dontcallmeshirley wrote: ↑Sat Aug 26, 2023 12:32 pm

digits_ wrote: ↑Sat Aug 26, 2023 11:55 am At most companies that require bonds, what percentage of FOs (or captains), even bonded ones are staying longer than 2 years? Lots are likely hired with the intention of staying forever, yet the company manages to scare them off. The bond won't solve the core issue.

If bonded companies are still paying 20 to 30k less than non bonded companies, then I say that the financial arguments are pretty weak. They are implementing a bond to recoup training costs due to attrition caused by low wages in the first place.

The bonds are there because pilots are still signing them.

I've worked for quite a few aviation companies. The only ones I really wanted to leave after a few months, were -unsurprisingly- the ones where I had to sign a bond.

This reply would fit in well in a grade 10 English assignment regarding fallacies.

Just because some companies that require bonds are using bonds to try to fix retention issues does not mean that a company that requires a bond has retention issues.

Old fella wrote: ↑Sat Aug 26, 2023 5:07 pm You’re not one of us who earned our living( in whatever capacity) flying airplanes, so bugger off.

digits_ wrote: ↑Sat Aug 26, 2023 5:22 pm Logically you're right. However my claim is that there is a correlation.

Can you name a couple of companies that have a bond and do not face retention issues?

dontcallmeshirley wrote: ↑Sat Aug 26, 2023 10:01 am

accountant wrote: ↑Fri Aug 25, 2023 7:18 pm
Shhh, stop making sense because people are biased towards you when you make sense and you chose not to live with a 1.5 million dollar house and 2 cottages.

If a company pays for massive training costs a training bond is 100% reasonable.

Cue all the haters referencing your van life.

For once, I am in agreement with accountant.

It sucks when you are under a training bond, but a one-year $20,000 bond is reasonable. We all know that one guy (or gal) who stayed for eight months before flipping off to another carrier thinking that they are "moving up."

Why should pilots who intend on staying with a company and contributing to it's success have to pay for those pilots who want to use it as a stepping stone? The airlines that tend to be used as a stepping stone tend to be the ones that leap-froggers affect more. Air Canada having a pilot bail soon after getting typed is a lesser relative burden overall than Lynx having the same experience.

digits_ wrote: ↑Sat Aug 26, 2023 5:22 pm

dontcallmeshirley wrote: ↑Sat Aug 26, 2023 12:32 pm

digits_ wrote: ↑Sat Aug 26, 2023 11:55 am At most companies that require bonds, what percentage of FOs (or captains), even bonded ones are staying longer than 2 years? Lots are likely hired with the intention of staying forever, yet the company manages to scare them off. The bond won't solve the core issue.

If bonded companies are still paying 20 to 30k less than non bonded companies, then I say that the financial arguments are pretty weak. They are implementing a bond to recoup training costs due to attrition caused by low wages in the first place.

The bonds are there because pilots are still signing them.

I've worked for quite a few aviation companies. The only ones I really wanted to leave after a few months, were -unsurprisingly- the ones where I had to sign a bond.

This reply would fit in well in a grade 10 English assignment regarding fallacies.

Just because some companies that require bonds are using bonds to try to fix retention issues does not mean that a company that requires a bond has retention issues.

Logically you're right. However my claim is that there is a correlation.

Can you name a couple of companies that have a bond and do not face retention issues?

CaptDukeNukem wrote: ↑Sun Aug 27, 2023 1:36 pm

digits_ wrote: ↑Sat Aug 26, 2023 5:22 pm

dontcallmeshirley wrote: ↑Sat Aug 26, 2023 12:32 pm

This reply would fit in well in a grade 10 English assignment regarding fallacies.

Just because some companies that require bonds are using bonds to try to fix retention issues does not mean that a company that requires a bond has retention issues.

Logically you're right. However my claim is that there is a correlation.

Can you name a couple of companies that have a bond and do not face retention issues?

Calm air. Generally high FO turnover, but captains mostly staying out cuz they like being home in winnipeg and the flying is decent. And as far as I’m aware they still make you sign a training agreement. I may be wrong but $25000k, first year 25% of it is erased on a month to month, second year is 75% month to month

rookiepilot wrote: ↑Sat Aug 26, 2023 6:04 pm

Old fella wrote: ↑Sat Aug 26, 2023 5:07 pm You’re not one of us who earned our living( in whatever capacity) flying airplanes, so bugger off.

No Problem, Old Fella.

Make fun of one more young GA’s pilots death , along with his 5 passengers, on the accident forum as you did, I’ll see you banned from this forum.

Clear?

55+ wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 4:25 pm
PS. I won’t debate nor respond to the specifics that raised your ire.

