Originally Posted by
walther7
What are peoples ethical thoughts on companies bonding pilots for significant amounts (45000 euro) when the company incurred no cost for the training?
For instance, if a company buys a new aircraft and with this is included type ratings courses at the factory, is it fair to bond the pilot at what that type rating course would cost if it were paid for? Or would it be unfair to profiteer off the pilot? or somewhere in between?
The company is of course bearing the initial cost of the aircraft, and perhaps one could argue the type training cost is factored into that
What if the company however, is simply operating the aircraft, then is it a different matter?
An interesting moral dilemma I have been unable to wrap my head around
It’s purely a supply and demand problem. If everyone was happy to pay 30k up front for a rating, that’d be the norm. But actually a lot aren’t, especially people with experience such as DECs.
If people weren’t happy to be bonded either then that wouldn’t happen, it’d just be free training up front. But in general they are, so it’s a sort of middle ground where the ‘risk’ for want of a better word is held by both sides.
I don’t think you could argue that a decreasing bond is unfair. One that stays the full amount then cliff edges to zero at an arbitrary point though absolutely.