EU law on bonds?

[Dreamer320]

An EU flag-carrier bonds CPL/IR entrants for €90,000 and 10 years, this includes a general hypotec which gives the company rights over anything you own.

In addition, there is a clause which states that you MAY at some point in your career be required to start re-paying €45,000 (cost of A320 type-rating [according to airline]), to be deducted from one's salary at the company's dicretion.

I am led to believe that there is no EU law that prohibits bonds of this type and magnitude, and it simply boils down to each country's local regulations. Is that true?

[Bad Robot]

Hmmmmm...Let me guess.....Air Malta? :ugh:

[Dan Winterland]

Best not sign. You will regret it!

[amc13]

Bad Robot Your Guess re Air Malta would be correct!!!
Thankfully my bond has expired but i would say that there are still about 40 people who are affected by these ridiculous bonds. The scandal of it all is that they are planning to get ex pat first officers and bond them for just STG 5000.
It is going to be interesting to see how things will evolve- however my take on it is that until someone challenges the ridiculous bonds nothing much will change. Pity that the management pilots in KM keep on endorsing such tactics. They are all a bunch of yes men interested in furthering their interests.
What a sad state of affairs- these idiots leading the show along with their comrades in arms at HR have destroyed the morale of the pilot workforce at KM and are single handedly responsible for having indirectly forced 20% of their experienced workforce to seek greener pastures.
Shame on them, JA, JMF, LHG- you are all a lousy bunch of yes men with absolutely no morales. I definetly would not want to be in your shoes every morning when i look in the mirror-oh i forgot they have no conscious.
AMC 13

[Bealzebub]

I think Dan is right. No matter how "ridiculous" you perceive the contract to be, it has to be questioned how ridiculous was the person who accepted it ?

However unpalatable, the fact is that the individual is required to enter into what is a defacto loan agreement, because that individual is otherwise unqualified to take up the post. As with any loan agreement if you don't like the terms then walk away. Most loan agreements will let you walk away at any time simply by satisfying the agreement. If you can find a better deal transfer to it. This would appear to be the case whether you are buying a new car, cosmetic surgery or an airliner type rating.

It is not much use signing up to a poor deal and then regretting it later or hoping that your wishful interpretation of the law might allow you to escape the agreement you willfully entered into. Generally the requirment to be a commercial pilot would suggest that an individual is an adult with at least average intelligence, and as such would be able to understand the terms and conditions of any loan agreement they choose to enter into.

[Silverspoonaviator]

.......are not worth the paper they are written on.

Many many so called contracts are written by the company, and do not comply with the employment law of the country designated.

I have been employed by many "companies", and most contracts do not hold up, even less the bonding requirements.

The only reason most of us would "comply" with the contract is that it is a small industry, and it pays to keep ons face clean.

Thats my penny thrown in the pot.

Silver

[High Wing Drifter]

The concept of bonding is de rigeur in most businesses, the problem more lies with the staggering costs in aviation. If I were to get IT training from my employer and then leave within 18 months I have to repay the whole cost of the training (they don't bother working out the reduction). The sums are potentially much less, but even in IT it is realistically possible to clock up £5-6K worth of training in one year, a one week course is £1800 min, often in the £2K region.

To become a certificated Java Developer (a type rating for a programming language) would cost about £4K if you followed the recommended training path; although the option to just buy some books from Amazon to self-study is sufficient for many.

[Red Snake]

However bad bonds may seem, they do prevent a worse alternative - having to pay for the type rating up front.

Unfortunately, with the questionable legality of bonds in certain countries, maybe all EU before long, I fear many more of us will be forced to pay up front.

Mind you, buying a rating up front would be much better than a €90,000 10 year bond.

[amc13]

Dodge123,

People who have a bond in KM up to the sum of LM 35,000 (81,500Euros) and for a period of 10 years arenot people who were ab initios but people who have paid for all their training except for the type rating. Mind you the latest group of ab initio trainees have been bonded for 12 years and for a sum of well in excess of 100,000 Euros. Plus in the case of the cadets who had paid for most of their training there bond is not even pro rata ina proportional manner.

