Garuda applicants beware

[Caissa]

As part of the application process for B737NG Captain screening,I have been given a letter by Parc .

The letter states that the applicant agrees to refund Garuda the cost of the assessment ( ie flights,hotel and simulator costs) if he/she is offered employment and declines the offer (if no job offer is made then there is no liability to repay the costs).

The sum involved could easily be 2,000 euros or more (Parc are saying nothing about the amount.)

Although I would be quite keen to work in Asia,I am not prepared to sign such a letter as a matter of principle as I know almost nothing about what to expect. If I knew in advance that life with Garuda in Jakarta would be good that might be different but ,so far,there is little or no feedback from anyone.

I am not that desperate for work so I pass on this golden opportunity to work 3 months on and have 2 whole weeks off.

Regards,
Caissa.

[Birdy767]

:D Excellent decision

[Airbus Girl]

I don't understand the problem? If I were Garuda, why would I want to take a bunch of prospective pilot employees, pay a fair bit of money to bring them over for a sim ride, and then have them turn round and say they've changed their minds? Have Parc not given you all the terms and conditions? So I guess Garuda are saying that if they offer you a job subject to successful sim ride, you should take the job they offer, seeing as you applied for it. Otherwise it could be abused surely?

[Tommy Tilt]

Is it not reasonable to accept that although one has applied to be interviewed/screened by the respective airline, in this case Garuda, the APPLICANT also has the right to screen the AIRLINE?

Many pilots have attended interviews and been rejected by airlines. Are pilots not permitted to reject the airlines?

When you attend any interview/screening costs are involved. This is part of the business of running an airline. It is wrong that PARC should expect
applicants to pay costs if the AIRLINE does not pass the APPLICANTS screening.

This conduct is typical of agencies, who may pocket part of any costs recovered in such circumstances.

If at all possible, you are always better off avoiding agencies and being recruited by the respective airline directly.

[seat 0A]

The logical thing to do for the applicant is to screen the company BEFORE applying for a job. I can understand Garuda very well.
Who wouldn`t like an all-expenses-paid trip to Jakarta and then "change their minds" at the last minute?

If you don`t want the job, don`t apply for it :ugh:

[AVIATION REFUGEE]

Seat oA, have u ever travelled to the other side of the globe, to join an airline AFTER the initial assessment, and when u realize t what's going on there, the first thing was....to check when the next plane leaves for home....?:{

[fatbus]

KAL use to do the same thing, makes sense. You should not be going for just a holiday.

[A-3TWENTY]

No ,I can not believe in some posts I see here..... at all !!!

It doesn`t surpreise me such an offer from an airline which is run most of the time for a bean counter.

What really do surprises me is to see that some pilots agree with such a stupid thing !!!! This is exasperating !!!!

This is one more proof of how stupid pilots in general are !! It`s because of this worm mentality that our profession , which includes terms and conditions , respect to the individual and treatment conditions are plumeting down.Most pilots are cheap hookers ...

There was a time when this was a profession of gentleman who kept their chin up...

About PARC...Nowadays...Seems to be just another one..

A-3TWENTY

[OXOGEKAS340]

A-3TWENTY, I am surprised of how democratic mind you have!
When someone does not think the way you think, he is in your opinion, "stupid" and spoiling the profession.... I am sorry, that pilots like you are still in the market. I can imagine how you are acting in the cockpit, and what kind of CRM you are using.....Shame on you! Really shame!:mad:

[Manfredvonrichtofen]

You are absolutely right A-3twenty. Some people don't like the truth and get offended.

[d105]

Caissa I applaud your decision!

[AVIATION REFUGEE]

The Red Baron, will rise from his grave....!!!!
:ouch:

[fullforward]

I join the team: you're absolutely right!
One of the reasons our profession has been totally eroded on the latest years is because some people bent their spines more and more.
There's a lot of pilots with lower professional backgrounds that are happily accepting to swallow anything to get a seat on a jet...

You're absolutely right: if we are not happy about what we see 'in loco' we are fully entitled to say 'no thanks' without any kind of liability.
Yes: we have the right to screen an airline before commiting to accept a job!

Too bad a reputable agency as Parc agreed to participate in such a scum.

Caissa, two thumbs up for you for your decison and for reporting this here.

[Ndicho Moja]

Caissa, good move.

[captjns]

PARC is a reputable organization. PARC is following the marching orders given by their client. PARC is providing prospective applicants with pertinent information so they can decide for themselves.

I am sure that PARC has advised GARUDA about how unreasonable the 2,000 Euro payback is. As the saying goes tuition comes at a very high price. You can bet that GARUDA will back down form their 2,000 Euro payback scheme when no applicants show up for their assessment.

