Hello again, Northern Sky me ole chum.
How goes it?
I thoroughly agree with your assessment of the 'value' of what airlines say is their 'consideration' in bonding agreements. The problem would be convincing members of the judiciary of same.
Notwithstanding the BALPA document, it is very basic contract law we are looking at when we address the issue of consideration. Essentially, the law says one cannot enforce a bare promise (for example, one where you simply say that you promise, out of the goodness of your heart, to give me a million pounds). Unless such promise is made under seal, it is not enforceable.
Sadly, I think most judges will quickly conclude that training (even on an obsolete type) has value of some kind and is thus fair consideration. The law does not seek to save us from our own stupidity. If we make a bad bargain, that is just too bad. Thus, when we sign a bonding agreement with The Guvnor to train on his desert-bound Tristar, we have made a legally enforceable contract. His consideration is that training, ours is to fly the thing for him. Provided that you are so trained and the terms of the agreement on his part are all honoured, fly it for him for the agreed term or pay the price.
Hope that helps. I do understand how it feels to put your mind to something and have it whistle over everyone's head but this line of thought is, I am sorry to say, a dead end, old chum.
It has some merit in the minds of aviators who have some understanding of the relative value of specific type ratings, but tell it to the judge and you're in the proverbial brown stuff, methinks.
[This message has been edited by tilii (edited 11 April 2001).]