Unfair Bonding - need advice pls!

[mikepops]

Last year I was offered my first job, and took it (you always take the first job...). The TR training was conducted with 2 new F/O's in the sim and so the cost of the sim was halved. It was an ATR42 rating. I was bonded for 50,000 Eur over 5 years. Now, from what I hear bonding for sums unjustified by the actual costs is illegal. I may want to consider moving on very soon, especially as I am based vary far away from my family. I would like some advice from someone who has had first hand experience of this type of situation and/or is in the aviation-legal field.

[mikepops]

Question: In justifying the bond with the costs of the TR is a company allowed to count instructor pay, accomodation, transport and trainee pay?

[411A]

Finish the contract, mikepops, and stop whining.
You signed the deal, now live up to it.
Far away from family?
You should have thought about this in the beginning.
Do a runner?
The company has every right to hunt you down and make you pay, legally.
Simple as that, like it or not....and I expect you don't.
Oh, boohoo....:{ :{

PS. Now some folks might understand just why bonding is required by many companies...it is the likes of mikepops that make it all necessary.

[mikepops]

Thank you for your poinless post Boohoo (you don't mid me calling you that)... You evidently have no idea what you are talking about since you use the term "legally" with reference to this case of bonding for more than the costs. I would be happy to pay what I owe but not quadruple.

Maybe you could help with oppinions on other subjects in the forum, on which you are perhaps better informed. If not just find something else to do maybe go out and have some fun once in a while if you're bored.

This also goes to all those frustrated sad cases who hijack all the threads and turn them into a slanging match about who's dog has the biggest d1ck. Grow up or find a kiddies forum.

[DB6]

Mikepops, what did you sign? The bond you signed may not have said anything about training costs. However, like it or not you signed it and while I may not word it in quite the same way as 411A the sentiment is the same - have some integrity and work your bond.

[A Very Civil Pilot]

From what I have heard a company can bond you for the actual costs of providing the type rating. However if it cost say £10,000 and your bond is for £20,000, you have a good case of not paying the full amount if you decide to leave.

Best point is to get legal advice, and if you do leave your employer, go on good terms, as aviation is a small world!

[Miserlou]

You know what you signed. 'Pay up and look big' goes the old Chas and Dave song.
When you consider the costs, both direct and indirect, you will find that the sum quoted is about the going rate, perhaps top end but still not unreasonable.
The instructor costs the same as two line pilots; when he is instructing there has to be some-one flying what he would have been flying if he wasn't with you.
Did the company pay for your accomodation and travel?
Did you receive per diem whilst you were there?

And then imagine what it would cost if the company had to pay someone overtime or even cancel a flight because they had an instructor away training your replacement. This is still the actual cost.

The only reduction you can get is on a sliding scale. 50,000 / 60 months minus your service.

[mikepops]

Leaving does not compromise one's integrity. One would in fact not necessarily have to stay in order to still honor the agreement, because the agreement is to stay the term or to pay if leaving early.

However, what if the agreement was unfair? What if the airline took advantage of the lack of options of the pilots who were in debt, desperate for their first job and who would sign anything just to be able to see the light at the end of the tunnel?... thus cashing in on their hardship and using this as a solution to their high pilot turnover?

No one can own five years of anyone's life or to force them to stay by fabricating an unjustified amount to be paid back. Not successfully anyway. Not in a democratic society. Ethical issues are actually what airlines rather than employees have been faced with in the Courts in previous cases, when the respective contracts were looked upon as "slavery" by the judges and as a result the cases were thrown out of court, from what I understand.

This is what I know so far. I would like to find out more.

Once again, would anyone with actual experience and/or expert knowledge shed some light on the subject?

Self proclaimed ethical judge, jury and executioners with no knowledge of the facts or the slightest common sense for right and wrong need not post, thank you.

Private messaging would be appreciated. It is probably be the best way to avoid providing the losers who have too much time on their hands with yet another platform for an internet version of the Jerry Springer show.

Thank you in advance.

Mike

[Bealzebub]

Sorry Mike,

But I have to agree. You signed a contract and therefore entered into an agreement which presumably permits the other party to claim damages if you breach it. It really is that simple ! The contract would presumably have been subject to the laws prevelant in the country in which the contract was drawn.

If you feel, or more importantly are properly advised that you may have a case for challenging this agreement then you would be very wise to go and seek out a properly qualified lawyer who can consider your case and the documents you hold. That person can then offer you an opinion that might better help you come to a decision.

