New job offer.... Contract contains recurrent training bond.

[LPM]

Hello. I have been looking to advance from my current company for a few months, and have been offered a new job. I have just seen my new contract, and would like some advice/opinions.

Aircraft: Multicrew jet. Midsize.
Company: Neither North-American or European.
Me: Few thousand hours total. Few hundred on type. (Already typed).

My main concern is that the company appears to want to bond me for my RECURRENT training. I am very familiar with the concept for initial training, but in this instance, the contract states a 12 month bond for recurrent training.

This would mean that unless I leave just before my recurrent (when I'm no use to anyone) I will have to find a sizeable cheque.

I have always viewed the cost of a recurrent simply as part of the 'price of doing business', so this has come as a bit of a shock.

Can anyone comment on other companies using a bond for recurrent training?

I can only add that the company concerned appears to be very professional, and with the exception of this one issue, I very much want to work for them.

Thanks. LPM.

[dirk85]

The same happened to me, decreasing bond on the annual recurrent training, covering also travel expenses and hotac to the sim center. Not cheap, especially with Flight Safety.

[LPM]

So perhaps this could become the new norm?

Where will it end?.....

[falconflier]

A former employer required a bond for recurrent, which limited you to timing your departure for another opportunity. Finally, I just bit the bullet and left. Pilot recurrent training is part of doing business and if its cost will make or break the operation, then they probably shouldn't be in the airplane to start with. Another employer required a contract for an initial type but after 24 months, the contract was fulfilled and you could leave free and clear. If you spend any decent amount of time with a single employer, my view is that they've gotten their moneys worth out of you and shouldn't require anything from you.

[dirk85]

A few people walked away without paying, and were taken to court.
I don't know the outcome but I wouldn't be surprised if these kind of bonds were declared illegal...

In any case I signed :{

[ginopino]

It's not legal ..... :=:=:=

Hi Dirk85 !!! ....Maybe we are talking about the same "Company" .....:p:p

Happy landings !!!!

[dirk85]

I think we are, yes! :)

Cheers!

[bizjet inmate]

I could understand a bond even for a recurrent for your first year with them, to save against someone getting recurrent with one company, then leaving for another. I would be very suprised if its not decreasing throught the year though.....or do they expect you to pay even if you leave the day before it expires.

My advise is speak to the employer offering the contract. If you dont feel comfortable with this level of communication with them even before you start......maybe better off looking elsewhere.

good luck

[LPM]

Thanks for all the comments so far....

The contract is very clear.

Yes, it does decrease during the year (in a 'sliding scale' fashion). So if you leave six months after your recurrent, you pay half of the recurrent cost (plus incidentals.... hotac, flight, rental car etc).

What I am most uncomfortable with is that the bond "re-engergises" after every single recurrent. So, even if you give them ten years solid service, you are still liable for the balance of the recurrent you take with you.

Is this really how contracts are heading these days? For me, this is the first I have seen of it.

LPM.

[LPM]

[Duplicate post.... Sorry]

[Gulfstreamaviator]

I understood that this was under EU law illegal.

Under UAE law it is SOP.

Under the rest of the world, no idea.

glf

[LPM]

Thanks again for all the posts.

As I've said before, I have always regarded the cost of a recurrent simply as the 'cost of doing business', so a contract with a recurrent bond caught me off guard a little.

The thought of being held to a permanent and perpetual bond was, for me, too much. I have decided not to sign and will therefore not be departing to pastures new. Shame, as I was very excited about living in the city in question, and the company (with the exception of this issue) seemed really good.

At least I get to feel I've done my little bit for defending our T and C's.... although I'd have preferred a new job!

[Pace]

LPM

Sorry but cannot see the problem? They fork out a wad of notes for your recurrent and you leave the following week?

You give them six months service and then leave why shouldnt they ask for the other half they have paid for back?

Its a way of them showing they are committed to you and expecting you to be committed to them. Frankly unless you up and leave to work for someone else I cannot see your gripe as it would not be an issue.

If you did up and leave maybe they have a moral right to bill the next employer for something they have paid for.

Pace

[LPM]

Socal....

Completely agree. As this was stated up front, I had the option of accepting or declining. It was my choice, and I don't expect all (or even most) to agree, as it is a personal call either way. I have no bad feelings against the company concerned.

