The paying back of outstanding bond money, advice please [Archive]

MONKEYBALL

30th Mar 2001, 20:35

I am currently working my notice at my present company with approx 6 months of a monthly reducing 3 year bond to pay back.

When asked how I intend to settle the outstanding amount I said that I would set up
a standing order for the balance split into equal payments proportionate to the monthly amount by which the bond reduces so that on the third anniversary of the date I was type rated we will be all square.

My company have since come back to me and said that they want the whole lot back in one steaming lump or they will pursue me through the courts.

There is nothing in the bond agreement relating to this and I have asked them to check with the company solicitors to see if this demand is legal. I have said if they were to pursue me through the court and I offered to pay in installments far lower and over a longer period than
I have so far suggested they would have to take it anyway as I am NOT refusing to pay.

Any comments and/or advice on this matter will be greatfully recieved.

It's enough to put you off oranges for life !

Jumbo Jockey

30th Mar 2001, 21:43

Not sure of the precise statutes on this, but I can tell you a friend of mine had an almost identical problem some years back. It went to court and he won the right to pay back in instalments - either that or they might have settled out of court, although I think it was the former. If I'm right in that recollection, then the law of precedent ought to be on your side, but do not construe this as legal advice!!!!

Hope it goes OK - the new job better be worth all this hassle, right?!

Oldie Volvo

30th Mar 2001, 22:13

If you only have one-sixth of a three year
bond left to pay, then working on the assumption that your bond was say £15000, it
would thus seem that your repayment is a
max of two and a half grand. This is a bit
more than beer money but without knowing all
the facts you might be well advised to pay
the company off and be done with it. On the
other hand,your existing company will be very
reluctant to go to court especially if you
are quite prepared to pay the outstanding
amount in full albeit in instalments. You may
well find that whoever has threatened you with a court case has little or no knowledge
of the law and may well not have taken any legal advice.

Why not call their bluff - offer a written
undertaking as outlined in your posting, keep
your head down till the final day and enjoy
the new job wherever it may be.

tilii

30th Mar 2001, 22:16

MonkeyBall

Your offer is an eminently fair one and, I venture to suggest, will undoubtedly be seen to be such in a court of law. The law is essentially about "reasonableness" and it does seem to me that your employer is showing very little of same.

My advice, for what it is worth, is that you should tell your employer to get on with it and take you to court. Point out to them that it will be a waste of their money but will certainly keep their lawyers happy.

Good luck, old bean. Hope your next employer is less of an a******e.

piston broke

30th Mar 2001, 22:49

Monkeyball, if you actually want to pay off your bond I reckon your approach is bullet proof, the company will be wasting it's money on legal fees if it tries to fight you on your more than reasonable offer.

However bear in mind that it is by no means clear that bonds are legally enforceable in the UK at all. Indeed there is a view that a bond constitutes an "Illegal Indenture", and is thus fundamentally uninforceable. This does not, of course, affect the possibility of your name becoming associated with "bond breaking" if you choose to go down that road.

Are you a BALPA member? I sincerely hope so, for problems like this are what you pay your subscriptions for. They will helop you with legal advice if you are a member. If not, be wise and join toute de suite, ready fot the next shafting...

Good luck, and remember, Nix Illegitime Carborundum!

FLARE DAMIT

30th Mar 2001, 23:44

Monkeyball theres no worries there mate.You are quite prepared to repay the bond and that will stand in your favour.With regards to a human rights issue you can nominate a period to repay the outstanding sums within reason.No court will enforce bankrupting a person with a matter that is questionable to begin with.Remember a speeding fine can also be paid of in installments should you require it. (which i agree with, let them sweat for the money)So should this silly greedy company of yours want to take you to court let them, it'll only cost them alot more money than you presently owe on the bond.Its called steamrolling and has been outlawed for decades as it is percieved as threatening which could lead to stress which in turn could lead to you suing the company for distress and loss of earnings, which will cost them alot more money.I'am no lawyer but its how i see it and what i read about.It's all just a crock of s**t.

minogue

31st Mar 2001, 01:25

No company will bother to take anyone to court for a couple of grand that they will get in six months anyway.

Whoever your company is would be well advised
to reword bond agreement to make repayment
terms clear. Once this is done I would have no sympathy for anyone arguing with the terms of a deal they have signed up with.

Flap 5

31st Mar 2001, 01:39

The position could also be taken that while you are in company service you are paying the bond back at a pro rata rate over the 3 years. Therefore there is no reason that you can not continue to pay it back at that rate over the 3 year period.

RRtay

31st Mar 2001, 01:55

That is a typical "orange" attitude, you are not alone. Keep firing possible solutions at them. Two of my good friends from down under left them less than 12 months ago and made several suggestions for repayment of bond money. They turned down every single one of them no matter how reasonable, I guess they do not want to set a precedent. In the end the courts sided with them for their "good faith effort" Think about enlisting the help of your new employer, they may not assist directly however they may be able to suggest some legal counsel for you.

[This message has been edited by RRtay (edited 30 March 2001).]

Togamax

31st Mar 2001, 04:09

Dear Chap,

It just so happens I had exactly this problem about 2yrs ago with an old employer of mine.

They insisted I pay back all the outstanding bond in one lump sum. After I sought council on this matter it appears that if you don't have all money, and you agree on the amount owed AND you have offered a monthly payment, there is no case to answer to.
Just so you're sure, this is exactly what I went through. If you need legal advice I can point you in the right direction to a chap recommended by the IPA. Just let me know here.
Above all, remember, if you agree on the amount owed, there is no case.

Good luck old chap............

slj

31st Mar 2001, 10:42

Monkeyball

You don't say the country where you are employed although other postings seem to hint it is the UK.

The only advice you should act upon is the advice of a good aviation lawyer. If you are in the UK go to a solicitor and ask him to seek an opinion from someone like Flying Lawyer (his profile will give you his name) Your solicitor will know how to find him.

You will get considerable advice and moral support from contributors to this thread but at the end of the day you must seek profesional advice.

Alternatively, if you are in the UK and belong to Balpa seek their help.

tilii

31st Mar 2001, 13:30

Dear Chap

I note the preceding post and its supposedly virtuous comment. However, I really must emphasise that there is absolutely no need whatsoever for you to consult with expensive lawyers on this matter (unless you have more money than sense).

Should your present employers proceed against you, then it might be wise to do so, but only after you receive the paperwork advising that you are off to court.

And I see no compelling reason why you should look to "Flying Lawyer" or anyone else mentioned on these pages (after all, we really know nothing about them other than what is "rumoured" here). Just a plain and simple solicitor will do for it is not a difficult matter.