I would be extremely wary of accepting or soliciting any advice on anonymous forums such as this, as that advice might or might not be completely wrong. Indeed you wouldn't really know until you eventually took it to a properly qualified individual at the end of the day, in any event.

There are many who will tell you tales of how this and that is "illegal", and how they or somebody they knew got out of an agreement. You would be very unwise to rely on anecdotal "evidence" of this nature in coming to a decision that might have serious and costly repercussions for you.

Telling people who have no "knowledge" not to post, is a bit rich when you yourself are using bulletin boards to aquire your information.You sound as if you want to be told what you want to hear. Professional counsel will give you an honest opinion and for that you will have to pay !

[Miserlou]

Put more simply, you would have to show that your bond is for significantly more than other similar bonds. It doesn't sound like it is unless it requires payment in full rather than the sliding scale previously mentioned. Disputing such a bond would only result in the sliding scale outcome anyway because you cannot deny that you have received goods or services.

You'd be wanting to mount a challenge that it is an unfair contract. The fact is though, that it isn't. You may be able to get the rating cheaper by going direct to the TRTO but you would have no garunteed job at the end.
Having a job and being paid obviously has a monetary value especially in that the company has no claim on your bond if you fail your check and are dismissed. Neither is your bond increased to cover additional training if they choose to let you have another go.

The company can produce these figures to show what the 'actual' costs have been.

As I said before Eu50,000 sounds about right so you really have no case.
Sorry.

[Lucifer]

The bond is illegal if they are unable to produce a detailed breakdown of costs incurred by themselves - that is, true costs, not inflated, "internal" costs defined by themselves. These are not costs drawn up when the person leaves, but a detailed list of costs that are freely available both at the time of signing and at the time of departure.

Walk out the door, and it will be largely unenforceable - the time and expense incurred in doing so would be largely pointless.

Caveat: I am no lawyer and this is not legal advice; seek legal advice if you have the means to do so.

[parabellum]

I once had cause to seek clarification of a contract and went to Beaumonts, in London, who are/were well known in the aviation field.
I got good advice on the matter I was concerned with and in more general terms they said that most employers will have had their bonding agreement passed by their own lawyers so the chances of it being illegal are slim.

If you should do a 'runner' you will be marked for life. Airline managements do stick together on this sort of thing and information will be passed by word of mouth. Remember, a bond is a contractual agreement.

In assessing it's costs the company will include all travel, accommodation and meal allowances as well as the cost of training. Should you dispute their figures you will have to employ a solicitor and the end result may be more expensive than just paying up what you owe.

[AerocatS2A]

Not all contracts are legal. Just because you sign something doesn't mean you must do it. Extreme example: you can't sign a contract that allows someone else to kill you.

There have been cases in other countries where a bond was found to not be enforceable. So it is possible that you are not legally required to pay the bond if you leave early. Whether this is the case or not can not be answered by anyone other than a lawyer familiar with your specific circumstances.

All that being said. You KNEW the bonding conditions before you signed it. If you were not comfortable with them then you should have declined the job offer. And no, not EVERYONE takes the first job they stumble across.

For the record $50,000 and 5 years sounds excessive for an ATR42 (particularly the 5 years, that is an unreasonable length of time to expect someone to stay with a mid level company flying turboprops.) A B737 rating costs $35,000 Australian.

[cavortingcheetah]

:hmm:
Having been in a bonded position oneself, one does not fall into the somewhat crudely described roles of self proclaimed judge, executioner, general thorn in side or profferer of advice not in agreement with previously formulated opinions of inquirer.
So thus, for what they are worth, a few words of this and that, which, whilst not entirely being what you would like to hear are possibly worth the same cavalier attention paid so far to the most excellent words of advice preceeding these.
A lawyer is the only person who, with reference to all the paperwork, can give sensible advice.
The bond was for fifty thousand over five years. So if the job started last year, by the time you have worked your notice out that should leave a balance of about €40,000?
If you are moving on to a jet job, for instance, the differential between turbo and jet FO salaries will enable you to pay this off very speedily.
One party's perceived fairness of a contractual obligation will not necessarily make it a voidable one at law.
Avoid reneging on an airline deal. Chief Pilots really do telephone each other and it is, as said before, a much smaller world than you may think as you start out at the beginning of your career.
Bite the bullet and pay the money even if the lawyer tells you that you could avoid it. There is not doubt that if you do not, especially since your feet are just on the ladder, you will reap the consequences later on, you know, references, employment record, reasons for leaving and so on.
If you resign, having decided to pay off your bond, you might write a careful letter of resignation to the company. You might say how happy you are there, giving calm and reasonable reasons for resignation and making quite sure that the fact that you will be paying off your bond is written down.
You will almost certainly find that the company will, in any event, not be entirely pleased at your early departure, unless of course the quality of character is inherent within that demonstrated by your postings?;)

