Skipping Out on Obligations

[bilko]

The Val forum is going toward the bond issue again so how about we explain some first hand experiences and maybe shed some light on the issue.
Ill go first.

. I worked with a pilot who was on that Canso with the French or was it Spanish film crew in E.Africa.

He came to work with us and did a few rotations, maybe just 1, then we sent him on the 1900 course. He then goes home waits for his pay and quits.
His word was and is crap. How do you keep these guys from ripping you off?

[Cat Driver]

bilko, there were two PBY's flying in East Africa, one was C-FCRR and the other one was C-FJCV. Which company were you with?

As to the bond thing there is no doubt that many pilots can not be trusted to keep their word when they agree to stay after you train them, so some type of bond is needed to protect both parties, it is the money up front bond that I do not agree with.

Also from PM's I have received from pilots who went through the VAL interview it would seem that the VAL bond has to many outs for VAL and not enough for the employee...not to mention the cash up front thing, but I have never actually seen their bond and employment contract.

[bilko]

Sorry to mislead you, I wasn't in E Africa but the fellow came to our project a few years later. Different company.

So how does one address the skipping out problem if not with cash? Obviously VAL had way to many skip out over time and had to do something, same as most places who offer a step to the big iron so many dream of.

In reality if I was 21 and flying for say Willard in Inuvik anyway and got that call from Big Red to show up for training or be passed over and there was no big bond to deal with I;d go in a flash. How much to make me stay? A lot of cash out of my pocket, A LOT.

Would some of these naysayers please explain how they would do it.

By the way I'm not a pilot, Hoot Mon I'm the ghost of Angus Kieller

[Just another canuck]

So how does one address the skipping out problem if not with cash?

Give the pilot incentive... good pay, good benefits, good schedule, per diems, uniforms, if your up north a nice company Canada Goose, Christmas bonuses, sick days, overtime bonuses, raises, etc., etc., etc.

[Cat Driver]

So how does one address the skipping out problem if not with cash?

A contract that states if the pilot wishes to leave before an agreed upon time frame he/she will owe the company xxx dollars pro rated based on the actual cost of training the pilot.

What is so difficult to understand about that?

[Just another canuck]

A contract that states if the pilot wishes to leave before an agreed upon time frame he/she will owe the company xxx dollars pro rated based on the actual cost of training the pilot.

I agree with that system. But what would be an acceptable term of employment... one year, two... I guess it all depends on aircraft.

[Donald]

The only problem is that pilots have to be smart enough to include ALL conditions of their employment, in the "training" bond. Too many companies use the bond as a means of handcuffing the pilot to the company. If the person hiring you makes certain promises, such as scheduling, bases, salary, or job description, GET IT IN THE BOND.

It has to cover BOTH parties, not just the company.

[MG_]

.

[MG_]

.

[Just another canuck]

I agree with that system. But what would be an acceptable term of employment... one year, two... I guess it all depends on aircraft.

Did anyone ever think that maybe a pilot wants to stay with a company because *gasp* they just want to and not because they feel obligated to do so? Why is there a feeling that we need to be bound to a company just because they trained us? Is that not what they're supposed to do? I think we need to set our expectations a little higher.

I agree with you on that. I was merely asking what is acceptable. How long should you be forced (and I use that word lightly) to stay there. One year seems to be acceptable for most light aircraft. The thing with aviation is most are trying to further their career and this can usually only be done by switching companies. Let's say a company wanted to bond you for 2 years for a Navajo... that's too long in my opinion. I think that's too long for any aircraft other than a large turboprop or jet.

Guess we all just gotta do what we gotta do... as long as I don't have to fork cash over, I'm happy.

[Cat Driver]

Did anyone ever think that maybe a pilot wants to stay with a company because *gasp* they just want to and not because they feel obligated to do so? Why is there a feeling that we need to be bound to a company just because they trained us? Is that not what they're supposed to do? I think we need to set our expectations a little higher.

MG:

It is a two way street.

First the employer has to put up the money and time to own a company and training pilots is an expensive cost to the company, therefore they are within their rights to ask for a return time wise if they train you.

