ALPA signing new agreements with training bonds

[CanadaAir]

Why's ALPA allowing its pilot groups to continue to accept new agreements with training bonds required?

Training bonds drag down pay rates across the industry.

ALPA national should adopt a stance not to support any agreement which still allows for training bonds.

[Blueontop]

What? Who? Where?

[CanadaAir]

What? Who? Where?

Most ALPA carriers other than WJ, Encore, AC & Jazz.

Pilots are required to sign financial training agreements with Wasaya, Calm, Perimeter & Bearskin, & PAL in the ALPA collective agreements which ALPA national has signed off on.

Keewatin’s negotiating, currently has pilot financial agreement

Anyone know if pilots still have to sign with post merger Canadian North & at Flightcraft?

Becoming a pilot can now cost $100k to $150k & more debts for any college or university. Add interest payments and taxes to make this amount.

Pilots shouldn’t have to take on more financial risks to get a $30 or $40k FO job on a King Air or PC12.
Then some of the companies require a 2nd training agreement to upgrade from FO to captain.
Why is ALPA allowing this?

If ALPA national agreed to not approve any collective agreements with these financial traps, then companies would have to treat their pilots better to retain them. Better treatment for pilots goes with ALPA's job.

ALPA isn't doing its job if its continuing to sign off on all these agreements with training bonds.

[digits_]

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.

[CanadaAir]

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?"

When pilots agree to a bribe in exchange for lowering other pilots wages & conditions, it limits their ability to obtain future gains in negotiations.

Jazz is an example, when the pilots voted in favor of B scale. Senior pilots may have gained initially, now they are stuck.
Air Canada, when the pilots voted in favor of fixed rate pay for new hires. It’s now holding all the pilots back, including the senior ones from obtaining gains.

If senior ALPA pilots are accepting bribes to keep training bonds in place, it’s not benefiting their wages long term.

[digits_]

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?"

When pilots agree to a bribe in exchange for lowering other pilots wages & conditions, it limits their ability to obtain future gains in negotiations.

Jazz is an example, when the pilots voted in favor of B scale. Senior pilots may have gained initially, now they are stuck.
Air Canada, when the pilots voted in favor of fixed rate pay for new hires. It’s now holding all the pilots back, including the senior ones from obtaining gains.

If senior ALPA pilots are accepting bribes to keep training bonds in place, it’s not benefiting their wages long term.

I agree with the general sentiment if your post (although I wouldn't call it a bribe). But unfortunately I still think I am right as well. Although I am slightly optimistic things will change slowly.

Signing bonuses to cancel out paying bonds might be a way around this.

[CanadaAir]

ALPA should adopt a national standard against training bonds.

Over 20 years Jazz pilots with ALPA have paid $40 to $50 million in union dues. Jazz has no training bond.

Then PAL shows up to join, & ALPA signs off on a $26000 bond for both FO & Cpts flying Dash8.

The new group at PAL’s undercutting the Jazz pilots & their 20 years & $40 to $50 million in ALPA support.
ALPA signed off on allowing PAL to undercut Jazz.

[CanadaAir]

Consider if ALPA signed off on Lynx or Flair with training bonds, undercutting now ALPA WestJet & Air Canada pilots.

There should be some minimum contract standard to join ALPA.

Basic things

No signing of training agreements
No paying for ratings
No paying TC fees, uniforms, equipment, legal fees

At least 1 hour pay for every 2 hour duty time
At least 1 hour pay for every 4 hour layover or reserve
1 hour pay for every hour deadhead

[goldeneagle]

Which companies have a bond these days. Do folks here even know the difference between a bond (paid up front) and a training agreement (pay nothing if you fulfill your side of the agreement, usually with regards to a minimum length of service).

Of those that I know of that insist on training agreements the most onerous is that enforced by the CAF. Back in my day it was 5 years service after training completed, my understanding is it’s longer today. Most companies that have an agreement in place today typically want a year or so of service after the invest 40 to 80 grand in training for an individual. If you don’t think it’s reasonable then you are free to not apply for those positions.