[mikepops]

The steps you take at the bottom of the ladder in any career will determine the ultimate direction in which your career will evolve. For example if you start your career by kissing butt$ and letting them shaft you because they are bigger and they talk on the telephone to each other, rather than standing up for the rights that are legally and ethically yours, said ladder will most probably take you where you will have to kiss butt$ throught your career. That sort of career doesn't suit me, it obviously suits some of the posters, like you for example. This raises the real question about who's got integrity, spine, or as you put it in your gentle, clearly non-judgemental words: "quality of character". You're just a softer, more diplomatic version of Boohoo. Get lost.

This thread has obviously degenerated into the kindergarden slanging match I most feared. However here and there very interesting and usefull bits of information have popped up and for that I thank all those inclined to be constructive and helpful.

For now I bid you all farewell and sincerely hope that some of you find peace! :ok:

[parabellum]

"rather than standing up for the rights that are legally and ethically yours"

mikepops - if you think that walking away from your bond without paying up could be either legal or ethically correct then you should expect your former employer to ask you to prove your point in court.
Abiding by your contractual obligations is not 'kissing butt" by any stretch of the imagination, you are obviously young and with a lot still to learn, don't start out on the altogether wrong ladder.

[Miserlou]

Sounds like you've picked the wrong career then, Mikepops.
We are all whores in this business. It's just some of our lamp-posts are in a better part of town.
I still smile at the end of each month when I pull my knickers up and get paid.

[AerocatS2A]

mikepops, the time to make a stand was before you took the job. It is then that you say, "thank you for your job offer, however your terms are unacceptable, I can do better for myself." Or you can get legal advice on the legality of the bond and then not sign it, and tell them why.

You have already been shafted. You have already kissed butt. You did that when you accepted the job and the terms and conditions. If you find out that the bond is enforceable then you are stuck aren't you?

By all means, get some legal advice and I hope that you get the answer you want. Either way though, you made your bed when you took the job.

Remember this. Those terms and conditions are there because people like you are accepting them.

BTW, did they not tell you where you were based until you got there? Was it some kind of mystery basing where they put you on a flight then you get to the destination and said, "Hey! this is your base!" Did you think your family were going to be moving closer to you? How can you be concerned about being based a long way from family when you must have known that before you took the job?

[cavortingcheetah]

:hmm:

Sometimes it rather be a struggle to continue an information thread in a helpful and well meaning fashion. However, rising to the challenge there is this suggestion one could make.

In assessing the costs of an ATR42 conversion it would no doubt be very useful to have an actal conversion cost quotation from a training provider. Once this has been obtained then a true cost to the airline of the training can at least be approximated. The extra costs to the airline involved in such a conversion, such as hotel bills, per diems, licence fees, salary and so on, can easily enough be estimated and factored in to the total. This final figure would be a useful one to have, either for one's own balance and sense of proportion or to produce in a courtroom with a view to substantiating the allegation that the actual cost to the airline of the training was well below that of the bond it had demanded of the prospective employee.

Perhaps you have already thought of this? Incidentally, the cost of any such additional course such as CRM, if such training were given at all, would presumably form part of the overall costs? :)

[buzzc152]

Apologies, I haven't read the whole thread so someone may have already sais this, but this is not unlike the situation we now have with bank charges. Regarless that customers signed a 'contract', the fact is the charges are unfair and illegal. I'm absolutely no expert but it might correct to suggest any company seeking damages against you would have to prove the actual losses for which they are seeking to reclaim...... and they might just have a hard timing doing so.

Whether it's right or ethical to leave, well that's another question and I'll stay out of it. You would reasonabl expect to have to repay them something.

[411A]

Hmmm, it appears that the concerned poster who started this thread certainly didn't like the replies received, so I would suspect he/she will not do well in the airline world.
I've seen a few of these over the years, always going against the grain with management.
They never prevail.

[mutt]

Look on the bright side, the bond is only 5 years.... look at Malaysian...