Anyone remember when FLYDUbai was recruiting initial cadre pilots in 2008? The terms and conditions posted to the short listed group promised riches beyond belief... The buggers waited until prospective employees came to Dubai. That's when they dropped the bomb. They informed the unsuspecting group about the requirement of posting $25,000 bond should they quit within a certain period of time. I am not talking about a training bond... they wanted a cash bond. It gets even better... They wanted the employee to pay the cost of maintaining the bond too! And that was for the initial cadre who were current and qualified on the -800 too:eek:!

Yeah the bottom feeders are still out there.

Hey.... by the way... how does one get to JKT if GARUDA can't fly in the UK. Do they pay for the ticket to AMS?

[scoteros]

Dear Captjns,

The topic is about Garuda charging for the interview if you refuse to accept the job offer BUT you have been talking about Flydubai and what you are saying is wrong.

You are free to say anything you want on this website but you SHOULD tell the truth...

I went for the interview for a Flydubai position in 2008 and I have been told that I will have to accept a bond for 3 years.
The only thing is that , at that stage , they did not tell me how much it would be as they did not know yet.

Also it is not true what you are saying about the way pilots are bonded there.
No pilot has to pay anything , but if a pilot leaves the company before the full 3 years has been completed he will have to pay an amount based on the period he has been working in the company.
So if somebody decides to leave after 2 years , he will be asked to pay 8000 USD and not the 24000.

And in fact , because of the end of service benefits provided by the company , he will not have to pay anything but the amount will be deducted from his end of service benefit.

So please , before saying something make sure that your information are correct.

[captjns]

Well Scoteros... who appointed you as teh post/thread monitor?

I'll wager that yu were not the only one to interview with FD, and old chum, you really must stay away from the Kool-Aide.

Pretty igngorant and arrogant of you to make sure slanderous remarks without you, yes you, not having all the facts, as I'm sure you were not in the same interview group as I, and along with an Airtran Pilot, Omani Air Pilot, and another crewmember from a carrier that I cannot recall. We were being interviewed for initial cadre positions.

Anyway because of the discrepancies between the "Red Herring" all of us received via email before the interview, versus actual contract, and other issues not worth discussing caused three out of the four of us to head back to our current jobs rather than continuing with the interview process. Again, you were not present with our interview group and thus not privy to what was being offered on that particular day.

Yes, they have changed their terms and conditions and bonding requirements as time went on to lure pilots.

Hoping you are in a better place with a satisfying job all the best...

[Fonz121]

Just go anyway, who's going to force you to pay it back if you don't accept? Indonesia? Doubt it.

[Offchocks]

Good decision Caissa.

At the end of the day the interview provides information for both parties, seeing an advert for a job does nothing in telling you what the people you will be working for will be like. As far as a paid holiday to Jakarta, you have to be joking..............I can think of better places to go!

[flyzede]

As soon as they don't charge the 2000 EUR anymore, I'll apply too... Never been to Indonesia... would be nice to get a new visa on my passport!
Come on guys... this needs to be a fair game for both parties:
1. Airline screens pilot, don't like him... Airline takes the costs
2. Pilot screens airline, don't like it... Pilot takes the costs...

[411A]

Come on guys... this needs to be a fair game for both parties:
1. Airline screens pilot, don't like him... Airline takes the costs
2. Pilot screens airline, don't like it... Pilot takes the costs...

This airline policy keeps away the malcontents, and from the looks of some of the prior posts, there are quite a few..:rolleyes:

[DIAPER]

How they could push you to pay the bond if you decide do not pay, what can they do ?

[Jabiman]

How they could push you to pay the bond if you decide do not pay, what can they do ?
Maybe take you to court for breach of contract or send it to the debt collectors since if you attend the interview then you would have first have to agreed to their conditions.

[parkfell]

You just wonder what is the true cost to attend an interview?
Travel could well be a staff ticket, paying only the taxes.
Yes, there is the cost of HOTAC, but to be charged for the interview process / sim check is not something which quality employers do.

You need to visit to assess the opportunity on offer, but it will clearly discourage those who have no inside information. If the employer is confident that what is on offer is attractive, then why charge if you decline their kind offer?

They are either at it [beancounters at work], or the grass is definitely not greener once you see the place for yourself.

Initial meetings/interviews in your own country might be one way to do it?;)

[stuckgear]

Maybe take you to court for breach of contract or send it to the debt collectors since if you attend the interview then you would have first have to agreed to their conditions.


To do so would require a legally biding contractual agreement, which would, party to the agreement, require the provision of the full terms and conditions of employment for review prior to accepting the terms of the interview.

