Minogue
Thanks for the reply, although I would have been happier to see The Guvnor make his own reply without the benefit of borrowing from your argument.
I follow your reasoning, and it is certainly well put. However, I feel it is based on a false premise, as explained in my latter post above to which you do not respond, as follows:
You say the employer “requires [the] employee to give him reasonable return on this [the training] investment”. Can you explain why you feel that an employer is justified in seeking a return on investment from an employee? Surely, this issue is the very nexus of the whole debate. I hold that there is no justification for it, for the simple reason that return on investment should be sought from the revenue source, viz. the targeted customer, the consumer of the product or the service, in this case the passenger or the freight forwarder.
It seems to me that it is irrelevant whose CHOICE it is that an airline changes or upgrades its aircraft type, or that a pilot be promoted from turboprop to jet, or to another fleet, or from F/O to skipper. Surely the objective of such change is always the commercial one of making, or continuing to make, profit for the company. This premise, I think, holds true whether viewed from the perspective of the employer or the employee. For example, it may well be of benefit to a pilot that he/she is promoted to a bigger and better type, or from F/O to Captain, but the same change must also, and always, bring benefit to the employer otherwise the promotion simply would not happen.
Finally, I aver that my second above post does not so much go back to the whole basis of bonding as it challenges it from a new perspective as far as pilots are concerned. I would appreciate your eminently well-reasoned views if you have the time to respond.