Just a quickie 'cos I'm tired and it's late.
Besides, tilii made a cogent response. I'll just pick up a few points.
You originally said:
>> But in commercial terms it would cripple an airline who didn't, for arguments sake, get new entrants to the airline bonded. <<
I replied:
"Doesn't seem to cripple British Airways very much, does it?"
You responded:
>> Well it wouldn't would it, and is therefore an unrealistic analogy. <<
So BA isn't an airline?
>> Army, Navy and Air Force. You want out you buy yourself out<<
These are NOT businesses, as you well know. They have no bottom line and are not required to make a profit. Have another go!
>> But had you been around in the 80's when the problem first surfaced it had a dire effect on several operations - some of whom went under. <<
I was, and the demise of all those carriers had nothing whatsoever to do with not bonding
pilots- in fact most of the ones that went down DID bond pilots!
>> As far as a bonded loan is concerned, and as you describe it I have to say I am unfamiliar with it and on the face of it agree that it appears to be somewhat unsavoury. <<
As this is now the de facto standard for bonding, perhaps you should do some quick research. This is what we don't like!
>> Absolutely not RD. If you want a job and it costs the company £25,000... <snip> ...you seem to suggest that the company should accept this as on the job training. EasyJet for example have ordered 32 B737-700's = 384 pilots - no bonding? I don't think so. That is naive RD, and unlike you. You cannot expect a company to risk that kind of money without some safeguard. This is business we are talking about not a play place for pilots. <<
In that case, the airlines are out of step with most other industries. Example- if I leave university with a good IT degree, then go to work for Microsoft, they will train me as much as necessary for me to work effectively with their tools and products. This training is generally far more intensive, expensive and time-consuming than what airlines provide, and can go on for many years as a person rises through the company. Now, if a person leaves after a couple of years, having received training worth tens of thousands of pounds, and making them instantly employable worldwide, how much do you think Microsoft has bonded them for? NOTHING! This is NORMAL outside the airlines (and one or two other industries).
>> but it was some pilots who caused the problem in the first place. Take it from me RD, it is a fact. Not all, as I was careful to say before, but it was caused by greed and a 'romantic' need to fly the jets for a big airline. <<
Now YOU are being naive! Pilots didn't cause it- it was as much the fault of the airlines for simply not planning for the eventuality. Did they just sit back and assume that all their pilots, deliriously happy with their lot, would stay for 25 years and never look elsewhere?
Also, wanting a career path is no more "greedy" than an airline wanting to make a profit! As for the "romantic" need to fly big jets, I am sure you are aware that those companies (and types) also carry the largest salaries. Maybe it IS romantic to want the best for your family- but then again, perhaps it is just normal behaviour!
>> The bond however, is negated IF the person was sensible enough to ensure that he would not be liable. <<
NOT POSSIBLE with a bank loan bond.
>> And, of course, the very nature of the business means that your aeroplanes go where they will do most good for the company, not I am afraid for the benefit of pilots and their families. <<
All airlines have a moral responsibility for the welfare of their employees- that includes their mental well-being. At the very least, if a company moves base it should give its' crews the choice (see your 15 mile statement) of either staying or leaving. If they choose to enforce a bond in that situation, the pilot effectively has no choice. It HAS been done.
>> Whereas mine has been one of seeing both sides <<
Hands up all readers who agree with that!!!
>> Ah see RD, this is where what I espouse is because I am British and you are a Kiwi, we did something wrong did we? Come on mate, you are here now and you have to accept the British way. <<
That isn't the point at all! The issue is one of rightness or wrongness, not Britishness versus New Zealand-ness (which is why I didn't mention how things are done in NZ).
>> we do what we do because we are what we are. <<
Oh OK then, so we have no obligation to try and do the right thing? We cannot learn from others? You make my point for me.
The bond is a stick (if you leave, I'll hit you with a large bill or leave you to pay off a loan).
My firm certainly does, as previously explained by tilii.
>> making a difference between Kiwi's and British working in the same environment is unfortunate at best <<
Now I didn't do that, you did! I never mentioned Kiwis.
The point is, a good American company will make you want to work for them. A British company will try and prevent you leaving. It is a fundamental difference in approach. Sadly, we (ie the Brits) have a long, long way to go in the area of employee satisfaction. If your employees are happy, they won't leave. Your company will make lots more money with committed, happy employees. The Americans have learned that this is the cheapest and most effective way to run a business.
Anyway... bedtime. What was I saying about a quickie???