Pace....

For me, it is about parity. I have no problem whatsoever will paying for the recurrent I take with me, as long as the new company pays for the recurrent that I bring at the start.

It all smarts of having your cake and eating it. Employers love getting one over on another by stealing a candidate straight after a recurrent, but they whinge when someone does it to them.

[what next]

Hello!

They fork out a wad of notes for your recurrent and you leave the following week?

This is one of the risks of employing people. And an employer can not delegate all his risks to his employees, can he? Otherwise he would have to share all his gains and profits with the employees as well for sake of fairness...

The best way for an employer to protect his training investment is to treat his people well. Then they will stay with him.

I would not sign this contract. Under no circumstances. You are better off as a freelance pilot than as an employee with those conditions!

Regards, Max

NB: Before I turned to flying, I worked as aerospace engineer. My various employers sent me to a lot of different training courses (mostly IT related). Never was I asked to share the cost of these courses or to sign a bond of any kind (would have been illegal in my part of the world anyway, as someone already pointed out).

[His dudeness]

+1 Max. Agreeing a 100%!

[FrankR]

As always, take the best deal that is offered to you.

If you have a job with no bond attached, why not stay where you are?

If you want to advance your career, you often must take some risk. This is especially true this past three-four years.

I doubt that many of the "I never pay for a type" guys will advance in today's environment.

You should be flattered that they offered you the job. I bet there are lots of unemployed "mid-size" pilots reading this.

For reference, my current company wouldn't look at hiring a person who doesn't have six months remaining before recurrent.

Opinions are easy, decisions not so much.

I say go for it and good luck!

FR

[FrankR]

... and by the way "Max", if you're a freelance pilot, you pay 100% of all your training costs. But at least you don't have to sign a bond with yourself

[Pace]

I tend to go. With Franks sentiments. In this recession if you had a chance of bettering your flying career and turn it down just because you have to be bonded regarding recurrents then IMO you have made a serious error of judgement.

Some of us would love to have our recurrents paid for never mind making a small commitment to a lot of money someone has paid on you.

Yes in other walks of life companies pay for employee training but few match the levels of aviation costs. As a freelancer who has to source the cheapest recurrents I can and claw them back through charges I would love to be sent off for expensive recurrents at someone elses risk and cost.

The request that if I leave ( my choice) I have to pay a portion back sounds very reasonable.

Ok a few years ago in the days of milk and honey when qualified crew were in short supply you could very much state your own terms but its not milk and honey at present and most are very cautious at how they throw their money about.

Pace

[His dudeness]

Some of us would love to have our recurrents paid for never mind making a small commitment to a lot of money someone has paid on you

A small commitment? Where do YOU think will all of this end? Bring the fuel with you? Feed the pax from your wallet? Take a step back and think again. Put it in perspective to what we fork out every day for such things as maintenance, fuel, handling, landing, overfly permits etcetc. Makes the investment in pilots and their recurrents PEANUTS.

I do know operators that require FULL CONTRACT PILOTS to pay for their annuals, CRM, First aid etcetc. and pay real small wages. They still find idiots who gladly do this plus bring their selffunded T/R. A happy new world.


What exactly is the commitment of the employer? (in the case above you can be put out of the job when the next, cheaper dude arrives at the doorstep)


Guys, you are shoveling your own grave. I couldn´t be interested less, but you also take down MY T&C´s.

I need to make a living out of my job, if its just a hobby for you, then please pi$$ off and play somewhere else...

[what next]

Good morning!

We are not talking about initial training / type rating here, but of recurrent training. Is recurrent training a legal or license related requirement? No. For me personally, a checkride is all I really care for.

But if my company wants to have the additional profit or benefits that it can get from constantly trained crewmembers (like better protection of their multi-million investment goods, lower insurance premiums, quality certificates like IS-BAO, being able to fly with customers who insist on yearly recurrents, and so on) then the company must pay for that. And bear the associated risks.