[Caissa]

It is gratifying to learn that many of my fellow pilots are also against the passive acceptance of whatever recruitment procedures are presented to them.
There are other airlines who are ' trying it on ' with type rated,experienced pilots eg Fly Dubai with their ' pay to interview at CTC ' and ridiculous bond mentioned by my old friend captainjns. Some of you may be able to produce other examples of corporate arrogance.
To provide some balance to the topic there are airlines who deserve much credit for their selection procedures. In the last 4 years I have done the selection for both Korean Airlines and Jet Airways. In both cases the airline flew me overseas { Seoul and Mumbai ),gave me excellent hotel accommodation and,regardless of the outcome, did not ask me to spend any of my own money ( apart from my travel to Heathrow,the airtax(refundable if job accepted) on Korean business class and minor items in both hotels ).Both selection procedures were done with mutual respect and I had no complaints so FlyDubai and similar guilty airlines---
take note ! You can conduct a dignified process and you may avoid missing out on highly experienced candidates who will benefit your airline.
Regarding the figure of 2,000 euros mentioned in my original post,please note that this is only a guesstimation on my part.To recap,Parc declined to be drawn when I asked for more information but it seems a reasonable figure based on flying Amsterdam to Jakarta,a sim check and several days hotel accommodation.
Anyway,we all make our own way through life and this is one subject where we will never be in total agreement.
Regards,
Caissa

[DIAPER]

Anyway, I guess it could be really difficult to force the applicants to pay the bond if someone refuse to pay.

[Jabiman]

To do so would require a legally biding contractual agreement, which would, party to the agreement, require the provision of the full terms and conditions of employment for review prior to accepting the terms of the interview.
This is probably true in regards to court action but all they need is a piece of paper with your signature to send it to the debt collectors and if they fail to get the money then good luck trying to fix your credit rating.

[seat 0A]

Caissa,

Looking back at your previous postings, I think it`s people like yourself that make airlines want to create a certain threshold for applicants. Just to weed out the treasure hunters.

You have been seriously considering leaving aviation, have tried to get a 50% roster although your employer didn`t give you that option, have been doing several job interviews all over the place and it looks like you`re still going at it.

Now. I`m all for trying to better yourself and improving career prospects. But I simply can`t blame an employer for creating a system where you only get applications from pilots who actually want the job and fulfill the qualifications.

I mean, timesharing a 737 sim for a checkride? That`s your background for DEC 737?

I hope you don`t take it personally, but a bit of a realitycheck seems in order....

[stuckgear]

Ref: Previous Post.

the statement made:


To do so would require a legally biding contractual agreement, which would, party to the agreement, require the provision of the full terms and conditions of employment for review prior to accepting the terms of the interview.


Was based on the 'assumption' that anyone (with half a brain) would in fact require the applicable data in reference to the contract they were committing to, per se, an agreement to refund 'costs' in terms of an interview.

That is to say, in advance of agreeing to accept a contractual position, if offered, it would be advisable to know what the terms of the contract being offered are prior to agreement to acceptance.

Ergo: The candidate would be entering into a contract, to accept a contract if offered with no prior knowledge of the terms and conditions set forth in the contract if offered. !!

It would be appropriate to be aware of the terms in advance of acceptance as the law protects the law, not the terminally stupid.

Now, it's into a legal mess.

A piece of paper with a signature on it does not constitute any right seek financial recompense from another party. To enter into legal proceedings there would have to be an acceptance of terms offered. In that respect, continuance (progression) can be deemed as an acceptance of terms.

NB: It would be enforceable under Indonesian Law (unless legal jurisdiction is stated otherwise) and could well be enforced through international channels with any country that may have bilateral agreements.

As a commercial pilot, it would not be conducive to a career, involving international travel, finding out some years down the road that on arriving through a country, or any other country that may have, or indeed, develop reciprocal arrangements, detainment as a bad debtor is encountered.

[stuckgear]

Seat 0A,

Without doubt the costs involved in recruiting any staff member, let alone those of a commercial jet transport pilot in a commercial environment can be extensive. And likewise without doubt, there would be a specific interest in mitigating those costs. And sourcing the realistic candidates from those that that are, to coin a colloquialism 'having a looksy'.

What also must be considered is that Garuda have employed the services of a recruitment agent, who would be gaining a percentage of the placements made in order to earn their crust.

However, if Garuda are just sourcing a resume/CV stack, they can equally take out an advertisement, implement their HR people to actually generate a candidate list, then start to reduce the pile through whatever means they deem appropriate and directly manage the recruitment criteria.

Now, if they are using a reputable and capable aircrew recruitment provider there needs to be the ability of the recruitment agent to screen candidates. If the recruitment agent 'screws up' and sends someone along for consideration who isn't workable, or someone who is just 'having a looksy' IE an inappropriate candidate, or a non serious candidate, then the recruitment agent needs to pick up the tab for not doing their job properly.

