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 --
Bede wrote: ↑Thu Feb 13, 2020 5:00 pm
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.
---------- ADS -----------
I'm not sure what's more depressing: That everyone has a price, or how low the price always is.
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.
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.
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.
---------- ADS -----------
I’m still waiting for my white male privilege membership card. Must have gotten lost in the mail.
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.
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.
jakeandelwood wrote: ↑Sat Feb 15, 2020 11:58 pm
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.
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.
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.
shimmydampner wrote: ↑Sun Feb 16, 2020 7:52 pm
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.
And those same businesses don't own their employees.
GRK2 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 13, 2020 5:20 pm
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?
Absolutely. Make sure your bond (or your contract) spells out the conditions and expectations of the job. If it's in writing, when it changes, you can go back to the contract. Caution: Sometimes changes are made that you *don't* object to. Make sure your contract is updated when that happens. If not, you set a precedent that changes can be made that don't appear in the contract, and when they make a change you don't like you'll have a harder time using it as a defense because you already accepted changes that weren't written in.
The SAME government that thinks hard working small business owners are nothing more than parasitic TAX CHEATS, does nothing when foreign funded, "professional" WHITE protestors shut down our entire rail network.
Courtesy of our Trudeau government.
Well done. Everyone is happy to let this go on, because it's dirty fossil fuels, you know.
I hope these protesters ramp it up and block union station. Or better yet, Pearson airport. See how far this will go. Why not. If you get laid off, you got what you deserve.
The international community must be laughing their asses off.
I worked for a Company that shut down and they tried to get employees with bonds to pay the outstanding balances they each owed, employees that had no intention of leaving.
rookiepilot wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2020 4:40 pm
The SAME government that thinks hard working small business owners are nothing more than parasitic TAX CHEATS, does nothing when foreign funded, "professional" WHITE protestors shut down our entire rail network.
Courtesy of our Trudeau government.
Well done. Everyone is happy to let this go on, because it's dirty fossil fuels, you know.
I hope these protesters ramp it up and block union station. Or better yet, Pearson airport. See how far this will go. Why not. If you get laid off, you got what you deserve.
The international community must be laughing their asses off.
Well done Trudeau groupies!
Well, THAT didn't take very long...what does any of your rant have to do with a bond issue? And why is it the governments fault? Keep your obvious attempt at sh*t stirring political slants out of a bonafide thread for pilots on an AVIATION website.
To be, or not to be: that is the question.
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and insults of outrageous fortune,
Or to take up up arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing - end them.
...
...what dreams may come
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil
I wonder if Hamlet had the foresight to see how relevant this dilemna would be in 2020 compared with the one he faced in 1599. Of course it may have to be interpreted a little differently:
To go, or not to go. OMG decisions, decisions;
Am I a pilot who can make a decision?
The morality and ethic of leaving early
Compared with the corollary lawsuits and bad-mouthing
To hire a lawyer to defend my position, or afford to pay the residual,
And the chances of winning; or at least paying an agreeable settlement.
...
Is this a pipe-dream?
To unload this weighty financial burden - just to get a number.