55+ wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 4:25 pm Sir with respect, I haven’t seen your name annotated as a site moderator which certainly indicates you do not have standing nor authority to place sanctions on any person here. Perhaps the moderator listings per sub forums are not updated or possibly hidden by site owner for whatever reason they employ, I certainly don’t know. If indeed you have moderator status , I believe it would be prudent to note such on commentary that you deem inappropriate which would lend credence on possible sanctioning you wish to utilize.

PS. I won’t debate nor respond to the specifics that raised your ire.

dontcallmeshirley wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 7:56 pm

55+ wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 4:25 pm Sir with respect, I haven’t seen your name annotated as a site moderator which certainly indicates you do not have standing nor authority to place sanctions on any person here. Perhaps the moderator listings per sub forums are not updated or possibly hidden by site owner for whatever reason they employ, I certainly don’t know. If indeed you have moderator status , I believe it would be prudent to note such on commentary that you deem inappropriate which would lend credence on possible sanctioning you wish to utilize.

PS. I won’t debate nor respond to the specifics that raised your ire.

I like the way you insult people. It's very dignified.

I am picturing you wearing a top hat, monocle, and a pipe.

Blueontop wrote: ↑Sun Aug 27, 2023 4:49 pm

CaptDukeNukem wrote: ↑Sun Aug 27, 2023 1:36 pm

digits_ wrote: ↑Sat Aug 26, 2023 5:22 pm

Logically you're right. However my claim is that there is a correlation.

Can you name a couple of companies that have a bond and do not face retention issues?

Calm air. Generally high FO turnover, but captains mostly staying out cuz they like being home in winnipeg and the flying is decent. And as far as I’m aware they still make you sign a training agreement. I may be wrong but $25000k, first year 25% of it is erased on a month to month, second year is 75% month to month

That’s complete horse shit.

lowoleo22 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 22, 2023 7:01 am

ALPA signed off on allowing PAL to undercut Jazz.

Forgive me but how does locking in pilots to a bond at PAL undercut Jazz?

digits_ wrote: ↑Sat Aug 19, 2023 1:15 pm Sounds good in theory. In reality companies will go "how about every cpt gets a 10k raise if you accept a bond for new FOs?"

It's usually FOs that are bonded. It's usually captains that have seniority and are more involved in union type things (but not always). And before FOs can make a change in policy, their bond will be up and they will care significantly less.

young grasshopper wrote: ↑Tue Aug 29, 2023 3:06 pm No bond at Canadian North.

Cool story! But 7F isn’t the only one around.

It amazes me that the new commers wish to be bonded or would even accept such a notion…

TPC

young grasshopper wrote: ↑Tue Aug 29, 2023 3:06 pm No bond at Canadian North.

Chaxterium wrote: ↑Thu Sep 07, 2023 9:45 am No bond at Morningstar either. There used to be one but it's gone.

CanadaAir wrote: ↑Wed Sep 06, 2023 6:55 pm
Thanks for the update.

ALPA no bonds:

Canadian North
WestJet & Encore
Air Canada & Jazz
Flair

ALPA bonds:

Transat - $30,000
PAL - $26,000
Perimeter Bearskin, Wasaya, Calm, Keewatin

Unknown:

Flightcraft
Pascan
Lynx


ALPA should adopt a national standard against training bonds.

CanadaAir wrote: ↑Wed Sep 06, 2023 6:55 pm

young grasshopper wrote: ↑Tue Aug 29, 2023 3:06 pm No bond at Canadian North.

Thanks for the update.

ALPA no bonds:

Canadian North
WestJet & Encore
Air Canada & Jazz
Flair

ALPA bonds:

Transat - $30,000
PAL - $26,000
Perimeter Bearskin, Wasaya, Calm, Keewatin

Unknown:

Flightcraft
Pascan
Lynx


ALPA should adopt a national standard against training bonds.

dontcallmeshirley wrote: ↑Thu Sep 07, 2023 7:40 pm I would endorse bonds if it meant that the money saved by not having people come for type ratings and leaving went back to the pilots in salary.

dontcallmeshirley wrote: ↑Thu Sep 07, 2023 7:40 pm I would endorse bonds if it meant that the money saved by not having people come for type ratings and leaving went back to the pilots in salary.

Blueontop wrote: ↑Sat Sep 09, 2023 7:53 am
It apparent that there are 2 groups in this thread.

Group A that sees sub-standard pay and archaic practices such as bonds, calls it out and seeks to end this nonsense for the benefit of all pilots in Canada

Group B which just does nothing but defend sub-standard wages and bonds, even to their own detriment

What I can’t figure out is why anyone wants to defend their own crappy wages and conditions? Is out of ego, self-pride? Nobody is gonna call you out, we’re all in the same boat here and need to row together! We’ll all be better off in the end!

flyingjerry wrote: ↑Thu Sep 07, 2023 4:57 pm

CanadaAir wrote: ↑Wed Sep 06, 2023 6:55 pm

ALPA should adopt a national standard against training bonds.

Great idea so in the future it's just not even on the table.