AND THIS IS WHY WE HAVE BONDS!!!

[fixnfly]

Bonds have no protection for the pilot. It's a one way street, for the sole benefit of the company. Its endentured servitude, nothing more, nothing less. And, they exist because pilots sign them.
For every pilot I've seen "walk away" I've seen at least five get screwed by companies.
End of very small rant.
Illya

+1 The problem is asking them not to sign a bond as a sign of trust/respect to one another and having them accuse you of planning to jump ship. They use the analogy a couple bad apples spoils it for the rest. How can you defend against that?

[Illya Kuryakin]

BPF and Cat, a PPC simply proves that training has been completed. It's not the PPC that coats the money, it the training. Unless you can "un-train" the pilot, the deed is done. If trained by company A, all company B has to do is a quick check ride. You're swinging at windmills here. It's not the pilots fault if he jumps ship for a better offer.......it's the sack of crap company that uses his training as a requirement for employment. Right seat on a Beech is an entry level position. Get off your wallet and hire an entry level employee.
Illya

[Illya Kuryakin]

It should be illegal to "force" an employee to remain in a company's employ. I'm sure, on some level it's at least unconstitutional. Holding "financial" hardship over an employee's head is different to, say a threat of violence, in what way? I'm always floored by a pilot's willingness, even eagerness to put themselves in this position.
How about a "retention" bonus???? Stay for two years, and we'll pay YOU 10K! Instead of, "leave us within two years, and we'll screw you....."????
One guess which way anybody with an IQ over 45 would go?
C'Mon MAN!
Illya

[NeverBlue]

 how a bond costs a pilot anything if he lives up to the terms

It cost them the "terms" didn't it? Your statement contradicts itself.

...and there is such a thing as female pilots and other occupations other than "pilots" included in this discussion...no?

I've yet to see a bond hold up on the maintenance side should it be challenged.

The result is usually:
"If the company required you to be trained in order for you to perform your work and you were hired without the training then there is no way you can be responsible for the cost of training you received after you were hired."

If that were not the case we would all be paying for our own Human Factors and WHMIS training...

[Meatservo]

...and there is such a thing as female pilots and other occupations other than "pilots" included in this discussion...no?

Holy crap, can you imagine having to pay for WHMIS and Human Factors training? I would quit working altogether and move into the woods.

Anyway, WRT to the above quote... The "LGTBQ (and two-spirited too)" community has been suggesting for years that we adopt a non-gender-specific pronoun to deal with the fact that some people identify as neither male nor female. Do you think that would be appropriate here? The suggestion most often made is replacing "she" and "he" with "ze". Otherwise, I fear that we will forever be choosing one or the other if only to avoid the lack of economy inherent in remembering to symbolically represent the opposite gender EVERY FRICKING TIME WE GO TO USE A PRONOUN.

OR, we could all just agree that whenever one goes to speak hypothetically in the second person, one should just use the pronoun appropriate to whichever gender he or she or ze happens to be, without fear of offending anyone.

I am willing to go along with whatever we decide to do.

[Prodriver]

The company writes it off as a business expense. Treat the guys properly and I bet they will stay, simple really.

[PointyEngine]

The company writes it off as a business expense. Treat the guys properly and I bet they will stay, simple really.

One would hope this was the case, but "Bigger-plane-itis" trumps common sense here. Look at Encore...


Also, on the PC bandwagon, Manholes are now called PAU's (Personal Access Units), clearly an archaic, offensive term that had to go!!

[DonutHole]

 how a bond costs a pilot anything if he lives up to the terms

It cost them the "terms" didn't it? Your statement contradicts itself.

I suppose it depends how liberally you impose the term cost. As far as my statement contradicting itself. I can see how you would think that.... In the same way I can see how some people think there's a base on the moon...

..and there is such a thing as female pilots and other occupations other than "pilots" included in this discussion...no?

Well, it's been awhile but I specifically remember a lesson in grade seven English that went over why it is appropriate to use either gender as placeholder for humankind in general while writing in general terms.

They do teach this stuff in schools you know.

I've yet to see a bond hold up on the maintenance side should it be challenged.

The result is usually:
"If the company required you to be trained in order for you to perform your work and you were hired without the training then there is no way you can be responsible for the cost of training you received after you were hired."

Sure.... whatever you say.

If that were not the case we would all be paying for our own Human Factors and WHMIS training...

