Accepting a bond where you dont outlay any cost is perfectly acceptable, why would a company take a risk on you if they knew you would leave after 3 months, they would go bust in days if they did! Taking a personal loan is not an acceptable way. If we can reintroduce bonding as the only suitable way, companies will be forced to recruit those they know are more likely to "pass the test"...
I'm no fan of new low-houred guys funding their own type ratings to get into the market.
However I am under the impression that the 'bond' is not legally enforceable (at least in the UK) which is why it has been dumped by some airlines. So I'm not sure if this is really a feasible way to push the issue. Maybe one of the legal-eagles that frequent the site could pass comment...
I think the point was that if one left while still bonded one had to dip their hands into their own pocket and give the company some money. It only takes a few early leavers to say "naff off I ain't giving you a penny" and for the company to find out that the bond isn't [legally] worth the paper it's written on for them to suddenly see it as a wholly unacceptable method of covering their costs (given that it just doesn't work). In todays era of incredibly tight margins and cut-throat competition, passing this off as a 'cost of doing business' simply won't wash with company accountants or shareholders alike.
I'm not saying that I agree with it but I gather this is why the new
modus operandi took a hold; the new guys take out loans and give the cash to the company, who then pays them back over 3/4/5 years. At least that way, the company already
has their money, thereby making it less likely that a new pilot will walk away early.