The pilot is a very necessary part of the total package, but unfortunately pilots can be the biggest risk an employer takes on in the operation of their aircraft.

I think we need to set our expectations a little higher.

Please expand on that statement....what expectations?

[Carrier]

Quote: “It is a two way street.
First the employer has to put up the money and time to own a company and training pilots is an expensive cost to the company,.....”
It is a two way street.
Most new employees make a considerable investment in a new job. They usually give up a secure income at their previous employer and incur the costs of moving to the new employer. If they are married this increases the moving costs and the spouse may also have to change jobs. New employees are usually on probation for several months and can be dismissed without notice or compensation. That they are prepared to incur such risks and costs shows that they are serious in wanting it to work out with their new employer. Very few want to move elsewhere shortly after completing their training. That is usually due to something unforeseen by both parties. Companies of integrity recognise that it happens very rarely and realise it is better to part amicably than forcefully retain an unhappy employee.
Companies of integrity with decent HR policies recognise the risks and costs that new employees incur and do not go out of their way to add to them! These companies are grateful that somebody is ready to take on such costs and risks and move to them.
Training pilots is a job specific training item that responsible companies budget for and pay for. It is no different from an accountant or geek who moves having to be trained on the new employer’s accounting or IT systems before he can contribute to the new employer. Even the cashiers at Wal-Mart or servers at Tim Horton’s require job specific training. Companies in other fields retain their employees by paying them properly and treating them decently. There are many air operators who should try this.

Quote: “A contract that states if the pilot wishes to leave before an agreed upon time frame he/she will owe the company xxx dollars pro rated based on the actual cost of training the pilot.”
It is a two way street.
If the company wants that then it in turn should give the pilot a banker’s guarantee that if the company wishes the pilot to leave before the agreed upon time frame the pilot will be reimbursed for all moving costs, loss of income, including his spouse’s, etc. Why should the pilot be punished because an incompetently managed company goes bust, wishes to downsize or has a Chief Pilot who makes Attila the Hun seem a wimp?
What is so difficult to understand about that?
People are well advised to steer clear of companies that want to have their cake and eat it as well.

Quote: “pilots can be the biggest risk an employer takes on in the operation of their aircraft.”
That’s right and that is why it is a dumb move to try to forcefully retain an unhappy pilot. I have known pilots whose departure has resulted in a substantial reduction in operating and maintenance costs. I am not alleging sabotage but a pissed off pilot is not going to give any consideration to careful operation of the equipment. That could also impact the safety of the operation. I would not like to fly an aircraft the day after some people I know have flown it. I prefer to have colleagues/employees who are both competent and happy at work. Such people are far more likely to look after the equipment. This both REDUCES operating costs and improves safety. Intelligent employers recognise this.

Many people on this forum seem to think that every pilot intends to fly for a major airline and merely uses other air operators as stepping stones. Not so! Since the “white collar” pilot jobs (airline and corporate) make up only 15% of the total Canadian professional pilot market it is obvious that most professional pilots will not become airline pilots. Apart from this there are many pilots who entered the occupation with the goal of eventually finding a decent permanent non-airline pilot job. These jobs are few and far between because of the almost antagonistic attitude of smaller operators towards pilots. Such operators have a high turnover of pilots because they are useful only as stepping stones- while holding one’s nose.
A lucky few pilots find permanent jobs with the very few decent float operators, fire fighting or the few decent charter and medevac operators. The rest have to put up with poor pay, endless BS, operators who ignore the terms and conditions of employment, safety lapses and Chief Pilots who are either inexperienced and got the job because nobody else was qualified or who are bitter and twisted because they failed to make it to a major airline and have had to settle for something that they consider to be less desirable.
These smaller operators could obtain staff stability and cut their costs if they set out to attract AND RETAIN older, more mature and more responsible pilots. Their recruiting and training costs would drop and so would their operating costs because they would have people who were there for the long term and who looked after the equipment. There are many such pilots available. Pay them properly and treat them properly instead of having the attitude that pilots are a dime a dozen and can be treated with contempt.

[Cat Driver]

Good post carrier.