[digits_]

Which companies have a bond these days. Do folks here even know the difference between a bond (paid up front) and a training agreement (pay nothing if you fulfill your side of the agreement, usually with regards to a minimum length of service).

The definition of training bond and training agreement vary widely. I've had employers tell me there was a bond which you describe as a training agreement. If you look up a few examples about training bonds, they are often what you describe as training agreements.

Seems like in its most basic form a bond refers to an agreement/contract. There's no necessity for money to exchange hands, although it is possible.

[CanadaAir]

Of those that I know of that insist on training agreements the most onerous is that enforced by the CAF. Back in my day it was 5 years service after training completed, my understanding is it’s longer today.

This isn’t the CAF. It’s ALPA, where pilots pay thousands each year in union dues to prevent companies from taking advantage.

Unlike the CAF, civil pilots have to pay for their training & aren’t paid $80k during training.

After $100k to $150k in flight school debt, most pilots are unable to pay off any training bond with $20 - 60k pay. It can take 10 years to pay off flight school debts, bonds trap pilots since most can’t pay them off.

There are other posts discussing negatives of bonds. This one's specific to why ALPA continuing this year to sign agreements with bonds & undercut pilot groups who have eliminated them.

[lowoleo22]

ALPA signed off on allowing PAL to undercut Jazz.

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

[tbaylx]

Of those that I know of that insist on training agreements the most onerous is that enforced by the CAF. Back in my day it was 5 years service after training completed, my understanding is it’s longer today.

This isn’t the CAF. It’s ALPA, where pilots pay thousands each year in union dues to prevent companies from taking advantage.

Unlike the CAF, civil pilots have to pay for their training & aren’t paid $80k during training.

After $100k to $150k in flight school debt, most pilots are unable to pay off any training bond with $20 - 60k pay. It can take 10 years to pay off flight school debts, bonds trap pilots since most can’t pay them off.

There are other posts discussing negatives of bonds. This one's specific to why ALPA continuing this year to sign agreements with bonds & undercut pilot groups who have eliminated them.

If a company invests $30-50K in training for a pilot isn't it reasonable for them to expect that pilot to stay for a certain amount of time or pay back the training investment? There is no financial hardship for a pilot if they don't quit in under a year or two.

Alternatively, if a pilot paid for his own type rating then the companies wouldn't require a bond.

[digits_]

Of those that I know of that insist on training agreements the most onerous is that enforced by the CAF. Back in my day it was 5 years service after training completed, my understanding is it’s longer today.

This isn’t the CAF. It’s ALPA, where pilots pay thousands each year in union dues to prevent companies from taking advantage.

Unlike the CAF, civil pilots have to pay for their training & aren’t paid $80k during training.

After $100k to $150k in flight school debt, most pilots are unable to pay off any training bond with $20 - 60k pay. It can take 10 years to pay off flight school debts, bonds trap pilots since most can’t pay them off.

There are other posts discussing negatives of bonds. This one's specific to why ALPA continuing this year to sign agreements with bonds & undercut pilot groups who have eliminated them.

If a company invests $30-50K in training for a pilot isn't it reasonable for them to expect that pilot to stay for a certain amount of time or pay back the training investment? There is no financial hardship for a pilot if they don't quit in under a year or two.

Alternatively, if a pilot paid for his own type rating then the companies wouldn't require a bond.

Where's the protection for the pilot if the job isn't as advertised?

I also genuinely consider it a safety issue if a pilot isn't allowed to walk away from a job. There's always pressure not to turn down a flight. Some pilots might be concerned about their employment if they do. Now add a possible 50k fine on top off that.

And no, those aren't concerns at decent companies. But most decent companies don't have bonds. The shadier the operation, the higher the bond and the more you need that freedom to be able to leave!