Have no fear my friend. On the facts you have provided here, you will most certainly win any case brought against you by this totally unreasonable employer.

Again, good luck in your new employment.

slj

31st Mar 2001, 13:40

Monkeyball

You have a range of advice from which to choose.

However, the "virtuous comment" as Tilii puts it is the only one that will give you the best chance of a correct answer

ADC

1st Apr 2001, 04:15

Monketball.

what you have stated above seems quite reasonable. Your offfer to pay by installments should be accepted.

However, if, in preceding discussions with your company you offered to pay, say £50 per month on an outstanding Bond in excess of £2000, and if , when the company declined your offer you told them to whistle for it, and if the only thing that brought you to your senses was your new employer being made aware of your attitude to your present employer, then it would not be unreasonable for your present employer to take a harder view with you.

I only point this out because I heard of just such a case recently. :)

411A

1st Apr 2001, 05:19

There is, of course, another option. Stay with your present employer and COMPLETE the position for which you were hired in the first place. Have noted all too frequently some who want to "run away" from their contractual obligations. That is WHY companies must find it very necessary to bond in the first place. IMHO, save your money and complete your contract.

Peter Zee

1st Apr 2001, 09:55

You seem to imply that monketball is trying to shirk his contractual obligations, while from the information presented it would seem the exact opposite is true.

Either he stays and the bond is reduced to zero, or he repays the pro-rated balance in lieu. Which, he has offered to do. Where, exactly, is he "running away"?

I don't quite get your point unless it's just a general "We should all be good and keep our word." Fine, duly noted.

Flanker

1st Apr 2001, 11:27

411A has a trillion hours on Tristars and other relics.He is therefore a global authority on Aviation matters so LISTEN UP!!

Show me a company that is whiter than white-please DO - 'cause I'd like to work there!

You belong in the 1920's mate!!

Redline

1st Apr 2001, 12:54

As a slight aside to the above, the law strictly forbids an employer from deducting sums from your pay without your permission.

So if they threaten to take your last pay packet towards outstanding amounts, explain to them they would be in breach of employee law (I think it is the Employee Rights Act 1996).

Good Luck

tilii

1st Apr 2001, 16:01

A number of quotes from preceding posts:

1. from slj: “the "virtuous comment" as Tilii puts it is the only one that will give you the best chance of a correct answer”;

2. from ADC: “if, in preceding discussions with your company you offered to pay, say £50 per month on an outstanding Bond in excess of £2000, and if, when the company declined your offer you told them to whistle for it, and if the only thing that brought you to your senses was your new employer being made aware of your attitude to your present employer, then it would not be unreasonable for your present employer to take a harder view with you”;

3. from 411A: “Stay with your present employer and COMPLETE the position for which you were hired in the first place. Have noted all too frequently some who want to "run away" from their contractual obligations. That is WHY companies must find it very necessary to bond in the first place. IMHO, save your money and complete your contract”; and

4. from Redline: “the law strictly forbids an employer from deducting sums from your pay without your permission. So if they threaten to take your last pay packet towards outstanding amounts, explain to them they would be in breach of employee law (I think it is the Employee Rights Act 1996)”.

Our friend slj seems to be one who feels that only a lawyer’s opinion has any value. Were this true then there would be no need for courts and judges to decide on whose legal opinion had merit. Wake up and smell the coffee, slj.

Our friend ADC needs to understand that reasonableness is the overriding issue. If a pilot leaves with an outstanding bond of, say, £2000 and can only afford to repay that sum at a rate of £50 per month, then a court will hold it perfectly reasonable for him/her to offer to repay at that rate.

I find friend 411A’s remarks quite astonishingly naïve. Does he suggest that an employer faced with a change in strategy will never seek to divert from any element of the original agreement? The plain and simple facts of life, my friend, are that bonding agreements are an awful imposition upon a pilot but most have clauses that allow for a pilot to leave at any time and repay the alleged outstanding sum. Thus there is no requirement to “COMPLETE” a contract on the basis of time served to completion of the bonding agreement.

Finally, to friend Redline I would say that you misunderstand the law. You are right to a degree, but a bonding agreement usually contains a clause that gives the employee’s unequivocal consent to deduction of outstanding amounts from salary or other entitlements owed. Thus there is no breach of employment law, as you put it.

I hope this all helps, Monkeyball. Just stick to your guns, old chum, and ride out the storm of protest from your present employer. Better things will surely follow. Toodle Pip.

Dockjock

1st Apr 2001, 20:15

This might be quite naive of me, but: In Canada, the way a bond works is a company takes out a loan from a bank in your name, and agrees to pay off the loan over a period of years until settled. If you leave before that period is over, they (your employer) just stop paying it for you.

Ergo, no legal wrasssling to deal with; you are just left "holding the bag", and it becomes a matter between you and said bank under the terms of the loan. So continue to pay it off in normal fashion, and you're in the clear in (this case) six months!

For interest's sake, can someone explain to me how the bonding issue is different in Europe/UK? In any case, good luck Monkeyball.

tilii

2nd Apr 2001, 01:50

Dockjock

The system you describe in your far off land, if you do accurately describe it, would be illegal in the UK. Perhaps you mean differently, but would you please explain precisely how an employer actually manages to take out a loan from a bank in your name?

kennedy

2nd Apr 2001, 02:39

It must be legal as a lot of pilots are a certain EXT based company are still bonded.
I've got a company organised bank loan to cover "my endorsment", of course I had to sign the paperwork but no signature, no job!

411A

2nd Apr 2001, 04:47

FLANKER-
As we will be selecting flight deck crew for TriStars shortly, the need is being considered for bonding, especially for First Officers, as there is not a large supply at the moment that are experienced on type. The bond agreement will likely be three years and released after two with mutual consent. As training (at Delta) is rather expensive, bonding is necessary in todays rather mobile aviation marketplace. Also, as we are not a large carrier, the selection of crew that can get along with each other is important, suggesting that you perhaps may not fit in very well. :rolleyes:

slj

2nd Apr 2001, 10:04

Interesting isn't it that almost everyone is giving an opinion on what is a legal nmateer - what are the rights and obligations in this matter.

My advice was for Monkey to find out his correct situation re airline bonding. Only then can he make an approach to his employer with any degree of conffdence. He would be in a position of some strength knowing his rights and would be able to know if his employers were pulling his plonker.

As it stands at this moment he has a confusing array of anecdotal evidence (validity of bond etc) which has probably confused him more than ever.

Dockjock

2nd Apr 2001, 13:08

tilii,

It is like kennedy describes, a company organised bank loan. I have never been in this situation, however have colleagues who have. The company co-signs on the loan with you and provides the security the bank requires. So no, they do not unilaterally take out a bank loan in your name; its more like "no signature, no job", as above.

