A $9000 King Air 200 training bond is required to be paid by the employee which covers the cost of initial training. This is returned to the employee monthly over two years plus 6% annual interest.
I read this as follows:
If you want to work for us, you will have to lend us the money to train you. We promise to pay it back...
Are there really pilots out there who are stupid enough to do this?
---------- ADS -----------
Accident speculation:
Those that post don’t know. Those that know don’t post
you can add them to the list of companies asking up front bonds these days. I remember seeing them posting earlier this summer asking for a 3 year upfront training bond for a falcon 20.
Agreed - if you want to keep people around, then pay them a little better. I have a hard time thinking that 12 x$5800 =$69600/yr is enough of a draw to bring people to Iqaluit for 2 years, with no rotation...
---------- ADS -----------
Say, what's that mountain goat doing up here in the mist?
Happiness is V1 at Thompson!
Ass, Licence, Job. In that order.
iflyroads wrote:you can add them to the list of companies asking up front bonds these days. I remember seeing them posting earlier this summer asking for a 3 year upfront training bond for a falcon 20.
Hopefully they won't be able to fill this position either
They also added in that it is a "contract position". Presumably so they don't take the responsibility of accounting to deduct/remit taxes on your behalf nor pay any sort of benefits?
cdnpilot77 wrote:They also added in that it is a "contract position". Presumably so they don't take the responsibility of accounting to deduct/remit taxes on your behalf nor pay any sort of benefits?
They probably mean a fixed-term employment contract. It's illegal to be an independent contractor for an employment gig like this.
North Shore wrote:Agreed - if you want to keep people around, then pay them a little better. I have a hard time thinking that 12 x$5800 =$69600/yr is enough of a draw to bring people to Iqaluit for 2 years, with no rotation...
That's what I was thinking. For that pay? No Thanks.
Give it another year or so and a lot of these jobs will either have increases in pay or companies will fold because they can't find pilots that meet mins. Or mins will lower bigtime. Take PasCo for example.. 3000 hours and (was it 2000PIC) to be a DEC on the 1900.
iflyroads wrote:you can add them to the list of companies asking up front bonds these days. I remember seeing them posting earlier this summer asking for a 3 year upfront training bond for a falcon 20.
Hopefully they won't be able to fill this position either
Doubt it.. There will always be someone who will pay at companies like this. EVAS asks for 15k upfront and still is up and running with new pilots who paid it.
Kasper asks for 4k upfront for the GA8. Pays you 1000 a month and expects you to live in Dryden (all this after you do 3 months "probation" on the ramp). Still there are pilots who work there under those conditions.
Are there really pilots out there who are stupid enough to do this?
Pilots are a dime-a-dozen ! Many come with daddies willing to pay for their "dreams" throughout life !
Ask yourself this : If ALL pilots would honour a handshake agreement that they would stay around with a company for 1-2-3 years so that the company would recover its investment in you , do you think there would be bonds?
How many pilots have paid for a broken aircraft after they rolled it up in a ball?
More than most other occupations, pilots are selfish, ego driven wannabees, so words on avcanada must be taken with a grain of salt
I must have misread the ad.
This was not about a bond or a pilot keeping their word, or the pay.
This was about a company wanting pilots to lend them money to get a job.
I understand both sides about bonds. But bonds do not require a new hire to lend the company money to pay for the required training the company has to provide. A great deal of difference, IMHO.
I would think it is difficult enough to find the right people to live and work in Frobisher without reducing your candidate pool by looking for lenders who are also pilots.
People did seem to answer the question though, There are apparently pilots out there who think they can not get ahead unless they pay someone for a job....definitely a great personal attribute....
---------- ADS -----------
Accident speculation:
Those that post don’t know. Those that know don’t post
I understand both sides about bonds. But bonds do not require a new hire to lend the company money to pay for the required training the company has to provide. A great deal of difference, IMHO.
The ONLY reason for a bond is up-front $$$ to pay for training so the employee is indebted to the company for a certain length of time , so that said company is able to recover their investment in the employee..... There is no other reason for a bond that i know of,,,
Normally, a handshake would suffice in the old days, but too many pilots jump ship to greener pastures in their drive to the holy grail of aviation ( left seat in a shiny big plane)
Frustrated, that in my time it has come to companies only selecting pilots who are willing to pay the company to train them to work for the company, and pilots that think this is OK.
This is cash up front...lend the company money that they should be spending to train their pilots.
Bonds, unfortunately are a fact of the new world. But there is a huge difference, in my opinion, between an employer wanting to be reimbursed for training if a pilot leaves prematurely, and a company that wants a loan...cash up front. Huge difference, and I expect a huge difference in the quality of their potential pilot pool. It is a downward spiral, unless their intent is to turn their training department into a profit centre.
Hopefully, and it is a faint hope, fewer pilots will apply, and eventually they will have to stop this practice....a very faint hope, but better than nothing.
---------- ADS -----------
Accident speculation:
Those that post don’t know. Those that know don’t post
Theyre looking for a real go getter with upper management written all over them.
spent some time in YFB. had one look at those haggard 200's, with their well filed down props, ice shedding scars, and gravel scratched belly pods.
