Shortfuel/chuckunu/BadBigbusBoy
Correct me if i'm wrong, but 'Well, that 3 yr bond will keep me clear of EK then' was quoted. That
was the reason for not coming. It's because
of the bond that he's not interested. YES, I am aware of the difference, are you?
My reply, sarcastic as it was, expressed my own view that the bond is there for a reason. To cover costs outlayed on the individual. Regardless of the justification in imposing bonds, many airlines
do actually use them. They only become an issue if you have to leave during the bonding timeframe, usually 3 years. Most are adjusted by pro rata anyway.
While it's easy to quote the likes of BA, AF, LH etc not having bonds, the question has to be asked, "why not apply to work for these wonder airlines then?" Start comparing like with like. BA are in a financial mess and it wouldn't surprise me if either their cabin crew or the massive pension debt brings them down in the next 3-4 years. As for AF and LH, no bond but long, long time in the right seat. If your command is round the corner, I can't see that being an option.
Personally Busboy, I think you're just a bit too full of your own self importance to be taken seriously.
Wizofoz
That was a rhetorical question, right?