BavarianBoy

2nd Apr 2001, 15:49

Tilli, afraid Dockjock is correct. That well known Ext based company has been bonding all its crews that way for 4 years now. The loan is in the pilots name and when you leave they stop giving you the repayments so you are left with the outstanding balance. Personally, i think it is disgraceful, but no sign no job as the above says. Also, they bond you every time you change type, hence after say 4 years with the company you could still be bonded a considerable amount, say after 2 years t/prop then 2 years jet £6000 would still be owed... OUTRAGEOUS!!
The sooner bonding finishes the better, it restricts our freedom of movement if conditions are bad in the company concerned.

aghhhhhhhh!! BB

mutt

2nd Apr 2001, 20:31

411A,

Did you actually manage to serve out the 4 MONTHS notice that SV expected of you?

Mutt ;)

Flanker

2nd Apr 2001, 21:28

411A
It's just that every post you make seems to be a wind up, unfortunately for me that one worked!
As I'm rated on modern four glass cockpit types I'm not too fussed whether you want me or not thanks.
Good luck

tilii

2nd Apr 2001, 22:01

411A

You said: "As training (at Delta) is rather expensive, bonding is necessary in todays rather mobile aviation marketplace."

I have no idea what airline you speak for here, but I put it to you that the mobility about which you speak is caused to a very large degree by employers creating an environment from which their pilots always seek to escape. Why don't you have the courage to seek to create the opposite: an employment environment nobody in their right mind would want to leave? Then you would have no need for this bonding malarky and you'd be running an outfit that would do well against all comers.

Incidentally, I can't speak for others here but I take offence at you using this forum to swat down opinions such as those of Flanker by using your recruitment campaign as a means of blackmail. I am delighted to see that Flanker's response was to tell you where you can shove your airline. Well done, Flanker!

Dockjock, Bavarian Boy et al

I now understand. What you say is that the pilot takes out the loan, not the employer, thus it is legal. I must say, however, that if only enough pilots had the intestinal fortitude to choose the "no sign" option then said EXT based company would very soon change its approach, would it not? It is simply so difficult to persuade the CAA that airliners should fly without pilots, no matter how desperately some employers would wish to see it happen.

[This message has been edited by tilii (edited 02 April 2001).]

Jumbo Jockey

2nd Apr 2001, 22:58

411a -

Most of the bonding agreements I have seen in the UK impose no requirement on the pilot to stay for a minimum period of time, merely to pay back the contracted amount of money in the event that he chooses to leave within a specified time. As long as Monkeyball pays back the necessary wonga, and as I mentioned earlier on I believe the law of precedent may very well permit him to do that in installments, then his contractual obligations will almost certainly have been met!

I grant you that I haven't seen this contract/bonding agreement of his, but unless it is a fixed-term contract he is free to work for them for as long or as short a time as he chooses; his contractual obligation in the case of your average UK bond is, to reiterate, financial, not temporal!

Monkeyball, as suggested in other posts, your best bet is probably to approach the legal people at BALPA or the IPA for real legal advice, just in case all the responses on this very entertaining thread are twaddle!

tilii

3rd Apr 2001, 02:17

Jumbo Jockey

You offered Monkeyball the following advice: "your best bet is probably to approach the legal people at BALPA or the IPA for real legal advice, just in case all the responses on this very entertaining thread are twaddle!"

With respect, old bean, what on earth makes you think that the said legal people at BALPA and IPA can offer anything better than our "twaddle"? Let us not overlook the fact that these two illustrious organisations, despite their professing to represent the best interests of the pilot workforce, have chosen to do little or NOTHING about this bonding issue other than to offer legal advice as to the fact that bonds are, in most circumstances, enforceable. This, in my humble opinion, is to their utter shame for it is these two organisations that should be in the forefront of fighting against this disgusting practice of making pilots akin to slaves, subject to their employer's whims and often to their improper, if not downright illegal, practices.

Roadtrip

3rd Apr 2001, 02:43

It used to be called indentured servitude. A lot of Englishmen got shipped to the colonies under that scheme.

NorthernSky

3rd Apr 2001, 02:53

A lot of hot talk here about bonding.

I have to agree that there is a very strong case for employers to make their pilots' lives rewarding and reasonable, and thus to hang on to their staff, rather than securing chains around their necks as at present. However, the seniority list and annual pay increments go some way towards this.

Pilots who join a particular airline 'just to get some jet time', of course, do us all a dis-service by taking advantage of the offer of a job with no intention of staying the course.

It's also worth mentioning that the real cost of high quality base and line training on an aircraft is usually much, much, more than the bond amount (around £50K would be reasonable for a medium jet, I should think), so things could be worse.

Rest assured that the IPA, at least, is aware that many pilots are not content with the bonding question. However, expression of this by letter to the office provides fuel for the fire. I shall run this past colleagues there again, and see what comes of it. For those experiencing difficulties with bonds, Kevin O'Gorman, who is the IPA's 'legal man' has experience in this field, and we all know that experience counts for a lot!!!

BavarianBoy

3rd Apr 2001, 04:21

Tilli,

afraid not much choice in sunny EXT... pretty crap to work for and the management hate their crews on a BA(management) level of hate. Not very happy camp. People vote with their feet and leave.... in very large numbers at huge personal financial cost as they are that bad!! Even their own cadets have started leaving paying huge training bonds for a better life and better conditions. So bonding doesn't work for them at all, it creates very bad feeling, especially as most pilots there have signed at least 2 bonds in as many years.. NO BOND NO JOB and without any formal recognition from someone in power it will unfortunately continue. The management have a BA like hatred of its own crews and vice versa.. very sad but true!! One phrase i heard recently was that the managemnt couldn't run a bath never mind an airline.
Ok, sorry, off track slightly, but unfortunately bonding is a sad unfair reality and until it is defeated we will not rest!! IMPROVED CONDITIONS is the answer.
Good luck to all though having signed i fear you are obligated. Any chance BALPA of doing something constructive with this bone of contention?? oh... and while i am here, any chance of a decent pay deal to... for once.

.......BB

tilii

3rd Apr 2001, 04:31

Northern Sky

Very interesting first post, old bean.

I would be grateful if you would offer some substantiation for your assertion that "the real cost of high quality base and line training on an aircraft is usually much, much, more than the bond amount (around £50K would be reasonable for a medium jet ...)". Quite frankly, dear friend, (and I have some experience) I would put your estimate very wide of the mark on the high side. Most bonds are, as you say, written at somewhat less than the actual cost of training. There is, however, a very good reason for this. The law is such that to do otherwise would make enforcement of the bond problematic. Thus, contrary to what you seek to imply, that is that the employers are doing us all a favour in resiling from bonding at the true level of training costs, the bare truth is that their legal advisors tell them that to seek to do so would in most cases render the bonding agreement unenforceable.