"nope."
regardless of the questionable hiring practices, lot of respect for the guys that drive those birds and are up against the conditions that baffin throws at them. You also have to consider a plane ticket from YFB to YOW is what? $3000 dollar-y-doos? So even after youve lent them the equivalent dollar value of a used 2010 ford F150, you might not even afford a plane ticket out of that moon-base that is Iqaluit.
Maybe if we can convince some pilots to have some self respect and not apply, all they will get for pilot applicants is the bottom of the barrel types. It will take time, but that will haven't an effect eventually...maybe a tragic one.
And reputable operators can help by asking any new candidate a somple yes or no question....you worked for this company...did you pay them , or any other company for a job?
It is a good question to weed out candidates... Does anyone, as a company , want to hire people who have gotten their experience properly, or who simply got their ratings because they were willing to pay for it.
Of course AC and WJ don't give a damn about the industry or helping , but some of the smaller, non destination companies might.
---------- ADS -----------
Last edited by trey kule on Mon Aug 22, 2016 6:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Accident speculation:
Those that post don’t know. Those that know don’t post
iflyroads wrote:you can add them to the list of companies asking up front bonds these days. I remember seeing them posting earlier this summer asking for a 3 year upfront training bond for a falcon 20.
Now there's a great investment opportunity ... an endorsement on an obsolete jet.
I'm fairly sure most people could take out a loan from their bank, with appropriate insurance, for less than 6%. So if you're interested in the job, you'll actually profit from the loan.
---------- ADS -----------
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
photofly wrote:I'm fairly sure most people could take out a loan from their bank, with appropriate insurance, for less than 6%. So if you're interested in the job, you'll actually profit from the loan.
Hmm I have actually looked into this, and when a bank gives you a loan they do it at the prime interest rate plus a certain percentage (depends on credit score, income, liabilities etc). Last I got a quote for a loan was prime interest rate (2.7 percent) plus 5 percent, 7.7 percent in total.
It is possible to profit from an upfront bond if you already have the capital to put forward. But you have to be careful and read what your contract stipulates (as in what will happen if the company goes under, will the money still be repaid? or what happens if you get laid off, or company loses AOC and has to cease operations etc)
Prime is a bit of a moving figure. There is bank of Canada prime rate. Then each bank has it's own prime rate, and even prime rates that are different for each type of loan the bank offer. Prime plus is a marketing tool..call your friendly account manager and ask them..
I would be interested to know how many pilots looking for a job can get an unsecured loan for less than 6%. Not the exceptions,..the average.
Anyway, my original post was regarding my thought that training costs are, or should be, the responsability of the employer. Up front, and I emphasize up front, money from a pilot is nothing more than a loan to fund what the company should be looking after themselves.
It also reduces the demographics of their hiring pool from qualified being a priority to having money to loan us..Am I the only one that thinks there is a flaw in this philosophy?
---------- ADS -----------
Accident speculation:
Those that post don’t know. Those that know don’t post
Upfront bonds are a great way to retain employees. Certainly easier then improving wages, schedule or employer/employee relations. That's how I look at it and also why I would never consider applying to such a company.
[quote="photofly"]A 6% guaranteed return, at the moment, is phenomenal. If you trust the company to remain solvent for two years.[/quote]
I suppose when you hand over the money you could do so as a preferred creditor. That way if they go bankrupt you are at the front of the list to get some of your money back.
The company may go for that, better than just handing it over and crossing your fingers.
up on one wrote:Upfront bonds are a great way to retain employees. Certainly easier then improving wages, schedule or employer/employee relations. That's how I look at it and also why I would never consider applying to such a company.
Ditto. I will be honest, I did apply to a few this year, and didn't find out that they were upfront bonds till the interview. I promptly turned them down. I just can't trust companies that do this, I feel like they would just have too much leverage over you.
I have basically had this conversation with a few colleagues of mine, and their opinion on the matter was that some people pay $10-$15 grand for an instructor rating, so what's the difference? They say that it's simply an investment into their own future.
As a side note, many of you are stating that one should run away from companies with bonds. Could we then update the sticky of companies without bonds to help out our fellow aviators?
I have basically had this conversation with a few colleagues of mine, and their opinion on the matter was that some people pay $10-$15 grand for an instructor rating, so what's the difference? They say that it's simply an investment into their own future.
As a side note, many of you are stating that one should run away from companies with bonds. Could we then update the sticky of companies without bonds to help out our fellow aviators?
- there are multiple companies out there that do not require an up front training bond
- an instructor rating is valid for instructing "anywhere in canada", a training bond is for a specific airplane type that not every company uses
- if a company needs your money to stay afloat, that is a very bad sign, you are/should not be a source of revenue for a 703 -704 operator. At a flying school you are the paying customer and get some level of service out of that
---------- ADS -----------
As an AvCanada discussion grows longer:
-the probability of 'entitlement' being mentioned, approaches 1
-one will be accused of using bad airmanship
