Could someone explain the bond system?

[Self Loading Freight]

As the title says. Could someone briefly explain the bond system for flight deck employees -- ie why, how much and what happens to the money? Is it universal? Is it a problem for pilots?

Thanks,

R

[Spoonbill]

Hi SLF,
there ha been much long winded previous discussion on this subject via pprune - however, having experienced it form both sides, this is my interpretaion:
WHY?: You apply for airline sponsorship, you get a loan from the bank/parents/whoever for £30,000.
CompanyApays £30,000 (purely an example), for your training, accomodation, living costs, examinations, courses, to enable you to fly their mega wizz jet. A is going to want a return on their investment.
HOW?:A makes you sign a piece of paper, (contract to you and I), saying you will remain in their employ for 3 - 4 years. If you leave before 3 years is up, you will repay the full £30K, in year 4 the outstanding bond is reduced pro rata each month, until at the end of year four there is nothing owing. The company has had it's pound of flesh and you no longer owe them financially.
HOW it affects you?: From years 1 - 4 you have the comfort of knowing that all your training has been taken care of, and you hopefully wont have to pay out any more money. Unfortunately, it also means that you won't be able to get another job in that time, (unless you're willing to pay back the bond), but by then you will have some seniority AND a lot of valuable experience and jet ime.
Be aware that many airlines/avaition companies will not even consider applications from people who have renaged upon bonding agreements.
Many will say that bonds are immoral, illegal under EU law and lots of other clap trap, but I'd bet they'd be the last in the queue to pay your legal costs to try it out in court.
If you're lucky enough to get a sponsorship offer for any trade get someone who knows what they're talking about to look through the paperwork - (and I hope this doesn't sound patronising),then accept the fact that you don't get anything for nothing, and you'll only get the career you want by putting twice as much into the training as you aspire to get out of the end result.
Cheers.

[Self Loading Freight]

Spoonbill--

Thanks for that. So you don't actually give the money to the company, you just agree to do it if you leave before the end of the agreement. Does the 30K from the bank/parents/heist job sit in some escrow account, or is its existence purely nominal until the horrible day you have to hand over the cheque to JollyBigAir?

I can see why the system exists, but I'm not aware of it in other professions. It costs a lot to train a lawyer... (says the man who's had maybe £75 spent on training him in the ten years he's been a full-time journalist).

R

[partagas]

It must be clearly understood that "bonding" is a fairly new development - becoming increasingly prevalent in the last dozen years or so.
SPOONBILL gives a fair appraisal of some of its manifestations but he is quite wrong to label the many legitimate objections as "claptrap".
Firstly, it is indeed at odds with the practice in other industries. You correctly make the comparison with the legal profession, and you are doubtless familiar with the situation in banking and financial institutions. I have friends who have been sent to USA for expensive training by one company, but who have returned employed by a rival company that offered a better package!
This is absolutely reasonable in the Free Market Economies of democratic countries.
"Prima Facie" it may appear not unreasonable for airlines to expect the employee to contribute to the cost of training or type rating , but in reality it is nothing but a pernicious instrument of exploitation,as is so often the case in various areas of life where the two sides are of such unequal bargaining power.
Common practice today is for airlines to " bond" pilots for amounts greatly in excess of the actual cost of the training - which incidently is often provided free by the aircraft manufacturer - and to enforce the bond over a period of time which is purely arbitrary.
Worse still the thus bonded pilot is often employed on a reduced salary and can be treated unfairly by the company with impunity, since the pilot is unable to exercise his right to discontinue employment by giving the required notice specified in the contract, due to the financial restraint.
How has this iniquitous practice remained unchallenged? Has not Parliament enacted Social Policy legislation to proscribe such situations?Well, it has, but what is required is an individual with sufficient energy and financial backing to go all the way through the legal system ( if necessary ).
The institution which has the mandate and resources to pursue such an action is surely BALPA.

[ 22 October 2001: Message edited by: partagas ]

[eeper]

BA requires it's cadet pilots (sorry - trainee pilots) to spend the first 2 years of their employ on reduced salary and pay back £15000 over their first 5 years.

Is this considered "bonding" and, if so, how come BA haven't come in for more flak over this practice?

[The Red Sock]

Another example of bonding: E.g. Tyrolean Airways requires the applicant to take a loan of about € 30.000,- (varying slightly with the type of aircraft he will be trained on). The company will pay back the money including the interest rates over a period of three years after the beginning of the employment in quarterly payments. If the pilot leaves the company within three years the company will simply stop the payments for the loans ond the remaining debt has to be payed by the debtor. After three years everythin is finished. No further bonds for additional type ratings.