As to your suggestion for "those experiencing difficulties with bonds" (and that would be, I think, 70-80% of all pilots not employed by BA) and your assertion that "the IPA's 'legal man' has experience in this [the bonding] field, and we all know that experience counts for a lot!!!" I respond by asking how many bonds this individual has been forced (through a desire simply to be gainfully employed) to sign; how many bonds he has, through no fault of his own, been required to repay; and how many times he has felt so entrapped by a bonding agreement, and by the overt threat of its strict enforcement, that he has submitted to an unscrupulous employer's improper instruction, thereby compromising his professional integrity and perhaps even breaking the law?

My guess would be that he has little or no such experience, old chap. So why don't you ask him to get some, if only second hand, and to then set about righting the many grievous wrongs done by this infamous system of virtual enslavement?

411A

3rd Apr 2001, 05:55

MUTT-
Actually, as I had joined SV in 1980 (and completed 9 years) I was required to give only two months notice under their old contract. No time to think about it then, as at that time they were very short of crew.

Unfortunately, as junior guys (and gals) all seem to want to join the large major carriers, bonding will be necessary even though we do plan to offer very good pay and working conditions, as well as upgrade to command based on ability, NOT seniority.

NorthernSky

3rd Apr 2001, 22:07

Thanks for the critique!

It's nice to have a dear friend :)

I'll deal with your questions one by one:

If you assume that an airline does not need a training department unless it trains pilots (a fair assumption?), then you must accept that the entire budget of such operation must be amortised over the successful products of its endeavours. So, whilst it may cost only a few thousand pounds an hour to flog the circuit in an A320, say, the fact is that you are employing training Captains and admin staff, maintaining classrooms, paying staff who are not directly carrying out line flying duties, using capital assets for non-revenue purposes, and so on.

Yes, there are a thousand and one ways of looking at this, but I stand by my figure using this pessimistic evaluation. If there is an airline in the world which has only ever employed type-rated pilots who are current on type then such an airline's accounts would demonstrate this. Yes, some accountants will argue with my case, and that's fine.

'Those experiencing difficulties with bonds' only aplies to those pilots who find themselves somehow in dispute over aspects of bonds which may or may not be payable.

For example, our friend who asked for advice above, is obviously in what he perceives to be 'a bit of a spot'. That's why he posted. Those pilots who join their new company, fly the line, and stay for the duration of their bond, have no real difficulty (no matter that they may feel under duress to stay). I would think that 70-80% of pilots not employed by BA have never left a company and paid a bond off, so your assertion is perhaps difficult to sustain.

Kevin O'Gorman is a very nice chap, flies aeroplanes, and deals a lot with pilots who are having problems of one sort or another. That is why I suggested that IPA members might find his advice helpful - he knows the law on bonds, and is able to answer questions on the issue much more readily than your run-of-the-mill high street solicitor can.

If he (or any other specialist aviation lawyer) is consulted with a question such as that which started our discussion here, he can at least explain the legal position. Obviously, he cannot change the law, but he can offer expert guidance to those who seek it. He may be able to negotiate on behalf of a client to achieve an agreeable outcome. I fail to see your point regarding whether he has ever entered into a bonding agreement himself - he is a lawyer, not an airline pilot. Perhaps you are suggesting that, if accused of murder, one should aim to find a solicitor who has stood acused of a similar crime??!!!

So far as 'righting the many grievous wrongs done by this infamous system of virtual enslavement' is concerned, how often have you written to your MP, your MEP, The Times, BALPA, or the IPA, to express your concerns?

It's all very well holding forth in this anonymous forum and letting off a bit of steam, but actions speak louder than words.......

------------------
As Nick said, 'Brighten my Northern Sky' R.I.P.

tilii

4th Apr 2001, 03:42

Northern Sky

Though your second post does not address me, its content suggests you were speaking to me.

It is nice to have a dear friend, is it not? Just being polite. Why don't you take a leaf ... ?

Now I'll deal with your remarks one by one:

Fair assumptions aside, and accepting (not without some reservation) that the entire budget of a training operation must be amortised over the successful products of its endeavours, why would you then have us believe that said "successful products" are its trained pilots. There is an alternative view that some might hold more equitable: the successful, or unsuccessful, product of said training department is in fact the entire company operation. Why should the drivers airframe carry the burden of amortisation of costs incurred for a company to comply with regulatory and statutory requirements over and above the issue of their own (very costly) licences?

I am grateful you admit that your estimate was a "pessimistic evaluation" and for your concession that it was essentially a beancounter's argument.

'Those experiencing difficulties with bonds' does not merely apply to pilots who find themselves in dispute over bonds. A pilot who, as you say, feels "under duress to stay" is, I assert, experiencing difficulty with bonding. Likewise, a pilot who feels under duress to obey dubious instruction from his employer because of a bonding agreement is experiencing said difficulty with bonding.

Your first post seemed to acknowledge awareness that many pilots were dissatisfied with the bonding system. Do you now resile from that position and aver that it is only those in dispute who have difficulty with it?

Here on PPRuNe, we tend not to use people's real names. But if you insist, then Kevin O'Gorman may well be "a very nice chap, flies aeroplanes, and deals a lot with pilots who are having problems of one sort or another". That is not at issue here and I did not intend to offer personal offence to him in my last post.

However, if he truly "knows the law on bonds, and is able to answer questions on the issue much more readily than your run-of-the-mill high street solicitor can" and is an IPA consultant or staff member, then why has he not gone in to bat for us all on what is known to be a highly controversial issue?

Does his experience of which you make so much include actually fighting a bonding case in court? If so, please cite the case so we can all take a look at how he did there so that we may decide for ourselves whether or not he might "offer expert guidance to those who seek it".

The fact that "he is a lawyer, not an airline pilot" is precisely the point I wished to make when you waxed lyrical about this good man's "experience". Accused of murder, I might not wish to appoint a solicitor who has stood accused of same, but I would most certainly wish to appoint one with a substantial background of success in obtaining acquittal for those accused.

I have written to my MP on the bonding issue three times and spoken directly to him twice in the company of my MEP. I see no point in writing to The Times, BALPA, or the IPA. It is my very firm view that none of these three organisations is the least bit interested, and more's the pity. Let us not forget who owns The Times and his track record down under while he part owned Ansett Airlines. He has an excuse, BALPA and the IPA do not.

