Bonds in aviation

[WannaBeBiggles]

Hi all

this has come up every now and then in various threads and it appears that people feel quite strongly about the issue of pilots getting bonded by their employers.

I think it's fair to say that bonds are here to stay, whether it be due operators managing expenditure / controlling staff turnover or just plain money grabbing.

This thread is not meant to ask the question "are bonds good / bad", as this would seem a rather frugal exercise as some people feel rather strongly about it one way or another, especially when bonds were never an issue in the past, or at least, not as commonplace as they are now.

So the question is, what is reasonable when it comes to bonding pilots? Money, period of bond, terms of repayment etc

Below are some (real) examples of what I've heard people getting bonded for, just to add some discussion points.


Turbine endorsement
Type rating/endorsement (C208, C400, B200, B1900 etc)
Instructor rating
MECIR
50 hours ICUS in a float plane (not *quite* P2F and probably needs its own category as floats is almost an industry in of its self)
Initial Twin &/or Twin ICUS
C200 series training
Initial Float / Ag / Low Level endorsements/ratings
Airliner type rating (B737, A320, Dash8 etc)


I know that some of you will agree on some of the above but disagree on others (such as C200 series time for instance, or the ICUS items), but where do you draw the line?

On top of this, some operators also seem to do an "in-kind" approach where they will train a pilot up while the pilot serves another role, such as hangar rat, baggage handler, catch and dispatch, office person etc
Some employers will pay, others won't while the pilot does the other duties and gets trained.

Hopefully this will spark some interesting discussions as I've tried to come up with as many variances as I've been able to think of, but please, don't start a flame war, keep the conversation as intelligent as possible and respect other peoples experiences and don't take a differing opinion as a personal attack.

[Checkboard]

Let's say I am an employer.

Let's say I have a job I need filled.

I put an ad in the paper.

I want someone who can do that job to apply.

Someone applies - but only has 90% of the qualifications for the job.

I can train up the next 10%, but they want me to do that for free? Why should I pay for someone's qualifications to do the job?? If I have to, why shouldn't they cover the costs?

If you're not qualified for the job - then yes - cop the bond (and feel lucky to get the job.)

[Checkboard]

... having said that - if someone wants to charge $15,000 for something that would cost $5,000 on the open market ...

.... well that's just wrong at the contract negotiation stage. :ugh:

[redsnail]

A reasonable bond that would cover the genuine costs of training in my eyes, acceptable. Especially if it is amortised.

A punitive "restriction of movement of labour" style bond serves no purpose.

In Europe what has become the norm for new pilots is "pay to play". If you want a job, pay for the rating. If you want to keep the job, pay for the line training. :(

If the employer didn't use a bond, would you prefer the employer use "pay to play?" :confused:

[rmcdonal]

Bonding for the reasonable cost of the training, over a period in which the operator can expect to make a return on their investment, seems fair to me. I know a few stories of guys who where given an endorsement on joining only to leave shortly after their training for a different employer.
You are lucky if you can get bonded for a CMEIR or an Instructor rating, as I would expect you to already have these if you apply for a job requiring them.

[Ando1Bar]

I know of a couple of pilots who have left an operator only 3-4 months after being checked to line. This operator gave them a break into turbines, which then assisted the jump to the new company. The bond could not be legally enforced, and was not paid back despite the cost and timeline being very resonable. I find it frustrating because such selfish actions make "pay to play" for new pilots (or those wanting to advance to larger aircraft in the same company) more likely next time EBA negotiations come around.

As mentioned above, bonds are entirely resonable if you don't have the qualifications and the cost/timeframe is fair.

[DeltaT]

Unfortunately the thread can quickly go down the good/bad opinion path, already with an employer point of view. Take a warning of what is happening in UK because it will surely follow to downunder in about 5yrs.
I will put in a bit of spice though to say other industries don't do it, and if you as a company can't pay the 10% missing and get someone whos got it all, then don't be in business just as pilots get told nowadays if you can't afford it don't be in it. Whats good for the Goose is good for the Gander.
On a different tack, there is a posting in another thread regarding an article in Avweb, where the USA industry is already noticing a lack of both enthusiasm and quality of applicants. The attraction of the industry is not what it was.
I dare say a turning of the tables from being said to Pilots to now being said to Companies of the addage "reap what you sow".
Back to the original question, there is no predetermined line, its what you will accept and what the company will get away with. Just as if you are on your own personal employment contract, you negotiate it.
The race to the bottom has been quick in these parts, but I see rumblings of some pushback by market forces that are still some time away to take affect.