All cadet pilots will have to repay the cost of training through monthly deductions over a period of fifteen years commencing from the time they are employed as Second Officers. In addition, all cadet pilots have to sign a training bond..

The time to argue a bond is before you sign it, the airline can argue that they sold you a training scheme for E50k and you agreed to pay for it. Why should they have to justify the cost!

Mutt

[OneMileHigh]

Sorry Mike,
If you are still bothering to follow your post, I am another who must virtually kick your butt :}


It is 5 years..........that's all..........5 years. At the end of it as a Captain you'll be able to name your place and price. The family issue shouldn't be a problem. If the other half was with you through the training, then surely the familly can move to where you are.


And if you think having to move with the job is harsh, think of the Service men and women who move about regularly, and to much less hospitable places than you are no doubt. And some of them will be returning in a box.


It is a harsh life, and the reality is that the airlines are still able to pull the ropes. At least you have that first and perhaps most important job, and I for one would trade places with you now (and I am married with sprats too!).


Last point! As a supposedly more intelligent person (as pilots are assumed to be), why the hell did you ask the question on a public forum. Did you not consider speaking to the Legal Gods!

[extreme P]

Different country but you get the point...

SUBMISSION TO THE FEDERAL LABOUR STANDARDS REVIEW COMMISSION
BY
THE AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION, INTERNATIONAL (ALPA)
RESPECTING PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO
THE CANADA LABOUR CODE, PART III

Summary:
The Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) raises two legislative gaps particularly affecting pilots:

 Protection against training bonds and particularly against training bonds whose terms are
overreaching and exploitative, and
 Hours of work amendments that are tailored to societal norms and to the aviation
industry.
ALPA recommends:

 That training bonds be prohibited. Alternatively, if training bonds are to be permitted,
that they be subject to limitations reflecting only legitimate needs of the employer, and
providing employee relief in the event of employer bankruptcy. To this end, ALPA puts
forward recommendations already endorsed by the International Federation of Air Line Pilots Associations.
 That Labour Canada confers with aviation industry stakeholders to develop maximum
hours of work protections as it has done for other transportation sectors.



- 2

Background/Implications:
ALPA is a trade union representing the interests of pilots. ALPA represents over 2,000 pilots employed by five carriers in Canada. Internationally, ALPA represents 64,000 pilots at 41 airlines in the U.S. and Canada, and is a member of the International Federation of Air Line Pilots Associations (IFALPA). ALPA represents pilots in their employment relations, and is a key player in articulating policy concerns arising from this stewardship.

ALPA is concerned that the employment relationship and terms and conditions of employment embody public policy representing minimum standards, safety, and pilot professionalism.

In this brief, ALPA argues that the Canada Labour Code, Part III, lacks appropriate mechanisms to regulate and protect pilots in two key areas:

 Training bonds
 Hours of work
ALPA is further concerned that the absence of such protections undermines larger public policy goals set out in all three parts of the Canada Labour Code (free and effective rights to be
represented by a trade union, minimum standards, and safety), and in the Canadian Aviation
Regulations.

Issues:

Training Bonds:
1. The 2004 bankruptcy of JetsGo left large numbers of its pilots personally responsible for the
payment of “training bonds” effectively imposed on them as a condition of employment and
advancement.
2. “Training bonds” are performance bonds which commit pilots to forfeit a sum money—
usually substantial--alleged to represent the cost of their training, where the pilot ceases to be
employed for a minimum period of time.
3. Training bonds are common in Canada among smaller carriers and carriers whose employees
lack union representation. They are a clear example of unequal terms of employment
imposed on the most vulnerable members of the profession: typically young pilots, new
hires, and those without representation.

4. The amounts at issue can be stunningly huge, the equivalent of a small mortgage. Media
reports indicate that in the case of JetsGo, substantial numbers of pilots found themselves
liable for sums of $30,000 or more. This at a time when they were thrown out of work.

5. The frank purpose of training bonds is coercion against employment mobility. Pilots subject
to training bonds escape forfeiture only where they remain employed for a minimum period
of time, often years. In effect, they create a form of indentured service.



- 3

6. Training bonds are typically required by employers at a time when the pilot is most
vulnerable: young, inexperienced, and new in the profession. They are entered into in
conditions in which bargaining power is most unequal: at the pre-employment phase as a
condition of hire, and in companies whose employees lack effective representation.

