AND THIS IS WHY WE HAVE BONDS!!!

[cncpc]

I did a check on the aircraft registry database, and put in Albatross as a search term and it came back 0 results as an owner.

But, that could be just down to the time its taking Transport these days to register all those aircraft listed in the ad.

[Roar]

It's Albatros Aircraft Corp.... Just one "s".

Albatros is the 703/704 commercial side of the company, the 604 private side is MapleLeaf Warbirds.

[cncpc]

Right. Thanks.

What are they doing with all those airplanes?

[Donald]

I've never left a company high and dry, if that what you're insinuating?

I did a gig on a 73 for a while. After 7 months of living out of a suitcase, I bailed. Happy as a clam wher I am. Home every night. No weekends. Four days is a heavy week. Know all our pax personally. Not your average op,,
Illya

The company went under Donald, what exactly is your point? You have no details. You know nothing about the situation. I'd be happy to fill you in via PM, but it would appear you're too Childish to use that feature on the board. People leave for many reasons. I left to devote time to a family member with cancer. We shock hands with no hard feelings. The company went under a few months later. Since you've decided to "call me out" on open forum, I expect an apology on open forum as well. Everybody you know is fighting battles that you know nothing about.
Illya

So maybe you should've put that in your original post. Saying you bailed after living out of a suitcase for 7 months implies you took the job without your eyes being wide open, and it relates quite strongly to the discussion of why there are bonds at some company's.

[flyinthebug]

Here's a novel idea. Instead of bonds, why not sign contracts? You leave for "these" reasons, you owe us. You leave for "these" reasons, we pay you. Novel, no?
Illya

I had to go back all the way to page 2 for this idea.

It has been done Illya, as we did it for 4 years at my old company. My boss (owner) wanted bonds. I said no bonds. We negotiated and compromised and came up with an employment contract idea. Instead of a cash bond, we implemented contracts. The PA31-350 was a $4,000 contract, the King Air was $6,000 etc (just enough to cover costs and not make profit off someone who decided to leave early). The contracts were one page and basically said that as long as you stay one year from the date of your PPC, you owe us nothing. If you leave before your year is up, you owe us the remaining months outstanding from your commitment to us. It was a way of ensuring our investment in training were protected, while not asking for a penny from our employees.

It worked very well and the team all seemed to like the contract idea vs. the bond idea. It is equally as binding (legally) as a cash bond, but doesn't include the pilot having to fork over cash for his or her training. It worked for both sides of this issue and worked well. I didn't have one person leave before they had fulfilled their commitment to our company, so I have no idea if the contract would have held up in court? I do know it made my boss feel better, and it also made my flight crew happy they didn't have to pay for a job. It is a happy medium between bonds and no bonds and doesn't cost anyone anything unless they don't keep their commitment to the company. Pretty simple fix to the bond problem if you ask me.

Fly safe all.
FTB

PS... I am 100% against bonds. I missed out on the right seat of a B1900D with a certain N. Ont company who demanded I fork over 10K CASH to them before they sent me to Flight safety. I was a new pilot and young father. I couldn't afford the 10K and no bank would loan it to me. I was crushed. I have never forgotten how horrible that felt to me as a young pilot and vowed I would never support this outrageous process (cash bonds) ever in my career. I am proud that I have been able to keep that commitment to myself and my industry for over 20 years now. I have never signed a bond nor have I acted in a position of responsibility for a company that insists on cash bonds. Employment contracts however are a different beast and I am onboard with that idea.

[DonutHole]

Training bonds are employment contracts.

[Oscar]

We negotiated and compromised and came up with an employment contract idea. Instead of a cash bond, we implemented contracts. The PA31-350 was a $4,000 contract, the King Air was $6,000 etc (just enough to cover costs and not make profit off someone who decided to leave early). The contracts were one page and basically said that as long as you stay one year from the date of your PPC, you owe us nothing. If you leave before your year is up, you owe us the remaining months outstanding from your commitment to us. It was a way of ensuring our investment in training were protected, while not asking for a penny from our employees.

That's the way 75% + of the companies that have measures in place do it.

Different wording, same idea. It's a bond.

[flyinthebug]

That's the way 75% + of the companies that have measures in place do it.

Different wording, same idea. It's a bond.

It`s just a play on words. I never asked for any pilot to ever get a loan or give me money for his or her PPC training. To me that is a valid difference between a contract and a bond. A bond means you have to go to the bank and take out a loan...that either you pay back or the company pays directly for you. OR it means dropping a cheque from your daddy`s bank account on the desk for 10K or more. A contract is me agreeing to employ you and to pay you "x" amount for a service you will provide my company for a pre determined amount of time. We asked to sign a 1 page document with no money upfront on any level. Just a commitment. That's the difference IMO anyways.

*Edit to add*
Oscar you suggest that 75% of companies in aviation use this practice? With no cash bonds? I can name 6 that require cash bonds off the top of my head, so I question your statistics on this issue.

[Donald]

Of the company's that have some sort of formal agreement in place, I would hypothesize the great majority do not require cash or a loan up front. Only the minority require those terms.

Just from what I've seen, and no stats to back it up.

