, they would still get about 2 years of service out of their employees. Instead they bond 700 hour pilots who leave after 6 months anyway.

Occasionally you see them hiring 250 hour pilots, but it is still fairly uncommon.

Agreed. When I got my first job, I had 210 hours and had no plans on going anywhere until I had my ATPL. And that was at least two years. I didn't have to sign a bond, but I would have if they asked. If companies treated their pilots better, and dropped the requirements a bit they would get people happy to stay two years without much fuss.

If I was a 1000 hour pilot just shy of getting on at say Jazz, and a 703 wanted me to sign a two year bond I'd say hell no.

[derateNO]

THE worst issue is employees, bar none.

You sound like a terrible boss. I too ran a company for a while, and found that it was really down to me for choosing the right people in the first place.

Maybe you just don't have a knack for hiring.

[Bede]

I run a small company and know other who do too. THE worst issue is employees, bar none.

But it was you that did hire them, no?

A friend of mine has a 702/703 outfit with only pistons. For some reason, he has very low turnover. Rumour has it that he's very good to work for.

That's true, Bede. A good company starts at the top.

Now if it was your small -- 703, would you enforce a bond?

If you so, then you're not a nice employer, any more.

If not, how do you financially survive and recoup training costs, if multiple people get a PPC and then leave?

I get, it would be great to be a "nice guy" -- and being nice to work for, you wouldn't have that problem. Everyone would stay for years, no bonds, and the cash would roll in.

I'm curious if those saying so, would risk BK, potentially their family's security, on that assumption.

I’ll be honest- I’m not a business guy. But here’s what I notice, there seems to be companies that pay well and have no bond and low turnover. Then there are the crappy operators with predatory bonds and for some reason they can’t keep employees. If I was an owner I know what kind of business I’d strive to have.

[GRK2]

It's all well and good to talk about the company who gets left holding the bag when someone leaves after a training and how shitty it might be. How about the other side of the story? What if a pilot signed on for a specific set of advertised working conditions? After training it changed and the job description was altered to the point that it no longer represents what was described at the beginning? Can a pilot leave and challenge not paying the remainder of the bond? After all he or she took the job as described or advertised and if they had known it was not going to be anything close to those conditions, wouldn't have taken the job. If the company misrepresented the position and misled the new pilot, would that be grounds to walk and challenge a bond? Anyone out there with that experience?

[digits_]

It's all well and good to talk about the company who gets left holding the bag when someone leaves after a training and how shitty it might be. How about the other side of the story? What if a pilot signed on for a specific set of advertised working conditions? After training it changed and the job description was altered to the point that it no longer represents what was described at the beginning? Can a pilot leave and challenge not paying the remainder of the bond? After all he or she took the job as described or advertised and if they had known it was not going to be anything close to those conditions, wouldn't have taken the job. If the company misrepresented the position and misled the new pilot, would that be grounds to walk and challenge a bond? Anyone out there with that experience?

Theoretically, yes, but you have to prove that the conditions changed. Most bonds don't list the working conditions. So it is hard to do.

[rookiepilot]

But it was you that did hire them, no?

A friend of mine has a 702/703 outfit with only pistons. For some reason, he has very low turnover. Rumour has it that he's very good to work for.

That's true, Bede. A good company starts at the top.

Now if it was your small -- 703, would you enforce a bond?

If you so, then you're not a nice employer, any more.

If not, how do you financially survive and recoup training costs, if multiple people get a PPC and then leave?

I get, it would be great to be a "nice guy" -- and being nice to work for, you wouldn't have that problem. Everyone would stay for years, no bonds, and the cash would roll in.

I'm curious if those saying so, would risk BK, potentially their family's security, on that assumption.

I’ll be honest- I’m not a business guy. But here’s what I notice, there seems to be companies that pay well and have no bond and low turnover. Then there are the crappy operators with predatory bonds and for some reason they can’t keep employees. If I was an owner I know what kind of business I’d strive to have.

That's reasonable.

I'd submit the flip side is also true. Excellent employees, well the world will be your oyster --

[Squaretail]

I’ll be honest- I’m not a business guy. But here’s what I notice, there seems to be companies that pay well and have no bond and low turnover. Then there are the crappy operators with predatory bonds and for some reason they can’t keep employees. If I was an owner I know what kind of business I’d strive to have.