7. The training bond arrangement typically requires a prospective new-hire to put up a sum of
money subject to full or partial repayment where employment does not last a minimum
period of time. Usually, this is in the form of a bank loan arranged by the employer prior to
and as a condition of employment. Typically, the employer will make payments on the bond
for its duration. However, where the pilot’s employment ends prior to the time-frame of the
bond, he or she is individually liable to the bank for the balance.

8. The terms of training bonds are unilaterally set as a condition of hire. Because they are not
negotiated, the terms are usually one-sided and often go beyond the legitimate needs and
interests of employers. For example, the sums and duration of the bond may not reflect the
employer’s actual training expenditure. And they may offload all of the risk of employment interruption onto the pilot, so that he or she remains liable even where wrongfully dismissed, laid off, or terminated as the consequence of a bankruptcy.

9. The existence of training bonds further tilts the employment relationship in the employer’s
favour for their duration. Pilots under threat of forfeiture are less likely to take risks
associated with incurring employer displeasure. They may be less likely to hold employers
accountable for safety, putting the travelling public at risk. They may feel constrained in
their free choice to seek union representation. In both these ways, training bonds generate
effects contrary to the public interest.
10. It is generally understood that employees unhappy with their terms and conditions of
employment have two options: “exit” (seeking alternate employment with more favourable
terms) or “voice” (seeking mechanisms to articulate their interests, such as union
representation). Effectively, pilots subject to training bonds have neither the real option of
“exit” or “voice”.

11. Effectively, training bonds undermine the interests articulated in the Canada Labour Code,
Part III. They typically contain terms which no employee would willingly enter into.
Further, they perpetuate this dynamic for the duration of the bond.

12. Training bonds undermine the interests articulated in the Canada Labour Code, Part II: the
fundamental freedom to seek representation by a trade union.

13. Finally, training bonds represent a check on the exercise of professional rights and
obligations associated with safety under the Canadian Aviation Regulations.

14. ALPA argues that employers could realize the same goal of employment longevity through
alternate strategies more in tune with the public interest: terms and conditions of
employment (including seniority protections) which reward and encourage long service.



- 4

15. ALPA is opposed to training bonds for the reasons set out above. Our primary
recommendation is that training bonds should be legislatively prohibited.

16. In the alternative, where employees or unions are compelled to negotiate training bonds with
employers, the following protections should be applicable.

Any training bond:

a) should apply only to initial type conversion of new entry pilots not already licensed on
type;
b) should not exceed the actual direct cost incurred by the employer, proof of which should
be provided by the employer;
c) should be amortized over a period of not more than three years with the bond reducing to
zero at the end of the agreed period, which period should commence at the beginning of
training;
d) should not be payable by a pilot who is furloughed, retrenched (retrenchment to include
transfer to another company at the behest of the employer as part of any retrenchment or
restructuring process and/or any operational reasons including liquidation), dismissed
from the company or retired from the company, whether it be normal retirement or retirement on medical grounds;
e) where it becomes payable, should be paid over a negotiated period with interest, where
applicable, not exceeding prime lending rate, and should, if possible, be paid in a tax
efficient manner;
f) should be cancelled and regarded as null and void in the event of the company breaching
the terms and conditions of employment.

Hours of Work:
17. Maximum hours of work for labour standards purposes are regulated in Division I, Part III of
the Canada Labour Code. In addition, work in the form of flight and duty time limits are
regulated by the provisions of the Canadian Aviation Regulations made pursuant to the
Aeronautics Act for the purposes of safety.

18. Special regulations have been made under the Canada Labour Code to address the specific
conditions of the trucking, rail transport, and shipping industries. No comparable regulation
addresses the needs and conditions of the air line industry and the pilot profession.

19. Pilot work typically includes periods of layover between flights during which the pilot,
although not “actively” at work, is nevertheless under the control and direction of the
employer and subject to rules of conduct, dress, and behaviour. The pilot is not at home and
cannot freely dispose of his or her time. As a strict matter of law, this time should be
included as “work” for the purposes of Part III of the Code. In addition, pilots typically are
under the control and direction of the employer in a variety of scenarios (commuting,
training, non-flying duties) which receive different valuations for pay purposes. As a strict
matter of law, all such time should be considered “work” for the purposes of the Code.