Actions do speak louder than words. I feel no need to justify myself to you on this forum. Hope to meet you some day and we'll chew the fat on the subject of bonding and actions. You might well be surprised at how active I have been. You may yet see what for you would clearly be the unpalatable outcome of that activity.

Incidentally, would you care to tell us what inspired you to make your first posts on this prickly issue? Wouldn't be an employer would you, old bean?

NorthernSky

5th Apr 2001, 04:20

tilii,

I do get to fly a bit, and that's where I've been!

I'm sorry not to have addressed you by name above, and that I stooped to the 'lowest form of wit' in challenging the form of address you applied. Absolutely nothing other than respect and friendliness to you, and others involved in this lively debate. I just can't help feeling being addressed that way by someone I have never met is a little condescending.

Another way of looking at pilot training is this:

The vast majority of pilots pay their own way to licence issue (frozen ATPL and Perf A minimum). The salaries they command reflect this, to a lesser or greater extent.

How about doing away with all airline funded training, so that once you have done your CAP509 course or whatever, you then decide which type you fancy trying your hand at and pay your own way through MCC, wet drills, First Aid training, groundschool, simulator, and base training (etc)?

Airlines would only ever employ rated pilots, would do away with the cost of running their training arms, and would increase salaries to account for this. This would bring about substantial savings, but the cost to the prospective pilot would be astronomical. This scenario falls down in that it reduces selection opportunities far too much for airlines and ensures that applicants will progress on financial grounds alone. The problems inherent in using third party training organisations are well known. Remember, standardisation is a key to flight safety, and a 'sausage machine' approach to ab initio jet training does not help in the long term.

Yes, mine is a beancounter's argument, but the above highlights its merits.

I am aware, too, that many pilots are not happy about being bonded. My personal view is that bonding amounts to a restraint. I believe that any right-minded, free-thinking, pilot would agree with this.

Aside from that, imagine if no pilots were bonded. The gross training cost to the industry would probably not change a great deal, but there would be more free movement of pilots from bad to good employers. Thus, the bad employers would face crippling costs, whilst the good would realise savings. The good employers would have a happy, competent workforce, freeing money for better salaries and benefits. The bad employers would face difficulties with staff retention and running a robust schedule. For the pilots, this would be approaching nirvana, except that low quality applicants would have difficulty securing the top jobs, on account of the free movement of high quality applicants.

Bad employers would have to smarten up or move out.

To the open-minded, lateral thinking, manager, this has substantial advantages too. However, the whole industry would have to change, and it might be difficult to convince the accountants of the benefits of unilateral action (putting it mildly!!).

In respect of fighting a bonding case in court, any such action would rely upon having some law on the side of the plaintiff. Sadly, as you are only too well aware, there is precious little law on the side of someone who freely enters into a bonding agreement.

I do not believe that this needs to be so, but it will take a wealthy (or soundly backed) person with no desire to continue in professional employment as a pilot to fight a test case. Rest assured, the precedents set could be so damaging to the airlines that they will have their big guns firing. Moreover, there would be opportunities for the airlines to make arrangements to circumnavigate any awkward precedent. For example, a job offer would be conditional upon the applicant securing their own type rating, but the employer would promise to repay this cost in the long term.

Nonetheless, I do believe that such a case would be worthwhile, and might just come to pass. The onward march of European legislation must be in the individual's favour, at least in the short term.

Sadly, for the moment, the prospective plaintiff is rather like a man standing accused of murder - who is clearly guilty because the law says that he must be. My point is that an able lawyer will be able to show mitigating circumstances, such as here where the 'plaintiff' makes a reasonable offer of repayment to a schedule (nothing unusual here, stacks of case law to back it up). This is where an able, aviation specialist, lawyer will be invaluable.

I am genuinely delighted that you have been so active in publicising this issue. However, you are wrong to assert that there is no point in writing to the IPA or BALPA. I am an IPA man, through and through. The IPA can only take action to address issues raised by members. If you are a member, write, and encourage others to do so, and perhaps action can follow. If you don't write, and no-one else does, then there is no chance of action.

Finally, I am extremely puzzled by your remark "You may yet see what for you would clearly be the unpalatable outcome of that activity." Could you expand?

As to why I posted, regardless of whatever else I may be, I'm a pilot first and foremost. I'm deeply unhappy about bonding. That's why I posted. It's no surprise that companies which don't bond have extremely low rates of pilot turnover. Pilot retention is a very, very, good thing indeed, for employer and employee alike!

[This message has been edited by NorthernSky (edited 05 April 2001).]

tilii

5th Apr 2001, 04:37

Northern Sky

We probably have met, in fact. I've been around for a very long time.

Look, I really am very tired tonight and think I've been having more than a few male menopausal moments. :)

Forgive me if I defer an appropriate and fuller response until another time.

In the meantime, I would like to leave you with a little question to ponder. I have no idea as to your age or background, but can you remember that just a few years ago no airlines bonded? I like your theory that without bonding the poorer employers would self destruct, but it was not true before bonding so why do you feel it would happen after its disappearance?

As to the remark about which you ask for expansion, I confess I had formed the view that you were fundamentally in favour of bonding and would be less than pleased to see it outlawed. It is my conviction that it will, in the fullness of time, become totally illegal. There are those who have the will, the time and the resources to run the test case you suggest. I agree with you that it will only take one such well argued matter to put an end to this abhorrent practice.

I'll write again soon, my friend. Goodnight for now.

411A

5th Apr 2001, 07:05

Only when pilots agree to STAY for the contractual period will bonding disappear. All too many "junior" guys think that the airline industry owes them a living. Don't look for bond agreements to go away anytime soon.

NorthernSky

5th Apr 2001, 13:26

411A,

You'll have to do better than that, I'm afraid - why should a pilot be tied to his job in a way in which those in other, equivalent, professions are not?

Airlines are not renowned, for example, for being upfront with details of the manner in which their crews can expect to work.

If my reading of the 'oranges' remark in the first post here is correct, then the airline concerned recruited pilots some time ago using the gambit that IT pilots fed up of night flying might prefer to do day-time schedules.

This airline now does more night flying than any other scheduled operator, and more than most IT companies! Needless to say, some of those pilots are very unhappy about this, and seek to move on. They are unable to, because they are bonded. Is this fair?

------------------
'Brighten my Northern Sky' Nick Drake R.I.P.

HPSauce

5th Apr 2001, 13:36

Northern Sky .. interesting... Line training is completed on revenue generating flights so in what way does line training cost a company money? You quote the cost of a training department, well we would need a training department whether taking type rated pilots or in house training, u seem to forget the annual line check and 6 month LPC/OPC. So we always need a training department ( stanards dept ). So all the admin costs etc would be there anyway.