Talk about unreasonable. These are the most ludicrous bonds in the buisness that i have heard of.

AMC13

[winkle]

how do the airlines make you pay back the bond, do they take you to court, do they make you sell your house and force you on to the street. i am interested to find out since i might be leaving aviation altogether even though i work for a great company but i am unfortunatly bonded. its just after the last security debacle my limits have been reached and am looking to pastures new, and wont be able to pay them back as i have decided its better to be poor and free than go to work in an environment of overburden. nothing against the company just the job sucks.:)

[low n' slow]

And I thought a 2 year bond for 30000 euros was bad...
To sign that contract you'd have to be stupid.

/LnS

[great expectations]

Winkle,

You and me I think are in the same boat.....
I think the answer is to get BALPA involved, get a lawyer of your own to have a look, and at the end of the day, you just go and take whatever the consequences may be because you're right - the job sucks and any way out would be healthier then being unhappy. :sad:

[potkettleblack]

From what I can determine these sorts of bonds are nothing more than onerous contracts that wouldn't be enforceable if it made it to court.

Furthermore, how can an airline expect to legally enforce a bond when the pilot has gone out and paid for their own type rating for example? We know that certain airlines are renowned for making a tidy profit from type ratings. Whilst there might be some costs in getting the pilot up to standard (say line training) I would argue that these are the normal costs of doing business and any company would surely encounter such costs when a new employee joins. There might be an argument that airlines encounter much higher costs in training up staff (TRE's and TRI's don't come cheap nor do sims) but the bond periods they typically try and enforce are for the most part extreme in the least.

My gut feeling is that the bonds that the locos and others use are there as a means of scare mongering for the uninitiated and of course the more unscrupulous airlines can and will use intimidatory tactics to try and enforce them. For the most part they wouldn't be willing to go all the way and actually front up to court for fear of losing and therefore setting a precedent. Also during the discovery process it wouldn't show them in a very positive light if you were to get your hands on the actual costs of type ratings from outfits like CAE and SAS and demonstrate to the courts the amount of profit made off you even before you have started work! Kind of undermines their case now doesn't it:)

If it was me I would sign on the dotted line, use a payg mobile phone, work hard and move on when I want to leaving no forwarding address:)

[Lemper]

A little of Christmas hope.....

Not quoting anybody in this thread, but I'll try to help and answer the desperation.
It is of basic common sense that a company would and should protect its business by bonding the people they train at a high cost.
It is also of basic common sense that a person has to check, verify and seek advice before signing a contract, and once it is signed, the contract is binding. Screwed? NO.
In a country ruled by law, there are provisions to protect citizens from abusive practices, and beyond that from discriminations.
Obviously, some countries, though ruled by law, have a very poor system of law enforcement, and for laws that are more often than not obsolete and/or inadequate. However, the law of that country has to be addressed first.
Then of course, the judiciary system of that country may well be not totally independent from the executive and/or legislative, and obviously sometimes influenced by the corporate interests. Bear with me, I've got to be careful.
When the rescourse of the national law has shown to be iniquitably fruitless, there is alway the rescourse of a more independent and superior instance....in a Grand Duchy.
An individual has little time and resource to proceed on this road, but then he can be assisted by the professional association to which he/she is affiliated.
In other words: 1) get arbitration from the ombutsman via the union.
2) That doesn't work, go to civil court. There, it would be more difficult for TupTup to justify the need for such an abusive bonding. However, like for marriage annullement, procrastination can take you to retirement age, so there is...
3) EU courts. a) for abusive bonding and b) discrimination in relation to other labour elements.
Will it work? Nothing is granted, nothing is guaranteed, but it has worked in many other similar cases in EU, and even in a much less democratic country like Taiwan, where EVA AIR was forced to halve the bond on young Chinese ab-initions pilots.
Good luck and a merry serene Christmas to you all.