PS Wasn't there a thread on this exact topic before, the list of bond company's in Canada?

[Illya Kuryakin]

FTB, I know a couple of companies who want money up front. To me, it'll always equal buying a job. Far better investment in the long term to go buy a type rating. I know a couple of guys who did this, and never looked back. To give a company like Wasaya 10k, and have to repeat the process for the next type trained in, is just WRONG.
Stay safe old friend.
Illya

[Oscar]

No, I meant in my opinion, 75% of those companies that have some sort of bond / training agreement / contract, etc. just have the employee sign a document saying they agree to stay for X amount of time, or compensate the company a pro-rated amount to cover training costs if they leave prematurely. Maybe in reality it's more, but this is the most common approach I've seen.

I've worked for a couple operators that asked me to do this. It was a non-event. I had no plans to leave in less than the 12 months asked of me, and fulfilled it each time. Each of these places I worked and signed the document were great operations, enjoyed my time there.

[Illya Kuryakin]

I've worked for a couple operators that asked me to do this. It was a non-event. I had no plans to leave in less than the 12 months asked of me, and fulfilled it each time. Each of these places I worked and signed the document were great operations, enjoyed my time there.

If I tell you I'll be there for a year, I'll be there for a year. Not good enough? Bye.
That's all it takes.
Illya

[Donald]

Not that I condone paying for training,

But what is the difference between "buying a type rating" and paying an operator up-front for training?

Honest question, because aren't they both just ultimately "buying" a job?

[Illya Kuryakin]

Not that I condone paying for training,

But what is the difference between "buying a type rating" and paying an operator up-front for training?

Honest question, because aren't they both just ultimately "buying" a job?

I guess the main difference would be, that buying a type rating would make you employable to several operators of that equipment, here and abroad. Plunking money down to (just an examp,e here) Bearskin, pretty much nails your feet to the floor. If you're going to break open your wallet, get the most bang for your buck. You can get a 737 NG type for 32K for a crew of two. There are caveats, and fine print to be sure....but in the long term, a far better deal.
Illya

[CFM Symphony]

We often compare ourselves to doctors or lawyers in terms of our professional skills and their applications. Could you imagine if a surgeon has to sign a training bond every time they move to a new hospital? Or how about an architect promising to pay up a certain training cost if they choose to leave the studio before their contract is up.

Non-aviation companies do things rather strangely out there in the real world - things like proper salaries and instead of training bonds, they often issue signing bonuses. They pay their workers into staying, as opposed to scaring them from leaving. This is one of the myriad reasons why pilot salaries continue to stay low.

[medi-whacked]

Pilots leave for other reasons than money - as you can see in this conversation on the air.

St. Louis approach: "United 123 best forward speed to the marker,
you're number one."
United 123 (male voice): "Roger, balls to the wall."

St. Louis approach: "American 4321, you're number two behind a
United 737, follow him, cleared visual, best forward speed."
American 4321 (female voice): "Well I can't do balls to the wall but I can go
wide open."

-Radio silence-

Unidentified Pilot (male voice): "Is American hiring?"

[B-rad]

Non-aviation companies do things rather strangely out there in the real world - things like proper salaries and instead of training bonds, they often issue signing bonuses. They pay their workers into staying, as opposed to scaring them from leaving. This is one of the myriad reasons why pilot salaries continue to stay low.

This is something everyone should remind themselves when confronted with signing a bond!

[NeverBlue]

Training bonds are employment contracts.

...then why aren't they called that?

They have nothing to do with employment. They're only enforced if you're not employed by the issuer anymore.

Employment contracts are for the term of employment.

A whole lot of companies try to make you sign bonds long after you've been hired. They're not employment contracts...

[cap41]

Non-aviation companies do things rather strangely out there in the real world - things like proper salaries and instead of training bonds, they often issue signing bonuses. They pay their workers into staying, as opposed to scaring them from leaving. This is one of the myriad reasons why pilot salaries continue to stay low.

This is something everyone should remind themselves when confronted with signing a bond!

Salary stays low because of the market. As much as we hear of pilot shortage. Obviously there isn't one. Salary would increase if there was a lack of applicants. Market will always dictate salary. Market saturated with younger pilots looking for jobs.

[DonutHole]

Training bonds are employment contracts.

...then why aren't they called that?

They have nothing to do with employment. They're only enforced if you're not employed by the issuer anymore.

Employment contracts are for the term of employment.

A whole lot of companies try to make you sign bonds long after you've been hired. They're not employment contracts...

I'm not pulling this out of my ass. This is not a matter of opinion it is a matter of law.

Why are they called training bonds? Well because if they call them training bonds and play to the superior intellect and ego of the pilot they can count on ignorance to entrench their position.
I'm trying to understand how you can logically argue the training bond is not an employment contract when it clearly is, the most important term of the contract is how long you're gonna work. That's definitely taking work, specifically the term, into consideration. When you bring in a term there is now room for everything related to that term to come in... The most obvious question if this isn't about employment, term doing what?

What makes an agreement a contract
offer, consideration, agreement, acceptance

A training bond looks like this:

Consideration: for X term we will give you y training.
Agreement: agreed upon consideration
acceptance: pilot is trained

How does a bond work?