I paid for my human factors initial training
Transport canada certified to boot.

I don't understand the hoopla about it. Poor pilots getting manipulated into indentured servitude.

It's a contract guys. If you want consideration you have to ask for it. That bond is leverage that works both ways if you input into the terms. That bond can be used to lock in your schedule and provide job security, if they go against the negotiated terms of the bond then they're as much on the hook as the poor pilot.

I'm surprised that there is so much fear of the bond. It's a golden opportunity for actual bargaining.

[DonutHole]

It should be illegal to "force" an employee to remain in a company's employ. I'm sure, on some level it's at least unconstitutional. Holding "financial" hardship over an employee's head is different to, say a threat of violence, in what way? I'm always floored by a pilot's willingness, even eagerness to put themselves in this position.
How about a "retention" bonus???? Stay for two years, and we'll pay YOU 10K! Instead of, "leave us within two years, and we'll screw you....."????
One guess which way anybody with an IQ over 45 would go?
C'Mon MAN!
Illya

I don't know....

The pilot does benefit by having the ppc and the cost needed to provide that needs to be addressed. It's a tough one because on one hand it is required, and on the other it is expensive and logistically time consuming. No wonder the trend is to head hunt those with the course. I don't think the blame lies in one camp, dirtbags can be pilots or admin.

The notion though that people can't be forced to work for a company is well established in law. But that isn't what this is. It's a contract so all of the things that come with contracts come in to play. If you sign a contract with shitty terms that's on you. The fact that you think pilots are bested by this is kind of insulting to pilots

[NeverBlue]

Sure.... whatever you say.

...it's not what I say...it's what happened...the bond didn't hold water.

The fact that you think pilots are bested by this is kind of insulting to pilots

I'm insulted that you refuse to write in general terms...not everyone is a pilot.

...I'm so insulted...

[DonutHole]

The weakness in ground level aviation is that we want special rules and norms to give us leverage but miss the fact that every tool we need to get what we need is layed out nicely in front of us... Unfortunately everybody is so stuck in their ways that these tools will never be used.

Shitty bonds, in any sector, are take it or leave it. If you take it I'm not going to get all pissed off about it.

If you are offered a bond, when it comes time to write the deal, bargain for your schedule, holidays, special considerations... then make sure your consideration is wwritten into the contract along with their terms. If the company is looking for a fair deal (which is the premise of the bond in a vacuum) they should have no problem negotiating terms that aren't unreasonable. If they won't, as some dumb redneck opined 'there's your sign'

At any rate once you've bargained in your consideration it's up to both parties to live up to the deal.

Bonds shouldn't be feared... They are tools, and anybody in a bond situation should know how to use them.

[Liquid Charlie]

A PPC might be transferable but training is not -- the only thing a company saves are the initial training requirements - the "qualified" pilot still must do all the recurrent stuff plus the company 101 stuff and any other courses such as hazmat and deicing etc -- so there is still costs involved to the company -- who in the 703 world has also tried to get the person to sign a bond as well -- and speaking of 703 -- how fuked up is that -- but that's another story -----

[timel]

I hate training bonds like everyone else but I am less sharp on that topic than most of you.

So far all I had was a training bond of one year initially and I am done with it, there is none for upgrades or renewal. I am part of union so I knew what I was signing for. I agreed to it and I think it is somehow fair on both sides.

I mean prior signing a bond, nothing stops you from making sure about the conditions they promise will be the same in 6 months. Otherwise it is like a breach of contract and if written you can get out.

Most people know what companies are prior joining. We all know where the worst wages are and where most silly bosses are. If you decided or were too desesperate to say yes anyway, that is the game. If you loose your job the bound should of course be cancelled.

Many small operators know they don't have the leverage to offer Jazz conditions and many pilots just want to upgrade the fastest way possible to be that 777 captain, and walk proudly at YYZ terminal.

The only way to have retention is that bound. Those who can't afford to pay the bound, they stick around.

[Illya Kuryakin]

The weakness in ground level aviation is that we want special rules and norms to give us leverage but miss the fact that every tool we need to get what we need is layed out nicely in front of us... Unfortunately everybody is so stuck in their ways that these tools will never be used.

Shitty bonds, in any sector, are take it or leave it. If you take it I'm not going to get all pissed off about it.