If the employer selects candidates that it later views inappropriate or later adjusts the terms and conditions of the position, where it no longer becomes acceptable to the candidate, then the employer need to pick the bills incurred due to their cause.

Once again, the risk is carried by the pilot, not the employer, or the third party recruitment agent.

In passing the costs along to the candidate, it places the candidate in the position of having to accept financial penalty for not accepting the position, predicated on unknown terms and conditions of the contract of employment, unless the full terms and conditions of employment are set forth at the outset prior to arrangement of interview (unlikely. Ask any employer for a full contract of employment for review prior to an interview and see what response is received.); or having to accept financial penalty if the terms and conditions are different from those presents by a third party (the recruiter) or if the terms and conditions are changed by the employer anywhere between acceptance of interview and commence of contract of employment.


etc etc etc, Ad nausem...

[Caissa]

Well, seat0A, I have to tell you that I am in no need of a reality check and your assumptions about me show a high level of arrogance.
Having spent some of my valuable time looking at a cross section of your points,you appear to be with KLM,in which case you will have been pampered and spoonfed in aviation for many years. As a national carrier pilot you will have a sense of reality which simply does not qualify you to comment on the world of contract flying.
I have been flying for 32 years and came to contract flying fairly late ,after a successful career with an overseas airline.
If I choose to enquire about part time flying ,do you see some problem ? I am lucky enough to be able to choose if I work and where I work,any problem there ? If I have allowed my rating to lapse and wish to renew,looking for a sim partner is a logical step to take.
At no stage have I approved of the 'going for an interview to have a free holiday' philosophy although I am aware this can happen.I have always personally taken interviews seriously but the airline must sell itself to me also.
May I suggest that you stick to pontificating on matters about which you may actually know something or are you turning into a European version of 411A ?
Caissa

[captjns]

Caissa brings up an important point.


At no stage have I approved of the 'going for an interview to have a free holiday' philosophy although I am aware this can happen.I have always personally taken interviews seriously but the airline must sell itself to me also.

For the past 20 years, I have been an expat employed by a number of carriers, and corporations around the world. Taking that leap away from home takes a great deal of thought starting from the job website to the acceptance of the position.

At times its hard to obtain total and accurate information about your prospective employer, just as it is hard for your prospective employer to do the same.

With that being said, be prepared to bring with you to the interview as much information about your prospective employer. Ask questions... ask questions... ask questions.

Sit down with pen and paper and jot down questions you want answered, which should not be limited to the typical salary, benefits, housing, or commuting... but perhaps ask who started the airline, who is at the helm, what are their backgrounds, fleet expansion, five year plan.... etc. Keep the pad out and take your time.

After the interview you can do some additional research to confirm what you have learned during the interview.

If your prospective employer skirt issues or are not forthright, or provide you with a stock response to the effect "that issue does not effect you", then that company may not be worth working for.

The bottom line, I interviewed my prospective companies, and glad I did. I am able to pass important information to other prospective candidates too before they attend their interviews.

Sorry to be off topic. But I will say this... no respectable airline should require any candidate to pay expenses in connection with interview process.

Good luck to one and all:ok:.

[M-rat]

Caissa et al

Under no circumstances should an applicant pay to have attended an interview based on a rejected offer of employment after a successful interview selection process.

Not in this industry, nor in any other.

If the airline has done its homework and the flight ops recruiters and management team have at least an average IQ, they are responsible for selecting suitable candidates. Period.

If the candidate subsequently rejects an offer of employment, so be it.

It is this kind of squeaky snivelling dissembling bull**** from management of airlines that has helped bring our profession to its knees.

Who the hell would want to work for Garuda anyway?

[seat 0A]

Caissa,

Yes, I`ve had a good career sofar. I`ve been lucky.
But don`t for one instance believe I have taken it for granted. I`ve done almost 20 years of union work to try to keep improve our T&C`s and, more importantly, pass them on to the next generation. And I hope I can continue the union work for another decade or so.

You seem to detect some arrogance in my reply. The direct way of Dutch communication seems to trigger that a lot on these boards :) Not intended that way at all.
Who knows, I might be in the same position as you are in some years, as we still retire at 56. I might feel like doing some contract work myself by that time. (although I wouldn`t want to steal promotions from local F/O`s by doing so........:rolleyes:)

On the subject: I really feel it is not too much to ask by any employer to expect the applicant to contribute in the expenses in case the job offer is rejected.
This has nothing to do with pay to fly or any other scheme as such.
Although stuck gear brings up a valid point about the role of the contract agency.

PS, nothing wrong with part-time flying. I`ve done it myself for years. Just that I`ve done it under a negotiated agreement in the our CLA. Not much chance of getting it any other way, me thinks.....