Training bond..

[Wacko]

... ok so I posted this in the Val post and I guess I wasn't clear in my questions... I'm not talking about VAL... I'm wondering in general:

So.... just spitting out numbers here but... say a PPC was 5 flights of 1.5 hours each that's 7.5 hours total. Lets say that one hour of flight in aircraft x is $1000. So the company asks $7500 bond? or will they up it to say $10000 for "contingency"?...

question 2... so you paid your training bond of $10000 but you're just not able to land the bad boy... it turns out you need 15 hours of total flight... would they up the bond for you or is that covered?

question 3... would a company cut it's losses at a certain point? Say you can't pull it off in 15 hours.... would they ask you to just leave... would they keep the bond money?

How would this work in ANY company?

TIA

[brokenwing]

who cares?.... how about pilots quit being douche bags and accepting bullshit like having to pay for a job?,

[HuD 91gt]

From what I've seen and heard, bonds differ largely form company to company. Usually it has nothing to do with actual training costs, nor how much training you actually do.

[Doc]

If you pay up front money...a) you're a moron. b) you're buying a job. c) refer to "a"

[Red Line]

Indeed, there are as many types of bonds out there as there are pilots willing to pay them! As mentioned, they have very little association with direct training costs, but rather a dollar value associated with the operational losses associated with high turn-overs. A penalty for the pilot breaking contract, if you will. Some bonds are set up so the pilot will always loose, some with no losses, and some where a pilot has the potential to make money (like a financial investment).

Most companies nowadays don't necessarily ask for money up front, but will instead make you sign a promissary note. The dollar value should always be pro-rated, so if you bugger off right away, you're expected to pay the whole thing, but if you stick around up to just one month shy of the agreed period, the amount owed is a small fraction of the original dollar value. I don't think these agreements are legally binding, but if you screw the system for the next group of pilots, it's your own reputation that's tarnished.

At least one company does the exact opposite. Rather than pro-rating the cost over the agreement period, they subtract a portion of your paycheque every month that goes into a cumulative "training fund". Say for example $250 every month, and if you stick around for 3.5 years they'll pay back the money. Without interest. If you leave before the 3.5 year mark, you receive nothing back (even if you don't leave with a valid PPC). North-Wright is the only company I'm aware of that works in this manner.

Some companies will ask for the money upfront. The money will be payed back over the course of the agreement timeline in prorated monthly installments. Some companies will pay as high as 13-14% interest (or whatever rate the pilot can prove he/she is paying on a loan). For someone with the cash, this obviously has the potential for a very secure high-interest investment. I say secure because with money being put upfront, the agreement had gosh darn better have a couple clauses that describe what happens in the event of the company going under, or termination of the pilot, etc.

Hope that answers some questions.

[Doc]

There are no questions to be answered here, Red Line. If you pay money up front for a job, you are a moron...got it?

[Cap'n P8]

Here we go again...

[joco]

I say secure because with money being put upfront, the agreement had gosh darn better have a couple clauses that describe what happens in the event of the company going under, or termination of the pilot, etc.

Key wording is to describe the funds as being "trust funds" or money being held in a "trust account". In the first instance the execs of the company are personally liable while in the latter no creditor has access to such funds.

Real Estate transactions work on the same (latter) scenario. The broker can go under, but the funds paid by buyers as deposit while the deal did not close yet, are fully protected.

If you ask for such woding in your bond and you are shown the door.... you're attending the wrong interview. Unless...... you are option b) in Doc's posting.

my 2 cents + whatever inflation
joco

[Coast-dog]

Good points by the previous posters with responses to the initial queries, IMO - my own 2c...

A training bond is really no big deal at all - so long as the company is not asking the employee(pilot) to front the money IMO.

If you don't have to front any money, what's the big deal?

You simply have to honour the training agreement - show some integrity - and you get to fly, you actually get paid to fly (not much usually, starting out), and you don't have to pay money to your boss.

You can always leave, of course, but THEN you usually have to pay some money - not often the whole shot, either.

Doesn't the employer have the right to get some protection for the money they've invested?

After all, doesn't anyone in their right mind want some king of return on their investment?

Aren't employers entitled to a return on their investment?

As long as employer is making money, doesn't that mean they can employ pilots?

If pilots are being dicks/pricks/assholes about honouring training agreements, how can you expect the employers to have any shred of respect for pilots as a whole?