If you are offered a bond, when it comes time to write the deal, bargain for your schedule, holidays, special considerations... then make sure your consideration is wwritten into the contract along with their terms. If the company is looking for a fair deal (which is the premise of the bond in a vacuum) they should have no problem negotiating terms that aren't unreasonable. If they won't, as some dumb redneck opined 'there's your sign'

At any rate once you've bargained in your consideration it's up to both parties to live up to the deal.

Bonds shouldn't be feared... They are tools, and anybody in a bond situation should know how to use them.

Oh sure. Bonds as a bargaining tool. Almost spilled my coffee all over the key board on that one. News flash. The bond is there to protect the company, not the pilot! You're not really going to sit there and tell us you can get Bearskin Airlines to insert clauses into their bonds for YOUR benefit? Whatever you're smoking, I want some! Insert your schedule and holidays here......NEXT! Stop it, I can't take the maniac laughter when I'm drinking hot coffee!
Illya

[Illya Kuryakin]

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

[cap41]

If you use the military to gain your university education, do you not have to guarantee so many years of service? If a company is going to spend the money training you, why should they not have the right to expect a certain time frame of service?
There is a lot of arrogance on this board. Bitching about how much a company makes in regards to how much they pay??? Really??? The company offers a salary, if you can't survive on that salary, don't take the job. Last time i checked pilots are lined up for entry level jobs. We only have ourselves to blame for the working conditions. We went in an industry knowing the outlook off jobs.

Then when that outlook doesn't change. We blame everybody else for our misfortunes. Instead we should look in the mirror and blame ourselves.

[Mostly Harmless]

Bonds:

Go ahead and try to negotiate with your employer on your bond. You will be told "No." You will be told to sign the bond as is or not receive the job/promotion/training and that will be the end of it. So, if you think you can negotiate a bond, I would say you are not in touch with the reality of the situation. There are, of course, exceptions where people hold unique skills or experience that the employer needs and then one has a position of power where they can negotiate. However, in order to acquire those skills/experience, you have had to travel through the landscape most people are complaining about. The balance of power between employer and employee is not equal at any point in your career. In the beginning and the middle the employer has all the power... and sometimes, near the end you will have the power as you possess all the "Right Stuff" the employer needs.

There is a point in our careers where people will chase the plane over the money because they understand the long term pay implications. Bigger: hauls more, charges more, pays more. Sometimes that step down in pay is more than rewarded over the years with a much higher top end pay that makes up for the early sacrifice. The faster you can climb that ladder, the greater the life time earnings. It is unfortunate to dance the dance of one step forward, two steps back... but everyone understands the long term goals. Should the system work this way? No. Sadly, it does.

Those poor employers. The employees are showing them the exact same level of loyalty as they are receiving. You, as an employer, cannot come on here and complain about how your employees leave the company when: If you are in a spot of financial trouble or you can show a larger profit, you will lay people off without a care in the world. Heck, you may even take a nice bonus for doing such things. You, cannot come on here and complain about employees leaving your company when, you have a loyal long term and qualified employee in your ranks and, rather than promote that person into an opening within the company, you hire an outsider (who has a PPC) to fill that roll. Often at a pay rate higher than the people who have been at your company for years and shown you that loyalty you complain you do not receive. If you don't invest in the people you have, why should they invest in you? You create the culture where people have to leave just to get a promotion. How many of us have seen a good FO who works hard for year after year bypassed for a captains seat again and again only to watch that FO leave to take a captain's job at a rival company? Then, to add insult to injury, the company you left calls you and asks you to come back, now that you are a captain at company B. It's like that teenage boyfriend/girlfriend who treats you like garbage until you leave and get someone else... now you are desirable and wanted back. Employers, stop acting like teenagers and start acting like adults. Employers, you have set the ground rules for this game. You have shown us all exactly how you think of us and how you treat us... and now you are surprised when we start playing by the very same rules you apply to us. If you want things to change stop with the double standard and start treating your people the way you want them to treat you. Since this situation was not created in a day, it won't be fixed in a day either. It will take years to rebuild trust and loyalty.

[DonutHole]

Well, it's just a pilot thing to not negotiate the terms of the bond.

In other fields, it's done all the time. If you guys think you're so worthless that you have no leverage then these people who are floating these shitty bonds are targeting the right people. These guys are winning the psychological battle and we have a multitude of old dogs, who probably, and apparently, have no experience with bonds of any type (maybe savings bonds?) Telling us what is what.