I once heard a chief training Captain say "I dont care how many sectors it takes in line training as it costs the company nothing" great attitude and acknowledgement that as a line trainee u are generating the company some money ...

The bonding issue we are talking about here is what £2500, a minimal amount in the grand scale of the airline finances. So what we are dealing with is a company wanting to control its pilot workforce and will try and do it till the day that this guy leaves the company. He has worked for almost 2.5 years that to me sounds like a good record and who knows why he is moving on, family,money etc.

Aviation is the only industry that feels the need to bond its employees. Having come from an IT industry where i have been on training courses that have cost in excess of £2-3000 per week, never even heard the whiff of a bond agreement. In fact it would have been laughed out of the office. The pilot workforce is no more or no less mobile/desirible than any other professionally trained sector. In industry outside aviation people keep employees in the company by offering top quality working conditions. They offer training and career development,private health,pensions,.. ie they offer a quality of life package. So where do we stand in aviation, well i think a lot of us are second career people ... yeah i am one of them and just happy to have my job. So i suppose we are own worst enemy... and we all sign the bond agreement but do we really read it carefully and know what is expected from us. Maybe if there was a national standard of bond across company all this would be stopped. We are all part of a union in way or another .. surely this would create a standardisation of empolyment across the indsutry..

Just a thought !!!

411A

5th Apr 2001, 18:48

NorthernSky-
Of course they can move on to the next company (have done so at times myself) if they give proper notice and complete their AGREED contract, OR pay off their bond in a mutually agreed manner. Why should the company have to pay for training costs TWICE just because some junior guy does not like it there anymore? After all, when they joined they asked for work, did they not?

tilii

5th Apr 2001, 19:55

Dear 411A

For goodness' sake, what planet do you live on?

You say: "After all, when they joined they asked for work, did they not?". Is that really how you view a pilot's application for a position with your company, that he is asking for work? This attitude belongs in the early Industrial Revolution times, old bean.

Surely, in most instances the company is looking for pilots to fly its equipment just as much as we pilots might be looking to fly for the company. It is certainly a mutual benefit thing and not "us and them".

This is precisely why the bonding matter is so offensive to most of us. Irrespective of the odd selfish user among us (and I do acknowledge their existence as much as I assert the existence of their employer equivalent), bonding creates from the outset an environment of mistrust and bonding airlines speak to us from a position of collective power (no sign, no job).

Others have pointed to the fact that pilots are, in many ways, their own worst enemies in that some will sign anything to advance their careers. It is this sad fact that has permitted the system to flourish, but it can soon be reversed if there was a collective will among enough of us to tell those who push the papers across the interview desk to go to hell.

For a group of supposedly intelligent and committed individuals (and individuals is perhaps the key element here) we do show selfish and mule-like tendencies at times.

The sooner we all (old and young, senior jockeys and wannabes) wake up to the undeniable fact that the airlines cannot operate their expensive machines without the licensed pilots up front, the sooner we can return to our former glory days when the PROFESSION of airline pilot was highly respected and we were envied among our peers.

The way things stand at present, I respectfully suggest that we are little short of a laughing stock among those who have the world at their feet and are deciding where to invest for their futures. Very few talented youngsters these days will spend more than a moment or two looking at the so-called profession of airline pilot. Who can blame them?

NorthernSky

5th Apr 2001, 22:03

tilii,

We are in agreement - it would be interesting to pursue this somehow... Will you write to the IPA? Are you a member?

411A,

You confuse contracts of employment with bonding agreements. Most contracts have a three month notice period for either party, but most bonds are for three years from date of joining (or in the case of some nastier airlines, from FLC - which could be a year after joining if their training programmes are horribly inefficient). There is no supposition of a contracted period of employment of three years. It's a basic distinction.

HPSauce,

I didn't mention line training, did I? It does carry additional costs, though, in providing training staff, having two Captains flying together when a new Captain is under training, and all the administrative support mentioned earlier. Yes, OPCs and LPCs incur costs, but these are not relevant to the bonding issue as all airlines have to carry them out. The resources dedicated are not comparable to the resources required for ab initio training on type for an airline with a high staff turnover.

------------------
'Brighten my Northern Sky' Nick Drake R.I.P.

tilii

6th Apr 2001, 00:59

Northern Sky

It does indeed seem that we are in agreement. :)

No, as you might gather from the views I have expressed on these pages I am neither an IPA nor a BALPA member. Have been in the past but too disillusioned these days.

As I have already said, I am not inclined to believe that either of these so-called 'pilot associations' is the least bit interested in the issue of bonding agreements, thus I have never felt inspired to write to them.

I apologise if this offers offence to "an IPA man" like your good self. It's merely the way I see things.

What would be interesting, I feel, would be the opportunity to meet and chew the fat on the issue. I like your style, my friend.

Perhaps we might do this one day soon. For now, I prefer to remain anonymous on this website (for obvious reasons) but I have noted your email address at the PPRuNe email website. Might drop you a line on that, though I'm not too sure about its security.

Meanwhile, do keep posting on this thread. It has been quite illuminating, I feel. Nice to know one is not, after all, alone.

virgin

6th Apr 2001, 20:27

Tilii, 'old bean'.
According to you:
Neither of "these so-called 'pilots associations'" are interested in the bonding issue.
And, engaging lawyers familiar with the industry and its practices is a waste of money.
Well, that's spiffing!
But, what do you say is the practical solution to the problem, given that pilots anxious to obtain their first job and/or those wishing to get onto something bigger, will always be tempted to agree to bonds they may later regret if they want to leave?
Ooops! I've just remembered:
" ..... bonding airlines speak to us from a position of collective power (no sign, no job)." With that, I agree.
And, "..... it can soon be reversed if there was a collective will among enough of us to tell those who push the papers across the interview desk to go to hell."
And who's going to be first? Confident, of course, that the next applicant will also honour the 'collective will.'
If I may borrow your phrase: "For goodness' sake, what planet do you live on?"
The 'collective will' would only be be effective if used to ensure that "these so-called 'pilots associations'" fight the issue on behalf of their members. Then, if their collective power proves ineffective in negotiation, instruct lawyers familiar with the industry to fight a test case in the courts to resolve the matter one way or the other. And 'the other' may, of course, be a way which we may not like!

[This message has been edited by virgin (edited 06 April 2001).]

tilii

7th Apr 2001, 02:15

Virgin

Would you like to run that past me again? ... oh, and this time please include a little original thought if you are capable of that.

