Bring cheque book to the interview! And, knee pads....

I'm sure all the unemployed job hunters will find that information most helpful.
You have too much time on your hands.

I'm not sayin' that it ought to be that way, but find an operation in that neck of the woods that does not require a training bond of some sort.

Slats wrote:I'm sure all the unemployed job hunters will find that information most helpful.
You have too much time on your hands.

Don't know about you, but I've never been unemployed AND had ten thousand dollars in my wallet at the same time.

$9500 is the bond, and they'll make monthly payments for you without fail (from what I hear anyways) As long as you're okay with getting sent to YXL, and not dead-set on YQT, it's an okay gig.

I see they are looking for an engineer as well. How much do I have to pay them so I can get an ACA on a 1900?

JB I'm pretty sure the pay is better than the college instructing gig, and just a guess but did (do) you get a minimum ten days off per month there? Word is a CBA ratification vote is in the works so there might be some improvements to schedule and pay. Although I think 10 days a month is pretty standard at many outfits these days unless you are doing a rotational gig.

Brown bear, hmmm you sound alot like a certain Wasaya bashing former AvCanada regular.

Anyhow, heard WSG finally has a CBA in the ratifying process. Hopefully that'll help the cause.

How have things been going with their Dash 8?

frankfrank wrote:Brown bear, hmmm you sound alot like a certain Wasaya bashing former AvCanada regular.

Anyhow, heard WSG finally has a CBA in the ratifying process. Hopefully that'll help the cause.

Admittedly, there are some similarities in our attitudes. However, the main difference is, I'm just bashing "pay up front" bonds. I don't see the need for them. Like that other regular "basher", I come from the day, where a hand shake was your word. I'd like to think we can, someday return to that mind set?
While I have you, frankfrank, I wonder if the CBA ratification will do away with that particular type of bond? I think we should do away with PPC's altogether. Let the CP decide who can operate the company aircraft. I think the level of pilots out there would improve. Your thoughts?

I believe thats the way it has been done all along, the CP deciding who does what etc. yet there is still a bond?. im not sure how you figure giving the CP at any company supreme power on who flies what aircraft would eliminate the need for bonds? The only thing I can think it would create, dependant on the CP of course, would be a culture of getting the job done at all costs, not raising safety concerns, and not questioning authority. Pretty much all of the reasons I beleive a union was voted for in the first place.

Brown Bear wrote: I come from the day, where a hand shake was your word. I'd like to think we can, someday return to that mind set?

Things have hanged since then, we are in a world were profits are everything, ( maybe not all companies but the vast majority) Look at how corporate compensation has increased over the last 10-20 years, now compare that to how not just pilots but all of labour pay has changed over that same period of time? quite a gap. Most companies have been squeezing every drop out of employees over the last decade, it probobly started with larger corporations trying to increase stock prices but now most companies have done the same to maximise profits for a few. Untill an employer pays a fair descent wage in order to hold on to an employee, I cant see the system changing too much, and I dont see that happening anytime soon.

frankfrank, Wasaya may not have it today, but in the not too distant past, they sure did have the "get the job done at all costs.." mentality. They inherited that mindset from the boys at Kelner. I know 801 used to be the "fastest" airplane in the north.

Also I fail to see how a "handshake being your word" would impact on the bottom line. It's a known fact, that paying pilots, and treating them well, will keep them around. In the long run, that's far cheaper than running initial aircraft courses on a regular basis. Personally, I can think of only two or three pilots who "ran off" with fresh training.

You do, indeed need to get 100% from your employees. True in every business. But hamstringing them to a large debt is not the way to win their undying loyalty. A pilot, or any employee should not have to take out a loan, in order to be employed. And this is especially poor form to require someone who already works for you to do the same.

Thoughts?

Brown Bear wrote: It's a known fact, that paying pilots, and treating them well, will keep them around. In the long run, that's far cheaper than running initial aircraft courses on a regular basis.

I personally couldnt agree more, unfortunately, some companies dont feel this way, some companies feel that people are going to get there time in and leave at the first opportunity which some will. At the early levels of the career game/ladder/ratrace there are so many young pilots that Im sure would get some multi, or PIC then jump ship to a place closer to home, even taking a pay cut as the promise of more lucrative long term options are sometimes a reality. Therefore companies need a way to protect there investment for a reasonable amount of time or the comapny will loose a ton of money and the pilot/comapny worforce as a whole will loose out due to the companies high training costs. Now, if a company is not going to play fair and pay its employees fair market wages and treat them with respect, then this is a whole different arguement and in my opinion why cost-ineffective Unions are needed.

What is the cost effetive alternative to a training bond in order to keep an employee around after the company has paid for there training? because turnover at these levels is a reality. My vote is fair market wages with a training bond, both sides win.

But you do sound an awful lot like that certain Avcanada regular who has been unusually quiet as of late,

frankfrank wrote:

Brown Bear wrote: It's a known fact, that paying pilots, and treating them well, will keep them around. In the long run, that's far cheaper than running initial aircraft courses on a regular basis.

.My vote is fair market wages with a training bond, both sides win.

But you do sound an awful lot like that certain Avcanada regular who has been unusually quiet as of late,

With "fair market wage" and decent treatment, you wouldn't need "bonds" at all. If companies feel they need bonds, then there is obviously a missing element on their side of the fence?
Have you ever signed a bond? Must admit, I have not.
But it's the "bring cash to the interview.." that fries my bacon!