Originally Posted by
hamburgerboy
So imagine you're a taxi driver:
Company A: you'll need a Mercedes from our partner dealer, that will cost you 30K upfront. We'll offer you work for 6 months. If you do a good job we might offer you a contract afterwards.
Company B: you'll need a Mercedes, we'll buy you one. You'll have to pay us 30K back in installments. We'll offer you a 4 year contract with us. If you decide to leave us earlier you'll have to pay the remainder.
Then imagine that for company A there's a group lined up with each their own Mercedes, ready to work.
So your point is that it's unfair to the people who don't have or can't afford a Mercedes upfront? I get that and I'm not disagreeing with that point. What I am saying is that option A is, on a comparison of just value for costs (whether they be upfront or spread over a number of years being locked into a certain contract), not that different from option B. People taking option A are not being particularly exploited. Company B can also choose to screw you over any number of ways if they suddenly realize they don't need you, and they can keep you on whatever money they want for longer with the expectation that you'll not be able to pay out your bond.
I'm not saying that A is a lovely, fair and equitable way to go about bringing on new pilots, but I do think it has an upside for the pilots concerned, and in a world where no one is doing anyone down at the bottom of the pyramid any favors, I can't see why anyone should be blamed for taking the A option if they can.