In response to your question as to what I say "is the practical solution to the problem", there is only one satisfactory solution as far as I am concerned: a return to the days when there was no such thing as bonding. In my view, this can only be achieved through legislation banning its practice or by a precedent set through fighting the practice in a test case. I agree that precedent can be set that might not achieve the desired outcome, so I favour legislation.

What is your view? Do you in fact have one?

[This message has been edited by tilii (edited 06 April 2001).]

Insider107

7th Apr 2001, 17:36

tilii

I've quoted your posting of 5 April in the "Singapore Airlines Recruiting Policy?" thread. It's really very good and I'm sure a lot of our colleagues will think very carefully over your words.
Keep up the good work

Kind regards. Insider107

virgin

7th Apr 2001, 18:27

tilli
Would I like to run that past you again?
Certainly. <font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">" The 'collective will' would only be be effective if used to ensure that "these so-called 'pilots associations'" fight the issue on behalf of their members. Then, if their collective power proves ineffective in negotiation, instruct lawyers familiar with the industry to fight a test case in the courts to resolve the matter one way or the other."</font>
My views:
(1) See above
(2) If there genuinely is a 'collective will', in contradistinction to a mere 'collective desire', then the associations can me made to take up the issue by the democratic will of their members. Unfortunately, and a fact of life in my view, the majority are usually apathetic, allowing those with an objective to influence decisions/policy which, often, we don't like. Both associations could be forced to take up the cudgels if the majority of members were prepared to push the proposal through.
(3) Before proceeding, the associations should take legal advice from a barrister familar with contract/labour law in general, and the aviation industry in particular. Probably expensive, but if an issue is of such importance, well worth it in the long run. Every man to his job, in my view.
(4) Then, depending upon the advice, either the routes I've previously mentioned, or another route is so advised.

As for legislation, I agree it would be wonderful. But, how is that to be achieved?
Who would bring pressure to bear upon parliament to introduce such legislation? The issue is not a vote-catcher so the government wouldn't take the initiative.
A private members bill stands little chance of being debated, and far less chance of becoming law - unless it suits the goverment's ideology/tactics like banning country sports .
Back to square one:
Majority will of members
+ pressure by us as professionals on our professional association(s)
+ obtain legal advice on the issue, and upon the best tactics.

You've made it clear you have little respect for expensive lawyers, and you're disillusioned with the pilots' associations. I totally disagree with your views on the former. Nobody has to like lawyers, but the good ones do a good job.
I tend to agree with you on the latter, but believe that problem could soon be resolved if the will was there. I'm embarrassed to criticise as I've never in my career done anything to help/influence the associations. Like most people, I've just paid my dues and criticised them for appearing to do nothing for us.
In my view, the associations and lawyers are both are necessary if the objective is to be achieved.

Hope that's clearer.
(PS Do try not to be so rude to those who express a different view.)

tilii

7th Apr 2001, 22:32

Insider

I am most grateful for your kind words. It is deeply pleasing to know that others share some of the views I express. Your encouragement is appreciated. Thanks.

Virgin

When I asked if you’d like to run that past me again, it was not because I was unable to read your first post. It was a plea for you to try again, and to make yourself clearer.

Your postscript note about rudeness is hypocritical given the tone of your own post (the sarcasm was virtually dripping from the page). Address me in a polite manner and I will gladly reciprocate.

Again, your second post leaves me a little breathless, and I mean no offence. For example, what do you mean by “in contradistinction to”, and “those with an objective”? I do respect your right to have a different view, but I would like to see you at least try to express it in an intelligible manner.

Reading between the lines, I think I glean the gist of what you are trying to say and respond as follows:

Just what the IPA or BALPA think or do on this subject is of little or no interest to me. Never in my long career have I witnessed either body taking up what you describe as “the cudgels”. Correct me if I’m wrong, but there has not in my memory been a pilot strike in the UK (and that is what I assume you mean by taking up the cudgels as opposed to just pussyfooting around and making a lot of noise).

As to your perception as to my like or dislike of the legal profession, you simply could not be wider of the mark on my true position. I see no point, however, in Monkeyball being advised to go to great expense when he need not seek such guidance at this, very early, point in his dispute with his employer.

What you have said with respect to legislation is largely right. However, despite many suggesting otherwise on these pages, pilots are not now alone in being bullied into signing bonding agreements. Sadly, the practice is spreading like a disease and is now being imposed upon certain employees of Local Health Authorities and, believe it or not, upon bus drivers (given the arguments of 411A and the like, I guess it must be because drivers airframe and drivers omnibus cost much the same to train!!??). Thus, my dear chap, we are not alone if we seek to ask our politicians to outlaw the practice. And as time goes by, we may well be joined by many others, given the current greedy society in which we now live.

Yes, my dear Virgin, your second post was about as clear as mud, but I do hope I’ve managed to provide the answers you seemed to be wanting from me. Judging by your two posts here, I can expect yet another abusive and sarcastic reply. I would be really impressed if you could refrain from that and put some effort into making your next post a real pleasure to read. TTFN.

Hoverman

8th Apr 2001, 03:20

tilii
You started by asking what planet someone lived on. Virgin just adopted it.
I can't see what you don't understand about Virgin's post. It seems perfectly clear to me.
Your memory about what you said about the value of lawyers is also extremely selective - it didn't stop at the post from which you've quoted.

virgin

8th Apr 2001, 03:47

tilii
'contradistinction' means a distinction made by contrasting the different qualities of two things.
'objective', when used as a noun, means a thing aimed at or sought; a goal.

Time will tell whether you still claim not to be able to understand my views. :rolleyes:

[This message has been edited by virgin (edited 07 April 2001).]

tilii

8th Apr 2001, 13:35

Hoverman

I "started" in a post on this thread on 30 March at 1836 hours, and not with the matter to which you refer. But of course you were too busy 'searching' archives to read the entire thread, weren't you? No real luck, though, eh?

That Virgin's post was perfectly clear to you might demonstrate something about yourself.

You say: "Your memory about what you said about the value of lawyers is also extremely selective - it didn't stop at the post from which you've quoted."

Since I have not quoted one of my own posts, and I cannot recall being critical of the legal profession in any event, would you care to enlighten me?

Virgin

Believe it or not, I too am able to look up the meaning of words in a dictionary. The question I posed was to do with the context in which you employed the words in question rather than with their definition.

If this reallly is the best you can do (and it is, frankly, what I expected of you in light of your prior posts) then you are not someone to be taken seriously, other than perhaps with respect to your last sentence:

"Time will tell whether you still claim not to be able to understand my views."

Is this a threat of some kind? If so, kindly make the threat clear, will you? If not, again I ask what on earth are you talking about?

To Both of You

Do either of you actually want to debate the issue of bonding or do you simply want to take cheap shots at those who do?