FrankR: ... and by the way "Max", if you're a freelance pilot, you pay 100% of all your training costs. But at least you don't have to sign a bond with yourself Not necessairily. Maybe we live in a little paradise of our own here, but in our operation freelance pilots do also get their regular recurrent trainings. At the expense and at the risk of the company. For the reason stated above: You go to recurrent trainings for the benefit of the company, not for yourself. As Mr. Dudeness pointed out, the cost of crew training is factored into the price of the flying hours. I am not allowed to disclose any figures here, but it is in the order of magnitude of about one percent. So if a pilot leaves early, what can they lose? One percent at maximum. If he leaves after six months, they lose one half percent. The cost of catering, for comparison, is almost five percent of the hourly rate. So they should rather make us pay for eating the leftovers, there's much more to be gained there than from having us pay for our training...
If I ask for a shortcut on my next sector I will save them ten percent in an instant... (or waste ten percent if I do not ask because they piss me off by making me sign stupid bonds).

FrankR: For reference, my current company wouldn't look at hiring a person who doesn't have six months remaining before recurrent.And what does that mean? Do they already count on the fact, that some other company is stupid enough to pay for half of the training for _their_ new pilots? And are smart enough themselves to prevent the same thing happening to themselves by shifting the risk to their crew? Awful, awful, awful, horrible.

If it ever comes that far where I work, I will gladly hand back my flying license, blow the dust off my engineering diplomas and go back to the drawing board. To design pilotless aeroplanes. Because I do not want to be guilty of committing people to slave labour.

Happy landings, Max

[Pace]

His Dudeness

We are in difficult times. Some are lucky enough to have solid work others are not.
I can well remember 4 years ago being offered just under £1000 per day to fly as captain for the week running up to Christmas as the company couldnt find a captain.
Obviously if you are in a position to demand what you want do so but apart from a few that is not the situation out there at present.
Sometimes you have to take what is available waiting for the milk and honey days to return rather than sit at home doing little.
Having said that I do agree with you that we do ruin our own industry by being so desperate to fly that we do so for peanuts and drag the rest of what should be our professional value down.
The fact at present though is that companies are more cautious and do tighten their belts! loyalty in the form of a contract on a recurrent doesnt seem a big issue its not a cut or reduction in what you are paid.

Pace

[what next]

Pace: ...loyalty in the form of a contract...

"Loyalty" and "bond" are 100 percent opposed terms.

I am the most loyal employee one can imagine, and if the times get more difficult than now, I will show that loyalty by staying with my company until the last drop of kerosene is drained from the last tank (as I have done previously). All I want in return is my company's trust in that loyalty. If they don't have that trust, they better look for a replacement now. And if the times get better than now, I will value that trust and show my loyalty by staying with them, even if the operator next door offers me double salary.

But how can I be loyal to an employer who plainly shows that he dosen't trust me at all by making me sign a bond? Why should I be loyal to such a person? Trust goes with loyalty, bonding goes with breaking the chains and running away at the first opportunity.

[LPM]

Looks like I may have just kicked the hornets nest on this one...

My problem with recurrent bonds is how it effects the family. It is one thing saying to the other-half "Lets give it a good go living in XXX, and if we don't like it, I promise we can come home"... but quite another to add that we will have to find $15,000 to leave in a years time.

The problem is that recurrent costs (whilst minuscule in comparison to the total cost of running a private jet) can be very expensive from a pilots perspective. Any idiot armed solely with google can find a CJ1 or even a B737 recurrent for less than $10,000, but for those of us (lucky enough to be) operating a Bombardier, Falcon or Gulfstream product, the recurrent is often $20-£30,000, or more (PLUS expenses).

A big deal for me was the psychological influence of feeling 'trapped'. Lets be honest, companies can keep pilots by using one of two methods... the carrot or the stick. If I'm working for a decent company, that treats me well, why on God's Green Earth would I possibly leave?.... My opinion, for what its worth, is that a recurrent bond is only really useful to companies who need to keep pilots somewhere that they don't want to be.

Decent T and C's, reasonable roster, good training, professional safety culture, and I'll stay until the day I retire.... Who needs a bond??

[Pace]

Maybe I should have said enforced loyalty :) Trust and loyalty are both things which you gain in time on how people interact with you and you with them.

On a new hire chances are that they dont really know you from Adam.
Yes when you have been with a company for years you will stick to them through thick and thin because there is that mutual trust.