I personally never asked for a bond from my employees....but judging by the way aviation seems to be going these days what I was trying to say is if there is a bond involved with no money up front that is one thing, but putting money up front to get a job is just plain stupid.

It is a two way street in that to be successful both the employee and the employer have to work together.

[MG_]

.

[Cat Driver]

Just two more comments.

There have always been crap companies that treat their pilots like "things".

There has never been a shortage of pilots who are more than happy to take these jobs, because pilots are a dime a dozen and their job is not much different than a truck driver.

[Widow]

Found this recommendation to the Federal Labour Standards Review (2005) from ALPA.

Training Bonds
1. The 2004 bankruptcy of JetsGo left large numbers of its pilots personally responsible for the payment of “training bonds” effectively imposed on them as a condition of employment and advancement.

2. “Training bonds” are performance bonds which commit pilots to forfeit a sum money—usually substantial--alleged to represent the cost of their training, where the pilot ceases to be employed for a minimum period of time.

3. Training bonds are common in Canada among smaller carriers and carriers whose employees lack union representation. They are a clear example of unequal terms of employment imposed on the most vulnerable members of the profession: typically young pilots, new hires, and those without representation.

4. The amounts at issue can be stunningly huge, the equivalent of a small mortgage. Media reports indicate that in the case of JetsGo, substantial numbers of pilots found themselves liable for sums of $30,000 or more. This at a time when they were thrown out of work.

5. The frank purpose of training bonds is coercion against employment mobility. Pilots subject to training bonds escape forfeiture only where they remain employed for a minimum period of time, often years. In effect, they create a form of indentured service.

6. Training bonds are typically required by employers at a time when the pilot is most vulnerable: young, inexperienced, and new in the profession. They are entered into in conditions in which bargaining power is most unequal: at the pre-employment phase as a condition of hire, and in companies whose employees lack effective representation.

7. The training bond arrangement typically requires a prospective new-hire to put up a sum of money subject to full or partial repayment where employment does not last a minimum period of time. Usually, this is in the form of a bank loan arranged by the employer prior to and as a condition of employment. Typically, the employer will make payments on the bond for its duration. However, where the pilot’s employment ends prior to the time-frame of the bond, he or she is individually liable to the bank for the balance.

8. The terms of training bonds are unilaterally set as a condition of hire. Because they are not negotiated, the terms are usually one-sided and often go beyond the legitimate needs and interests of employers. For example, the sums and duration of the bond may not reflect the employer’s actual training expenditure. And they may offload all of the risk of employment interruption onto the pilot, so that he or she remains liable even where wrongfully dismissed, laid off, or terminated as the consequence of a bankruptcy.

9. The existence of training bonds further tilts the employment relationship in the employer’s favour for their duration. Pilots under threat of forfeiture are less likely to take risks associated with incurring employer displeasure. They may be less likely to hold employers accountable for safety, putting the travelling public at risk. They may feel constrained in their free choice to seek union representation. In both these ways, training bonds generate effects contrary to the public interest.

10. It is generally understood that employees unhappy with their terms and conditions of employment have two options: “exit” (seeking alternate employment with more favourable terms) or “voice” (seeking mechanisms to articulate their interests, such as union representation). Effectively, pilots subject to training bonds have neither the real option of “exit” or “voice”.

11. Effectively, training bonds undermine the interests articulated in the Canada Labour Code, Part III. They typically contain terms which no employee would willingly enter into. Further, they perpetuate this dynamic for the duration of the bond.

12. Training bonds undermine the interests articulated in the Canada Labour Code, Part II: the fundamental freedom to seek representation by a trade union.

13. Finally, training bonds represent a check on the exercise of professional rights and obligations associated with safety under the Canadian Aviation Regulations.

14. ALPA argues that employers could realize the same goal of employment longevity through alternate strategies more in tune with the public interest: terms and conditions of employment (including seniority protections) which reward and encourage long service.

15. ALPA is opposed to training bonds for the reasons set out above. Our primary recommendation is that training bonds should be legislatively prohibited.

16. In the alternative, where employees or unions are compelled to negotiate training bonds with employers, the following protections should be applicable.