[This message has been edited by tilii (edited 08 April 2001).]

Alty Meter

8th Apr 2001, 22:11

virgin
There are two sides to the bonding argument, both set out on this and similar threads many times, and the both sides have merit.
With that proviso, I think your suggestions make a lot of sense. It's difficult to see how else the bonding problem will be solved.
But, the trouble is that the collective desire expressed in debates like this never does become the collective will because bonding tends to affect new/younger guys more.

Don't fall for tilii's childish little games.
Remember that people can pretend to be anything they want on an anonymous forum and tilii often does. You name it, he's done it - if you believe him!!

[This message has been edited by Alty Meter (edited 08 April 2001).]

tilii

9th Apr 2001, 02:06

Alty

I read your post before and after the edit. What's the matter, dear chap? Have I been getting too close to the bone and a little too much support for my views on the bonding issue for your comfort? Ah well,if you can't lead the debate I guess you're best to sabotage it for everyone else.

Instead of vague innuendo, why don't you just spit it out and say what's on your mind? I guess it goes something like "I'm in favour of bonding and all pilots are plonkers!". You are obviously not an aviator or you'd know how to spell altimeter.

On second thought, don't bother to continue. Your contribution to the subject matter of this thread is duly noted. Well done. What stunning intellect. I am humbled into permanent total withdrawal. There really is no pleasure in debating with the likes of you and your mates here. I wonder how long it will take you to trip up and let us all know your alter ego, guv. The style remains the same no matter what you call yourself. :) :) :)

[This message has been edited by tilii (edited 08 April 2001).]

bazzaman96

15th Apr 2004, 02:30

While not a lawyer (yet), I am am well on my way to becoming one (back up plan if I don't become a pilot), and am studying law at Cambridge.

I haven't read all the posts so far, but I think you're making the issue more complicated than it needs to be. There's no need for any legislation...the basic rules of contract law cover your situation more than adequately.

If you sign your bonding agreement detailing how it is to be paid back, they cannot then change their mind and demand it back in one go. Well, they can...but you can then take them to court and claim damages for breach of contract. The details for repayment are a term of the contract, and their threat to do [insert horrible act here] if you don't cough up will give you a claim in the event they try to do something to you. They will be breaching their contract with you, discharging you from performance of their onerous term. It's a fundamental legal principle.

Of course, there may not have been an agreement as to HOW the money was to be paid back. However, assuming it has been paid in instalments so far, and presuming the organisation issuing the bond has accepted your payments to date, this will act as consent and acceptance of this payment method, and an IMPLIED agreement as to the way the bond is to be repaid. The Courts will look at this as an implied term in the contract, irrespective of whether it was down in writing or not.

If it is industry standard for you to pay bonds back in instalments, which I am sure it is, then there is further evidence to support your case. The Courts will look at typical practice and will normally enforce it. If everyone pays bonds back in instalments, and you have done so to date, they cannot then demand a lump sum. Full stop. They have no legal ground on which to stand.

In short, if you've been paying in instalments so far, you're fine. Their threat is worthless.

However, the only awkward situation may be either where you have been paying in instalments, but not for long (perhaps you have just started paying your bond back), or if there is a clause in your contract giving them the power to demand it all back in one go.

If such a clause exists...well, you're screwed. By signing an agreement the law will force you to be bound by any terms and conditions of that agreement, if: a) it was obvious that the document contained terms and conditions, or b) it was a document that could be expected to have contained terms and conditions.

Given you signed a bond agreement, you can't argue that you didn't think it contained terms and agreements. If they have a clause in there giving them the power to demand full payment at any point, then they can.

The only situation in which they can't would be if it were so unusual, or such a highly peculiar clause, that they should have done more to draw your attention to it in some way. Merely slotting it in among the small print may not be enough. Perhaps putting it in bold would be. It's all context-dependent (like most law!).

The statutes you may have been thinking of, incidentally, are the Unfair Contract Terms Act (UCTA) 1977 or the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, both of which introduce an element of 'reasonableness' into contractual agreements. I would need to see your contract to see whether any of these apply, and would also need to know more about the background to your agreement.

In short, however, you're sound. If you've been paying in instalments so far they can't demand one off payment from you.

Regards,

Baz

Raw Data

15th Apr 2004, 05:03

Just a few points:

Many moons ago, Air UK used to march new pilots down to Barclays to sign up as responsible for repayments on a loan that Air UK had arranged. In many cases, pilots on my course had terrible credit histories and would never have achieved the loan themselves. The funds were remitted to Air UK, Air UK repaid the loan by instalments. The only time the pilot was involved was if he left the company, at which time he or she took over the repayments. I believe there was some friendly arrangement 'twixt airline and bank regarding interest rates, because, if you think about it, it is a very inefficient way of protecting training costs.

411A

I know you like to think that the whole world operates like the US, but it doesn't. In the UK, a training bond is simply an agreement to pay back a proportion of training cost if you choose to leave before a predetermined time period has expired. Most companies are more than happy for you to leave, if you pay back the bond. There is no contractual period of employment over and above the notice period (unless your contract specifies differently, which a few do).

Your sterotypical view that pilots "ask" for a job is similarly erroneous. The Pilot is seeking a job, but the airline is seeking staff. Both have a need for each other. In most countries, the company offers a job and the pilot accepts. The pilot doesn't offer their services and the airline accept.

The question of repayment is probably academic in any case. Many airlines will simply withold your last months salary in lieu of the outstanding bond, if you don't have a deal with them.

I may have missed some stuff that relates to this, but frankly I can't be bothered wading through the verbosity on display from some of the larger egos... ;)

regbench

15th Apr 2004, 16:04

From a perspective on the other side of the fence - most airlines are willing to accept payment by instalments. However their concern is that it may be difficult to enforce payment, particularly taking into account the nature of the job. If the case does go to court, the court will require you to give evidence of earnings/outgoings, to see if the payments you propose (and if the company agrees to accept them) are reasonable and you can afford them. If you clearly cannot afford to pay the bond off in one go, then the court is unlikely to order you to do so.
However, bear in mind that even if you agree terms with the company, you may end up with a court order against you, which may affect your credit/loan/mortgage rating and you will likely have to pay the company's legal costs. Your last employer may also tell your new one about your problems with payment, which could have an impact on your position with your new company. Finally, a loan agreement, freely entered into by you for your benefit, is unlikely to be considered illegal/unlawful and not enforceable. Only if the agreement is vague on repayment terms would you be entitled to the benefit of the doubt on these - and the court might be swayed by evidence of common knowledge as to how these were normally repaid in the company.
Hope this helps!