A new hire? They could spend the 20 to 3OK and for all they know you may already have a position waiting for you to get current on their back and vanish the following week?

Hence enforced loyalty until the genuine stuff develops between you ;)

Contracts can always be removed or torn up they cannot be created when you need them.

Pace

[what next]

On a new hire chances are that they dont really know you from Adam.That's why they asked me for my CV before employing me!

I have run my own charter business, with partners of course, throughout the nineties (C421s and C404s, up to 6 of them at one time) until JAR-OPS shut us down by redirecting our very very small profit into useless administation. I have learnt to read CVs, believe me. We would not have hired anyone who didn't stay at least three or four years with his prevoius employers. Every stay shorter than that would have been questioned in depth! (Sometimes it is not the employee's fault if he leaves early, I know that too).

As for a first-time employment with no previous history of the candidate, again we are not talking about recurrent, but initial training. Even if I do not like it, I accept it now as a fact that initial training (in the year 2011 - maybe things will be different again in the future) is paid by the pilot himself. We used to have training bonds in Germany in the past as well, but they have been declared illegal ("illegal" is the wrong term, in reality it should be: "without legal obligation", you are free to sign as many bonds as you like, but they are not worth the paper they are printed on) and most companies will not advance any money for training any longer.

[potatowings]

I've seen several operators and flown with colleagues that have been involved in recurrent bonds.

As a pilot you run the risk of ending up tied into a company that knows it is very hard for you to leave if you are not happy or are being treated poorly. This is exactly what happened with a former colleague.

Bonding for an initial type rating is absolutely fair game, and I could even stretch to seeing a bond for the first recurrent. This guarantees a year in a company, but to bond on every single recurrent, in my opinion this is not fair and not standard practice.

Think of it this way, the person is in current flying practice on the type operated, they not only bring with them their flying skills as a pilot, but also the unique knowledge of that specific type. This can save a lot of headaches. If you want to bond for a long stint, get a newbie on type and pay the full whack.

What's more is, if an aircraft is managed, often the cost of the training is billed to the aircraft owner and as such a company cannot bond you for the cost of training as they are not out of pocket.

I know it's stated that this was not an EU contract, but for info, these bonds are not legal in the EU. There are very specific criteria that must be met for a bond to be legal.

1. It must be an initial rating,
2. You must be new to the company,
3. The company can only bond for the actual cost of training and not hotac or subsistence.
4. It must decrease linearly with time.

There is an exception to rule 2, if a company advertises for a new position internally and YOU apply and conditions 1, 3 and 4 above are met, then you can be bonded. If you are placed onto a type at the companies behest (ie. you did not formally apply for the new position), then you cannot be bonded.

I potentially had an issue arising and took professional legal advice on this and was provided this information and told that my bond was illegal and not to worry if it went to court. In the end, as always, I found a way that kept everyone happy and it all ended on a happy note with tea and biscuits all round.

As for the issue at hand, anyone in a job they are reasonably happy with, not bonded and enjoy their flying, why be tied to someone you may end up hating?

[His dudeness]

@Pace & others:

very nice to see ( this time ) the discussion head to be a serious and good one.

I can see your points and would we live in a world full of gentlemen, I´d accept most of your points. BUT, and thats a big one, we aren´t. Ask yourself, HOW many of the owners and clients came to their wealth. Always being loyal? Always stick to the contract? Not exploit opportunities?

And then we ourselfs slam the door shut for us, hoping that if we are honest and loyal AND BONDED that everything will be allright?

That ain´t so.

Now having said that, I´d say I´m loyal, I´m honest and - that worked not always to my favour - I say how I see things. Cost me my job once.

Anyhow, there is a reason why bonding should or is illegal for recurrents.

Potatowings makes a few very good points. Think about it.

Then ask yourself why our european licences a valid only for a limited time. Puts pressure on you and me. That would be a starting point for pilots unions IMO.


Got to go flying now...

[Pace]

His Dudeness

Point taken on crooks in the business and agreed we have all been bitten me at the bottom of the jet captain pile probably more than you :E

Back to the original poster who had a better position on offer but declined due to the bonding on a recurrent.

This has now been stated that such a bonding on a recurrent is Illegal so his best bet would be to sign up on those conditions.
Should he at any time in the future want to remove himself then all he has to do is to point out that the Bonding has no place in law and go ?