I grew up at the bargaining table. Any time pen goes to paper there is opportunity to lock in consideration. These are the tools I'm talking about. . They're right there you just have to pick them up.

You only ever get what you let happen

Kinda sounds lame and entitled to bitch about it afterwards

[Illya Kuryakin]

DonutHole, what planet are you from.
Bonds are not negotiable. If they were, companies would drop them. They are one way leverage. PERIOD!
They are called "bonds". Word root, "bondage". As in slavery. Look it up.
If it were a two way street, they would be called "contracts". As in, both parties gain benefits from the other. As in a symbiotic relationship.
A "bond" is a parasitic relationship. Only one benefits from the relationship. The "parasite". In this case the company.
Admit defeat here like a man/woman/child. You've lost.
Illya

[DonutHole]

You clearly don't know what you're talking about. I have two options.

1. I could go dig out the case law and prove my position to educate and embarrass you. Which would be cathartic

Or

2. I can go along with my life, knowing how right I am, and how uninformed you are, and let you wallow in your ignorance. Also cathartic. With the bonus that I get to know that every time this topic come up you're gonna expose yourself as uninformed.

Either way I win..

So okay doc... you are right.

[Illya Kuryakin]

You just keep drinking that Koolaid, and eaten them donuts.
Illya

[DonutHole]

How do you think they get the holes?

Seriously though. Dig into the different types of bonds a bit. If you do research I'm confident you will come to the conclusion that a bond is indeed a two way street. Look at the considerations going the pilots way as part of the provisions of the bond provided by the company.

This isn't foreign logic, this type of bargaining goes on daily in many other sectors.

[Illya Kuryakin]

How do you think they get the holes?

Seriously though. Dig into the different types of bonds a bit. If you do research I'm confident you will come to the conclusion that a bond is indeed a two way street. Look at the considerations going the pilots way as part of the provisions of the bond provided by the company.

This isn't foreign logic, this type of bargaining goes on daily in many other sectors.

Give me two verifiable examples of a two way bond in this industry in the here, and now. A company we've all heard of. Good luck.
Illya

[DonutHole]

Has anybody tried? Or do they all think it's impossible because old dogs like you say so?

Your vocal perspective undermines the leverage industry types (that one is for you blue) need.

Again you are here arguing vehemently that bonds are unequivocally a one way street. How many people have you advised with your erroneous conclusion? See the problem here. In order to be indignant you sacrifice actual good advice.... it's really harmful

[Meatservo]

OK, so instead of insulting and threatening to embarrass people, let's have a dialogue on this subject.

The reason pilots (I'm assuming at least some other people too, like Never Blue says, engineers sometimes have to sign these things too,) feel like they have to go along with stuff like this is that they feel there is enough competition for the job on offer that they will lose the opportunity altogether if they balk at any part of the process. Employers seem to feel that if you're not willing to do something, there will be another person who IS willing to do it. I'm inclined to agree, judging from what I've observed over the years. The only time I can think of where a person might get away with some stubbornness would be if the company has ASKED you to transition to a certain type. Usually though, you've asked for the upgrade or transfer or whatever.

So what is your specific recommendation? It's true that if enough people were willing to fall on their swords you'd see an improvement... but when I think of the objectionable practices that have started to fall by the wayside in recent times, it's never been the workers who have managed to put a stop to it. I'm thinking specifically about pressure to fly in unacceptable weather and over-loading. You don't see as much of that nowadays as you used to... but I don't think it was ever pilots who initiated that change in thinking. Maybe they like to think it was.

So who is going to initiate this one? You can't ask working people to stand on principle to their own immediate detriment. There will always be more exigent concerns for those people. You know that. It's not fair to expect people to tinker with their ability to make a living in order to satisfy some high-minded ideal that might benefit someone else, far down the road. You can get a soldier to do that, if you carefully fill his/her head with ideas about honour and glory and sacrifice and unity and esprit du corps. Pilots don't get any of that stuff, because no-one is feeding and sheltering them and no-one is cheering for them. (please don't think I have anything but the greatest respect for the military)

So where do you propose we start here if we want to stamp this practice out? What is your plan? If people in other fields of endeavour are able to manipulate this situation in their own favour, and pilots aren't simply because they are dumb, maybe you could help some of these dummies understand what their rights and responsibilities are when they are faced with one of these "training agreements" or whatever. How can we build consideration into these agreements, or avoid them?