Any training bond

• a.should apply only to initial type conversion of new entry pilots not already licensed on type;
  b.should not exceed the actual direct cost incurred by the employer, proof of which should be provided by the employer;
  c.should be amortized over a period of not more than three years with the bond reducing to zero at the end of the agreed period, which period should commence at the beginning of training;
  d.should not be payable by a pilot who is furloughed, retrenched (retrenchment to include transfer to another company at the behest of the employer as part of any retrenchment or restructuring process and/or any operational reasons including liquidation), dismissed from the company or retired from the company, whether it be normal retirement or retirement on medical grounds;
  e.where it becomes payable, should be paid over a negotiated period with interest, where applicable, not exceeding prime lending rate, and should, if possible, be paid in a tax efficient manner;
  f.should be cancelled and regarded as null and void in the event of the company breaching the terms and conditions of employment.

http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca/en/labour/employ ... ef11.shtml[/list]

Is Art Laflamme still the senior rep for ALPA?

[Carrier]

Further to my post above, why is it that many air operators believe that giving job specific training to a new pilot entitles them to then pay that pilot less than the going rate for his qualifications and experience and treat him almost with contempt? This attitude does not prevail in other occupations. What is the problem with aviation? If you pay someone less than their market worth and abuse them then they will want to move! What is so difficult to understand about that?
Someone above mentioned low pay. Apparently there are pilots being paid $1500 pm. Since air operators tend to be located in larger communities that have higher living costs this comes nowhere close to covering the costs of a modest apartment, food, utilities, running a small car, paying back a student loan, etc. Those who have a supporting spouse or parents can get by on this but single pilots have to live about six to an apartment with no furniture, etc. just to survive. Along with this poor pay, pilots are often required to rotate to remote areas and live in squalid and unsafe crew houses.

Now for more dirty tricks from sleazy operators.

Several operators keep quiet about a bond or training agreement until the new pilot has been on the job for a few days or increase the amount over what was mentioned on the telephone. The new pilot has already left his previous employer and will be fired if he fails to sign. Welcome to the company! Always ask up front in writing if there is any sort of bond or training agreement and the amount and carefully review the terms and conditions. Get it in writing (print hard copies of emails) before you give notice at your current employer. Never pay up front or take out a loan or bond with a third party!

Next a number of sleazy operators fail to pay the last cheque or come up with all sorts of creative deductions. They know that it costs about $400 per hour to hire an employment lawyer so it is not worth fighting them for a few thousand dollars. Considering the high turnover at such operators (wonder why?), doing this with every departing employee adds up to a considerable amount per annum for these sleazebags. As a result there have apparently been several instances of pilots departing without giving notice. Who can blame them! Check with past and present employees of your company and if there have been instances of pay being wrongly withheld then you will know how to handle your departure.

Some sleazy operators ignore the terms and conditions of employment. They require employees to work extra yet refuse to pay any overtime or provide compensatory time off. Again they are banking on employees not fighting this abuse because of the costs involved.

Someone stated that pilots brought this upon themselves. I disagree. I have no evidence to indicate that those who choose to become pilots are any less ethical than people who go into other occupations. As mentioned above, the sort of treatment pilots receive does not occur in other occupations. Unscrupulous employers have brought this upon the aviation industry. As a result everyone suffers, including ethical pilots and air operators. Costs go up and safety decreases.
The only answer is to expose and weed out the unscrupulous employers.

[MG_]

.

[alti2d]

Good information and thoughtful responses on here... It's nice to see that both sides and considerations of the issue are involved, versus the subject being turned into one of ridiculing and belittling. Thank you for that!

I am wondering, what is the typical or expected period to do so in Canada now? I've been coming across 2 year bonds for regional turboprops (B1900/J31/SW4s and such) at a few companies, is that the norm? Stateside, I haven't known of commitments in the same aircraft types for longer than 1 year.

Additionally, when various time commitments and promissory notes are made, the values for those notes in those same aircraft types seems to be in the $15-20k range. Can someone speak to the actual costs of providing left seat training in these types of aircraft? i.e. Is this reflective of the typical cost of training new hires for these types or is it over/under inflated?