End of story solution in hand ;)

Pace

[Oldschoolflyer]

My current employer (Under a different CEO), tried to stiff me for $60,000.00 for a heavy jet type rating, over two years. I told him that I wasn't prepared to sign a bond for that amount, or for that long. I shook his hand and got up to leave. He stopped me and told me that someone before me had taken the rating, and left within a few few month's. I get the impression that he was trying to get me to pay for the other guy's rating as well!

Loyalty is expected both ways in this sort of arrangement. In the end, I signed a bond for $35,000.00 and one year. I had no problem doing this, as I had no intention of leaving within one year. I'm now coming up to the end of my third year with this company (Under a new CEO) and have never been happier. No re-current costs!

Paying for re-current training is something I am familiar with also. My previous employer required a commitment of 6 months, in return for a 1 year re-current. I thought this was fair enough, even though not strictly enforcable. You must expect to give something in return for receiving re-current training. Signing a bond for the whole year though is effectively a prison sentence. Don't sign up unless you are comfortable with the terms.

We all know people who will do anything to get "THE JOB" and then spend the rest of their careers bleating on about their cr#p terms and conditions having driven them down/accepted them in the first place.

Just trying to put a balanced view on the table, and no i'm not in management, just a line pilot...;)

[what next]

You must expect to give something in return for receiving re-current training.I do. Every working day: Safe and efficient operation of my employers aircraft. If this is not enough, I am not the man for this job.

[LPM]

Pace:
Back to the original poster who had a better position on offer but declined due to the bonding on a recurrent.... This has now been stated that such a bonding on a recurrent is Illegal so his best bet would be to sign up on those conditions... End of story solution in hand

Whilst this is wonderful in theory, in practice I am very unsure of how it would pan out.

My point of listing that the position was NOT in either North America or Europe means that (for me at least) I would be out of my comfort zone, legally speaking.

Moving the family thousands of miles back from South America / Middle East / Far East [delete as appropriate] is stressful enough, without factoring in a possible legal battle... not to mention starting a new job as well.

Also, the contract in question stated that in the event the pilot owed the company money, this would be taken out of any wages owed.... I decided that this meant my last three pay packets (during my notice period) might be a little light.

I genuinely feel that decent companies have no reason at all to worry about pilots leaving.... And it is precisely this mentality that set alarm bells ringing for me.

[Kelly Hopper]

A sad reflection of the times we are living in I am afraid.
I was offered a position in India last year where not only did they require an ongoing 12 month bond for recurrent but NO SALARY for 3 months of the year to pay for it too!!!!
Add to that a below industry fee and no hotel it all became too much for me and despite needing a job I said no. They never came back so presumably someone accepted it all? :{

[victormus]

It’s legal!!
According to the lawyers at BALPA it’s legal as long you sign the contract.
There word is that anything in a contract is legal if you sign it and they can take you to court.:ugh:
I had the same problem and that was the answer I got.
I did not sign the contract:)
It’s a pain but reality

[victormus]

True
Illegal contents in a contract such as breaking the law or rules according to JAR OPS are another story.
However we all know how companies sometimes “misunderstand” rules and regulations so there could be a problem in that scenario.
Other information from BALPA is that even though the company is NOT an EU state in this case Africa they can then take you to court in the EU as long they have a daughter company in the EU.
However that goes both ways so you will be able to take them to court in the EU via the daughter company.
Just something to think about:)

[galaxy flyer]

Bloody silly! If am employer has to indenture it's employees, it isn't worth working for. Virtually unheard of in the US.

My operation is hiring three pilots into Challenger/Global class planes, TR not required, we hire the individual that has the character, background to do the job, then give them the rating. There is a one-year bond for the initial training, that's it.

GF

[jackx123]

A bond is illegal in most western countries should you elect to walk away.

However, in the middle east it is regarded as a loan and is fully legal and you can/will be taken to court for it and sentenced to repay under shariah law. I cannot speak for the rest of the world.

On the other brighter side the court decision will not be enforceable in Europe so as long as you don't return to the middle east you're ok.