There are a bunch of different types of bonds. The type.that aviation employs most closely resemble a performance bond. There are few key points to performance bonds, and these points differentiate bonds from contracts.

Aviation training bond: you enter into an agreement to provide X term for y training. The fiduciary becomes the employer and the bond is adjudicated internally with no oversight.

Tradional performance bond. Bond is required to ensure performance is met. In aviation the performance is the term of the contract.

Sounds a lot like a training bond... but it isn't.

With a performance bond you require an extra contract. This contract is with the fiduciary. The fiduciary in a performance bond is at arms length from both parties, the employer and the employee. The bond holder, for a fee, provides the bond funds in confidence until the bond can be adjudicated. Either by completion or default. The important thing here is, the third party bond holder protects the money. That is why in bonded industries legitimate actual employment contracts are needed as bondholders will not sign the bond unless all of the consideration is written down.

So in industry the bonded employee and employer are both insulated from the money by a fiduciary who has an interest in never losing that money.

In aviation the fiduciary is the employer.

Why fiduciary? Well they take the profit motive and indentured servitude out of the equation with external oversight.

Even the law in canada views these types of bonds as contracts, it's what they are. If this was a bond at all a company would never go after a pilot they would go after the bondsperson who would then go after his client.

[DonutHole]

It's actually amazing how many pilots cling to their notions about bonds. Everything I have said is factual yet it is fought tooth and nail so we can have a boogie man to point to as the cause of all our problems.

Why? Everything I say is empowering to pilots. Pilots who think it's hopeless because you old dogs have these ideas not based in fact, and you perpetuate those flawed notions to the next gen.

That's one of the problems with the industry.

We need the kids exposed to these ideas, the idea that they are worthy enough of the most basic consideration. Telling them bonds are non negotiable one way streets when in fact they're just a veiled employment contract enables the devaluation of the pilot pool every bit as much as somebody who knowingly signs a bond they intend to break, or a company who will use a bond to manufacture an indentured servant.

When we expose these things as contracts the dynamic will change. Kids these days have something you old guys didn't. .. tons of instantaneously available information. Everything is out there.

What I'm about to say is serious.

You know how white trash squats on held property legally and with protection of the law?

They sit around all day watching judge Judy.

The moral is, even if you're dumb and stupid, if you know the law you can win.

[Liquid Charlie]

It's surprising how employers can literally break the law and get away with it because it's either too expensive to hold their feet to the fire or as in most cases pilots are afraid to make waves because it might give them a bad rep and cause problems getting the next job -- there should be a complimentary supply of K-Y for the duration -- damn that might even have some enjoying it -- lmfaooooooooo

[B-rad]

Non-aviation companies do things rather strangely out there in the real world - things like proper salaries and instead of training bonds, they often issue signing bonuses. They pay their workers into staying, as opposed to scaring them from leaving. This is one of the myriad reasons why pilot salaries continue to stay low.[/b

This is something everyone should remind themselves when confronted with signing a bond!

Salary stays low because of the market. As much as we hear of pilot shortage. Obviously there isn't one. Salary would increase if there was a lack of applicants. Market will always dictate salary. Market saturated with younger pilots looking for jobs.

False!
Salaries stay low because people accept low pay and allow themselves to be pushed over. If you want to go on about the supply and demand brainwashing bullshit, then be the demand! Demand better pay and get a backbone. Don't jump at the chance to sign bonds and accept the shit wages. I don't buy the supply and demand mantra when hand over fist aviation employees accept whatever wage is thrown at them without any opposition. This is why I say everyone should repeat to themselves before signing a bond, Non-aviation companies do things [different] in the real world - things like proper salaries and instead of training bonds, they often issue signing bonuses. They pay their workers into staying, as opposed to scaring them from leaving.

[CFM Symphony]

Non-aviation companies do things rather strangely out there in the real world - things like proper salaries and instead of training bonds, they often issue signing bonuses. They pay their workers into staying, as opposed to scaring them from leaving. This is one of the myriad reasons why pilot salaries continue to stay low.

This is something everyone should remind themselves when confronted with signing a bond!

Salary stays low because of the market. As much as we hear of pilot shortage. Obviously there isn't one. Salary would increase if there was a lack of applicants. Market will always dictate salary. Market saturated with younger pilots looking for jobs.

Correct. The market is another of the myriad reasons. We keep getting the "pilot shortage" argument shoved down our throats, but if there really was a a shortage of supply, the salaries would increase. Evidently that is not the case.

Now, what if the barriers to entry in this profession were to increase? What if one had to go through the many exams and hurdles a JAA pilot endures in order to obtain a Canadian ATPL? That surely would lead to a true decrease in the supply of pilots, and since the demand is assumed to stay the same, pilot salaries will naturally increase. It's just economics.

Or am I dreaming?

[B-rad]

nothing changes if people are still willing to accept shit for paycheques! What is so hard to understand!? wages stay low because people continue to accept them.
Increase the barrier to entry and you will just have the more fortunate people accepting the low pay, reduce the supply and you will still have people accepting the low pay.

The only thing that makes a difference in the end is YOU!