[flyingcanuck]

Of those that I know of that insist on training agreements the most onerous is that enforced by the CAF. Back in my day it was 5 years service after training completed, my understanding is it’s longer today.

This isn’t the CAF. It’s ALPA, where pilots pay thousands each year in union dues to prevent companies from taking advantage.

Unlike the CAF, civil pilots have to pay for their training & aren’t paid $80k during training.

After $100k to $150k in flight school debt, most pilots are unable to pay off any training bond with $20 - 60k pay. It can take 10 years to pay off flight school debts, bonds trap pilots since most can’t pay them off.

There are other posts discussing negatives of bonds. This one's specific to why ALPA continuing this year to sign agreements with bonds & undercut pilot groups who have eliminated them.

If a company invests $30-50K in training for a pilot isn't it reasonable for them to expect that pilot to stay for a certain amount of time or pay back the training investment? There is no financial hardship for a pilot if they don't quit in under a year or two.

Alternatively, if a pilot paid for his own type rating then the companies wouldn't require a bond.

lets ask ourselves, why would someone want to leave in under 2 years?

Low pay
Bad management
No progression
Bad QOL

You know as well as anyone else here that bonds are to keep people around thru financial penalty instead of idk.... making your workplace somewhere worth staying?!

[330heavy]

This isn’t the CAF. It’s ALPA, where pilots pay thousands each year in union dues to prevent companies from taking advantage.

Unlike the CAF, civil pilots have to pay for their training & aren’t paid $80k during training.

After $100k to $150k in flight school debt, most pilots are unable to pay off any training bond with $20 - 60k pay. It can take 10 years to pay off flight school debts, bonds trap pilots since most can’t pay them off.

There are other posts discussing negatives of bonds. This one's specific to why ALPA continuing this year to sign agreements with bonds & undercut pilot groups who have eliminated them.

If a company invests $30-50K in training for a pilot isn't it reasonable for them to expect that pilot to stay for a certain amount of time or pay back the training investment? There is no financial hardship for a pilot if they don't quit in under a year or two.

Alternatively, if a pilot paid for his own type rating then the companies wouldn't require a bond.

lets ask ourselves, why would someone want to leave in under 2 years?

Low pay
Bad management
No progression
Bad QOL

You know as well as anyone else here that bonds are to keep people around thru financial penalty instead of idk.... making your workplace somewhere worth staying?!

Or because AC calls them, and bonds/screwing over current company be damned.

[co-joe]

Pretty sure TS has a bond of 30K, they're an ALPA carrier. The thing you guys don't seem to get, is ALPA isn't a magic DART to solve all problems in the industry. (Get it? DART??) The union is just a framework, but the members, and really the executives (most of whom are volunteers who fly a full block), agree on. Their job is to work for the members in negotiations with the company, but they have to work with the company. If the company loses money, how are they supposed to pay pilots? If a bond is a part of the business model, that gets the members something in return, what's the problem?

[accountant]

If a company invests $30-50K in training for a pilot isn't it reasonable for them to expect that pilot to stay for a certain amount of time or pay back the training investment? There is no financial hardship for a pilot if they don't quit in under a year or two.

Alternatively, if a pilot paid for his own type rating then the companies wouldn't require a bond.

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.

[dontcallmeshirley]

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_]

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.

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.

[rookiepilot]

I've worked for quite a few aviation companies.

Deleted

[dontcallmeshirley]

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.

A bond is a way to ensure that a company will recoup some or all of it's investment in an employee.

[Old fella]

Deleted

[rookiepilot]

[quote=digits_ post_id=1273868 time=1693076154 user_id=34065.

Hmmmmmm……..in context

“I have and will continue to try to stay off such forums that are for professional pilots.”


A direct quote from you August 10th on your GA thread rant. So why are you here on an ALPA thread for professional airline pilots who fly airliners for a living. What happened, you miss the bus.
[/quote]

Deleted

[Old fella]

Deleted