The whole reason for the introduction of training bonds and agreements is a direct result of a complete lack of integrity and disrespect of the factors involved in operating a company on the part of who? PILOTS.

...in my opinion.

Business owners/operators are therefore FORCED to protect their investments, or else the business is no longer sustainable and they have to close their doors.

THIS IS HOW PILOTS LOOSE JOBS.

It's a vicious cycle.

Get some integrity, honour training agreements, make being a pilot respectable - not in terms of the opinions of the travelling public, but in terms of the opinions of our so-called 'professional' colleagues.

Most important of all, DON'T PAY MONEY UP FRONT OR SIGN YOUR NAME TO A LARGE LOAN. THOSE EMPLOYERS ARE DESPERATE, LACK MORAL FIBRE AND SHOULD NOT BE OPERATING IN THE AVIATION INDUSTRY. (e.g. search Michel Leblanc and JetsGo)

[Wacko]

OK, so one of my questions has been answered... thank you.

Before anyone else replies... understand... I am not interested in working for someone with a training bond where you have to pay up from or whatever... if fact.. I am not looking to work for ANYONE with a training bond at this point... my question is purely on the side of the companies. So... let me try to reword this in a different way:

I have a job offer from... company X. They will take a promissory note from me of 10000 pro-rated for a year. I will be trained on aircraft Y where the operational cost of that aircraft is $1000/hour.

So, I start doing my training... I pass the ground portion with flying colors... we get into the plane. The first 4 hours have been.. "OK" but for whatever reason I can't seam to do exercise h to m... the training pilot has gone up with me a total of 10 hours already... which turns out to be the same value as the promissory note.

Now.. here's my question: The company has, in theory and in practice spent $10000 on me. the training pilot estimates I need at least another 5 hours of flight time in order to reach the level to satisfy exercises h to m. Would a company ask for another "theoretical " $5000 promissory note?

Would they just suck it up into the operational costs?

My third question was... let's say that after the above 5 hours you're still no closer to being at the standard you need to be to satisfy exercises h-m.... there comes a point when there's no point in beating a dead horse.... in this case... regardless of a training bond or a promissory note... DO companies have a clause stating that you will owe some money for this... even if they don't hire you?

NOTE: I understand that every bond is different therefore I'm interested in knowing if anyone has seen a clause in their training bond stating such scenario?

question 2... so you paid your training bond of $10000 but you're just not able to land the bad boy... it turns out you need 15 hours of total flight... would they up the bond for you or is that covered?

question 3... would a company cut it's losses at a certain point? Say you can't pull it off in 15 hours.... would they ask you to just leave... would they keep the bond money?

How would this work in ANY company?

TIA

[Grey_Wolf]

So, I start doing my training... I pass the ground portion with flying colors... we get into the plane. The first 4 hours have been.. "OK" but for whatever reason I can't seam to do exercise h to m... the training pilot has gone up with me a total of 10 hours already... which turns out to be the same value as the promissory note.

Now.. here's my question: The company has, in theory and in practice spent $10000 on me. the training pilot estimates I need at least another 5 hours of flight time in order to reach the level to satisfy exercises h to m. Would a company ask for another "theoretical " $5000 promissory note? or ... Would they just suck it up into the operational costs?

My third question was... let's say that after the above 5 hours you're still no closer to being at the standard you need to be to satisfy exercises h-m.... there comes a point when there's no point in beating a dead horse.... in this case... regardless of a training bond or a promissory note... DO companies have a clause stating that you will owe some money for this... even if they don't hire you?

NOTE: I understand that every bond is different therefore I'm interested in knowing if anyone has seen a clause in their training bond stating such scenario?

Normally before the training takes place, there's an outline that's presented to you detailing the outline and objectives of the training.
This should be normally found in the Company's Ops Manual under the training section. For comparison purposes, same idea as TC's Flight Test Guides.

As for cost, pending on the contract, it's a set price for a set amount of training.

One of the clause, from one of the 'training agreements' I've seen:

Pilots failing to satisfactorily desmonstrate the required basic skills at any point in the training or is not progressing at the normal rate will have their future discussed with the DFO, CFI, and the Training Pilot before any training is continued or completed.

If it is decided that the student will not attain the level required for recommendation for a check ride in the required time due to the progression and skill level, the remaining training sessions will be cancelled and the costs of training calculated to be deducted from the amount submitted in the training bond and the remainder returned to the student who will cease employment with the company.