- 5

20. Pilots are required to work long hours over extensive periods. For example, the current
Canadian Aviation Regulations allow for airline pilot flight duty time periods in excess of
eighty hours per week that, essentially, can only be tempered by the Labour Code averaging
provisions or by a collective agreement. The situation for commercial pilots in air taxi and
aerial work operations is even worse. For pilots, especially in seasonal operations, this
results in long hours of work that far exceed what is deemed reasonable in Canadian society.
ALPA submits that neither the provisions of the Canadian Aviation Regulations, nor the time
averaging provisions of the Canada Labour Code, Part III, reflect societal norms. ALPA
recommends that Labour Canada confer with aviation industry stakeholders to develop
maximum hours of work protections that reflect the norms of Canadian society.

[jayteeto]

Mikepops states that this thread has descended into a slanging match and people who don't agree with him should 'get lost'. Why did he bother asking a question if he was going to slag off anyone who disagreed with him??
Mikeypops, someone who tells you that they think you should honour your contract are NOT spineless you foolish boy. They have something that you should admire..... INTEGRITY. Something sadly lacking in modern me me me society.
I know that I am a bit of an old f*rt, but I am stuck flying police helicopters because I am not prepared to sign one of those 5 year bonds myself.

[globallocal]

MP.

to be blunt. If you had concerns about the contract before signing, you should have had legal help. If the company imposes them after contract then get legal help. otherwise no matter what, pay your bill if you have to, walk away if not wth legal advice. Put on the big boy pants and do whats best. it realy is a small industry! and from your first thread did you do your home work when you took your "first job"! I worked for a regional on metros that had a cadet scheme that charged close to $70kUS for a type, ATP and 12 months of work. Not that airline but I did 6 then stayed 11, It was the military though but I would not be flying a Global Express now if I hadn't. 5 yrs if you stay is nothing, you could be chief Pilot by then!

Big Boy Pants!! put them on.

GL.

[Seat1APlease]

I am only reading in between the lines here, but the location is shown as UK, and the bond is described in Euro, and I assume therefore that the contract is between an UK national and an airline based on mainland Europe.


Whilst the unfair contract terms legislation and the bank charges rulings are not totally irrelevant they are based on UK law, and the contract is more than likely subject to the legal jurisdiction of whichever European country is home to the airline.



Unless an appeal is going to be based on European Community wide legislation then advice on whether the contract can be enforced is needed from a lawyer with experience in contract law in that state, anything else might be misleading.

[buzzc152]

I don't necessarily think you need to question someones integrity if they walk away mid bond. The contract says, you can leave whenever you like but if it's before the end of the bond you must pay £XX. So providing said person pays his dues he has honoured his side of the deal.

[mutt]

So providing said person pays his dues he has honoured his side of the deal.

Very true, however the initial poster wants to walk away but not pay the agreed bond.

Mutt

[jayteeto]

Agreed, if he pays his bond back. My integrity call was about not wanting to!!

[Clandestino]

It was in the early nineties, well before my time, but my union was involved. 737-400 rated captain signed a 110 000 DM (about 55 000€) bond for 737-200 conversion. After a while, better opportunity presents itself, but our capt haven't finished the bonding period yet and has no means to pay the bond off.
So he tries to get rid of the bond through the court by claiming that the trainning costs were exaggerated and his current employer took unfair advantage of him as he was unemployed and had familly to support. The judge wholehartedly agreed with capt, but dismissed the case as the bond represents a contract and real values or capt's circumstances are legally irellevant. Only what's written and signed matters.

So the 10 K$ water bottle might be morally reproachable but it's legally OK, unless the water vendor runs some kind of water monopolly, but don't expect anyone to act fast enough in breaking up this monopolly to save you from death by dehydration.

[Portside]

Define fair Bonding??
PS

[411A]

Oh dear, it's very simple.
Pay up, or serve out the bonding period...your choice.

Now, if guys wish to go to another company...that's fine, and more power to 'em, so long as they adhere to their bonding agreement.

Do a runner?

You WILL be caught, not perhaps for the bond, but for a reference from the original company.

Chief Pilots DO communicate between one another.
Make NO mistake.

[jayteeto]

What a daft comparison! If you don't have water, you die. If you don't sign a bond, you get a job without a bond. McDonalds don't make you sign one, do they?
Simple supply and demand, as long as people are prepared to sign, it will never change. I never said bonding was right, I hate it. I signed a 2 year bond with no pay-out clause. It was the best of the worst on offer.

[parabellum]

I am now wondering if the CP of an ATR 42 opertion in Europe, who bond their new comers for Euro50,000 and know they have a recent joiner who is separated from their family have spotted this thread. Anybody any idea how big the field is?
Mikepops may want to drag his horns in a little bit?