I think one should be straight though when it comes to training costs. Regardless of how good an employee is, you still have to sink training into them. I mean even if a guy shows up with a type rating, or PPC there's still a due diligence the operator has to put in. Training costs (and how much you might have to do due to turnover) have to be baked into your business model. Especially since in the world of aviation recurrent training costs are also a substantial fraction of one's overhead. One would hope that an operator doesn't also have some sort of bond set up to cover the risks that someone might bail after that training is delivered too, so it begs the question why they may need it on initial training.

[ehv8oar]

Or how about doing a bond for actual training costs, with a breakdown of these costs given to the employee. Some operators have ridiculously over the top bonds for two years that are designed as a trap to the employee.

If an employer must bond, because it knows its poor working conditions makes it neccessary, then a bond for the actual costs incurred (or very close to it) for a maximum of 12 months would be the most that should be allowable.

[co-joe]

What i find interesting about OPs question is that he's more scared of getting a bad reference than being on the hook for a lot of money. The airlines now are playing into companies hands directly by insisting the reference has to come from the chief pilot or the ops manager. Both jazz and encore do this.

My last job the CP knew i needed a reference and he held that over my head any chance he got. "Do this or I won't give you a reference" became his tool to use against me to force me to do stuff that wasn't in our original contract. The days of CP being happy for you moving on are long gone. When I quit he had to park a 6 Million dollar aeroplane.

[complexintentions]

It's really not that complicated once you acknowledge that everyone acts in their own self-interest: business owners for their business, employees for their livelihoods.

A solid contract may not eliminate hard feelings, but it does tend to clarify legal standing. I for one welcome having terms defined, I don't want to waste time wondering where I stand.

As Ronald Reagan said, "Trust, but verify".

Don't like bonds? Get enough experience so employers don't require them. Until then, realize that they're intended as a mechanism for a company to manage risk. And if they're using them for something else, walk away before you sign.

[jakeandelwood]

Why does everyone always assume a small company is "hard up" or "broke" I've worked for a few small companies and at one of them the owner was always crying the Blues, couldn't afford to pay me O/T etc, etc, and I believed him till he invited me over to his waterfront mansion for a xmass party.

[ozone]

Although there are always exceptions, if a company makes you sign a bond, there is a big chance you'll be wanting to leave before that bond is up. If it was a good job, there would be no bond.

I don’t agree. From what I have seen it doesn’t matter what the company pays, how good you are treated or how good the schedule is. Most pilots this day and age go to 703 to get a bit of multi crew time to get into that regional job. Most already have their application into the regionals before they even start their 703 job. They have absolutely no intentions of putting in more time then they have to.

To me I see nothing wrong with a bond. Most are 1 year or so. Give a company that, learn something, save yourself some bond payout money and then maybe move on. A year or 2 is nothing in your 30-40 year career.

[shimmydampner]

Why does everyone always assume a small company is "hard up" or "broke" I've worked for a few small companies and at one of them the owner was always crying the Blues, couldn't afford to pay me O/T etc, etc, and I believed him till he invited me over to his waterfront mansion for a xmass party.

Please explain what bearing the size of his house has on the current financial health of his company.

From what I have seen it doesn’t matter what the company pays, how good you are treated or how good the schedule is. Most pilots.... have absolutely no intentions of putting in more time then they have to....
learn something, save yourself some bond payout money and then maybe move on. A year or 2 is nothing in your 30-40 year career.

+1

[jakeandelwood]

Please explain to me how it isn't relevant? Something pays for it all. Maybe instead of owners spending all the profits on large houses and expensive cars they could invest some money back into their company, therefore retaining happier employees. It would probably save them money in the long run.

[shimmydampner]

What a delightfully simplistic viewpoint.
But maybe the boss is wealthy from other business endeavours and the air operation isn't quite as profitable. Or maybe the house is long since paid for from days gone by when the business was more profitable. Perhaps it used to be a real going concern but as of late it's been harder to find talented, experienced pilots due to the changes in the industry. As a result, maybe some inexperienced kid was a little less graceful than the previous pilots and it cost the owner his biggest client. That's a tough hit to the bottom line. Or maybe that kid cooked an engine or dinged a prop. Big expense. Plus insurance keeps going up a experience levels go down.
Or maybe you're right and the boss is taking all the money and spending it as is his right to do as the owner. One day when you're the boss, that'll be your prerogative as well. Such perceived injustices will make more sense when you realize that businesses that are not your own do not exist to make your career or your retirement.