In today's market, however; if the company is in need of pilot's, I'll bet that they'd be willing to suck up a bit of cost and train that pilot to be able to fly the line as opposed to parking a plane.

[Wacko]

Grey_Wolf. THANK YOU! This is exactly what I was looking for... I'm glad I got someone on the same page... now... can anyone else add to that? Just curious as to some variations of this...

Again.. thank you Wolf

[Lost Lake]

I'm kind of confused about the training/employment bond thing. I'm not a huge time pilot, but I do have a few thousand hours, mainly floats. I'm also not a spring chicken. I was hired as an fo on a twin turbine, with next to no multi/IFR experience. I didn't pay a bond. The company did 3 days ground school and 4 hr PCC. That was the training expense. I am now a productive team member, helping the company make money. Is this not the same scenario for most companies. In other industries, if an employee can start to be productive after 5 days training, pay for upgrading on their own time/money (ATPL), THEY WOULD PROBABLY GET AN IMMEDIATE RAISE. Maybe I am being naive, but in an industry that deals in life and death descision making by people who have invested $10's of thousands to become a pilot, aren't both sides taking risks.

Maybe the pilot can't fly
Maybe the company does poor maintenance

Maybe the pilot is not a rule follower
Maybe the company lied about the upgrade period

Maybe the pilot has a shitty personality
Maybe the management are pricks

Etc. etc. etc.
Both sides are taking a chance. Am I missing something here? It's bad enough that I make 1/3 of what the cptn makes without the other perks. Sure he knows more, and ensures we are safe and legal, but again I am a productive member. The company bases it's rates to the customer taking into consideration both pilot's wages, on top of other expenses. If they are a legitimate knowledgable employer, they will use what ever pre-employment processes necessary to ensure that they hire the RIGHT employee. That means reference checks, and not just previous employers. They will perform an extensive interview(s). They will offer a positive productive employment environment. Do the same companies ask the same bond from more experienced pilots??

If an aspiring fo wants to become a captain, they are going to have to work for it and build the hours. If they are dumb enough to think that with 200 hr. they are going to go from fo to cptn seat on a king air in 1 year..oh well. So the point or question is...are companies that ask for bonds not legitimate employers...Hey we are a shit employer with a high turnover rate because we lie, exagerate, etc. and we want you to compensate us for our lacking?

It seems this industry has not joined the 21st century when it comes to hiring/employment tactics. The ONLY reason I could see for a training bond is if the person was a new pilot, prepared to trade money for training experience..everything from IFR to systems, to occupying a non flying (revenue) seat. It would not be a hiring practice for all hires, only exceptions as stated. Any Employer charging for any other reason for a bond has either been shafted so often (the question is why) or is scamming ther industry.

Anyhow, with all the layoffs coming down the pipe from the big guys, I wonder if Voyageur will charge a bond for an unemployed A320 cptn?

[Coast-dog]

They probably will, they probably will...

[xsbank]

With the turnover they've got, they are making all their dosh on training 'bonds' not on flying!

[Wacko]

Well, I guess you can look at Jazz as an example of a company NOT asking for a training bond. A lot of guys come off of King Air's but don't have any jet time. They Stick around Jazz for 6 months and apply at WJ...

Now, anyone who knows anything about Jazz will tell you that they deserve the high turnover since they pay 1st and 2nd year FO's around 35K a year. BUT if they are spending the money to train all these guys who leave... could any company be able to offer more?

Alternatively, would you be willing to sign (not PAY) a promissory note to get paid more? How much more would you "need" to get paid in order to sign something like that?

... even looking at smaller companies.... you have a guy with 200 hours get right seat in a King Air.... after 300 hours he applies and very well might get a Navajo job over a guy with 800 hours single engine time?

Pilots are wh0rs and companies are pimps... gotta keep your ho in line

[Carrier]

Lost Lake made some interesting points. As he said, both sides are taking a chance and making an investment. From the pilot’s side, most pilots give up an existing secure income when they resign from one job to move to another. They also incur interview and moving costs, for themselves or a family, perhaps right across a country or even halfway around the world. A company should be satisfied with that level of investment by a pilot. Training bonds are not normal in other industries and professions. Job specific training (in aviation a PPC or type rating) for a new employee is a normal cost of doing business. Once the new employee has completed his job specific training the company then gets the benefit of the new employee. Sometimes it does not work out and a new employee leaves after a short time but that is the exception. How does a company keep new employees? By paying the going rate for their qualifications and experience and treating them decently. It seems that some air operators use a training bond as a means to try and keep employees at less than the going rate for their qualifications and experience, and sadly it is no secret that the way some air operators treat their employees is a disgrace. Some companies do not honour the terms and conditions on which they hire people. Nobody should be penalised for leaving such situations.

If a company decides part way through the training that it does not want a particular pilot that pilot is heavily out of pocket. He has given up his income from his previous job so will have no income (or a reduced income if he qualifies for EI) until he can obtain another job elsewhere and has incurred interview and moving expenses. In the agreement mentioned above by Grey_Wolf does the company compensate the pilot for these losses? Why should he be asked or expected to pay for some useless training? He will now have to incur more job search and moving expenses.
It may well be the company’s fault that the pilot did not progress as expected because training capabilities are declining. There was a recent thread on the amount of training given in which it was pointed out that numerous companies give the minimum to just get someone through the flight test. This situation is becoming worse, even at companies that used to give good training to a competent standard as against just enough to get by the test, due to the shortage of experienced pilots. At many companies Chief Pilots and training pilots are now having to fly as line pilots to keep the operation functioning. This means that new recruits can no longer be put through a scheduled progressive training programme. Instead they are given disjointed ad hoc training as and when the company has someone available. Of course it will take longer to train someone to a certain standard in such a scenario. Further, people who become professional pilots are by nature fairly precise types who like to do things in a competent and thorough manner. They can become demotivated by having to try and get their training in disconnected bits and pieces out of such a disorganised mess. In such a scenario if a company washes out a competent pilot who has a good track record elsewhere it is the company’s fault and the company needs to recognise that it is adding to its problems by failing to provide proper continuous training to new employees.

[Harry Hawker]

The training "bond" is not legal under Ontario Labour Law for any required job specific costs incurred to bring an applicant up to the required job skill standard for the position applied for. If, on the other hand, a company is contracted by an individual to provide training and/ or other educational services to that individual at an agreed upon and contracted price, separate from any employment offer on the part of the company, then that cost is legal and binding on the part of the individual who is then liable for payment. This was how we heard it from a lawyer. If I buy a type rating from Air Canada on my own I must pay the cost incurred. If Air Canada hires me and then trains me to type rating standard as required for employment then I would not incur any legal obligation to re-pay any training costs. Are there any legal experts out there who would care to pass comment?

[stopsquawk]

Canadian Aviation industries are not bound by provincial regulations, but are federally regulated. Federal labour regulations are conveniently very lax. If there is a legal expert out there on federal labour regulations, I would love to hear more on this topic.

[Cat Driver]

You don't need a lawyer to tell you it is just plain stupid to pay to get a job.

[Harry Hawker]

The question was not about the stupidity of a bond. The question was about the legality of a bond under federal labour law regulations. Are there no lawyers on this forum willing to give a pro bono opinion on this question?

[Lost Lake]

Didn't think pro bono and lawyer could be included in the same sentence.

[xsbank]

Why do you need to know the legality of the bond? Do you have intentions of screwing a company? Seems to me that anyone contemplating paying for a job, deserves what they get.

Before you get all shirty with me, its like investigating prostitution because you're REALLY interested, but you'll NEVER actually try it out, will you?

I cannot discuss this topic without getting annoyed that:

1. you didn't do a search and have already read the thousands of pages spent dissing this process
2. if you pay your money and you take the job and you can just barely stand the crap they will . at you because they don't have to be nice to you, do they? When they give you back 'your' money and you decide that an upgrade would be nice but you have to pay them 'again' for more training, how long will it be before you snap, shoot the Ops. Manager and the CP and with any luck, the owner, then we'll have to listen to another rant from some bleeding heart *sshole about gun control?
3. While being held over for trial you will write a post on here about what a lousy company they were, how they treated you like crap, how they were having a hard time paying their bills so they decided not to pay you back ("we will soon, we promise - as soon as this oil crisis thing sorts itself out"), I will read your post and I will have to



blow myself up.

[Harry Hawker]

I will try one last time. Is there anyone out there that actually knows what they are talking about with reference to the following question? Is a training bond legal under Canadian federal labour law regulations? We have a beer betting on this question.

[sgms]

Maybe this site can help shed some light:
http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca/en/labour/employ ... ef11.shtml