[potatowings]

It’s legal!!
According to the lawyers at BALPA it’s legal as long you sign the contract.
There word is that anything in a contract is legal if you sign it and they can take you to court.
I had the same problem and that was the answer I got.
I did not sign the contract
It’s a pain but reality

This is certainly not true under UK contract law, which BALPA advises on. You cannot be held to contract if the terms of the contract have no legitimate place in law in the first place! This is true whether you sign the contract or not.

[jackx123]

potato. you're right.

this was my case about 15 years ago when the company policy (US sub in europe) depicted just that based on american law. however, the european management had sought legal advice and was fully aware that the bond was not enforceable in europe. so everyone went ahead and signed without any problems later. the company was good so very few walked away from the bond.

[victormus]

Well
All I can say that’s the information I got was from the Legal Department in BALPA.
However as mentioned in previous post if there are a direct illegal terms in the contract I would agree one would have a good case in court but I don’t know that since that was not the issue in my case!
This was about bonding and the fact is it’s legal.
In my case it was a bonding that was 2 years and it was for recurrent training since I was already type rated.
The funny thing in the contract was every 6 month you did your recurrent training you where bonded again until next SIM and I thought this could NOT be legal.
So if you resigned between two recurrent courses then you would have to pay the full bonding fee of 7000 $. Only way out was to resign 2 month before the next recurrent and then leave.
According to BALPA this was NOT illegal so they could take you to court.
Quite clever from the company since it would give you 6 month resignation unless you would like to pay the bonding:ugh:
As I said this are information from I suspect well educated people in the Legal Department of BALPA.
I can only pass on the information since I am not into law and rules in the EU and I have to take advice from educated Lawyers.
I suggest one should do the same you might be surprised in a bad way
Happy Landings

[Rusty Trombone]

Recurrent Training bond in contracts can be attempted to be enforced in a court of law.

However with this in mind under european law in which you are residing in a member country european law has to be taken in to consideration.
without reviewing the contract its difficult to make a decision on this web site.

Enforcement of Recurrent training is mandated by the authorities and insurance company and any refresher trainer which is at the expense of the employer for the employee to carry out his or her duties as a flight crew member.
In european decree any recurrent training performed to carry out duties which are currently being carried out by the employee is classed as a Employer expense.

This may be challenged etc by the employers legal team but I am afraid its a very thin line they will try to enforce.

Hope this helps.

[clivewatson]

Two days ago I spoke to a Global owner who's crew will retire later this year.

He is looking for two guys right now to replace them, but he is afraid that any bonding clause will not stand up in court, and he certainly isn't gonna take the chance on a $30K + rating.

In view of this, rather than give new guys a chance, he is forced to look only for crew already rated.

But here's the catch......he pays them back (over four years) for the rating they already have, by way of a bonus!

[Rook]

A friend of mine had to sign a bond for his G550 even though he already had a rating. This was called a "re-currency bond" in the contract. When he looked at leaving he told the next company he couldn't leave unless they bought him out of this bond. There was about 14,000USD left and they chose to do this.
I am not keen on the idea but as long as companies make you sign a recurrent bond then they should be prepared to buy out the remainder of your currency. Otherwise that company is just trying to have their cake and eat it too. Just my 2 cents.

[clivewatson]

Slight thread drift, but related to training costs;

What happened to the company that was "pooling" potential course candidates, negotiating bulk discounts with training providers, and then sharing the savings?

I need two GLEX courses....or two qualified crew. Anyone else looking for a GLEX rating, please PM me to see if we can get a bulk deal.

[theficklefinger]

This thread lives in the world of low time pilots, being so inexperienced that they will bend over for a little flight time...

In the real world when you have a good paying jet job, your current, your making money, you have a nice house, you don't need to move...and some guy wants you to work for him....do you think he's gonna hit you up with training bonds and such?

This is all about certain employers who chum for a particular type of pilot...this is low rent stuff, bottom of barrel, charter ops, or 91 operators that tend to hire the cheapest they can find then hold them to contract knowing the job sucks and the guy will walk as soon as he sees what's going on.

[south coast]

Went for an interview recently and the company said they will bond re-currents for the first 3 years, by way of a decreasing pro rata figure, and then no more recurrent bonds.

I think that is fair?

[theficklefinger]

Then watch at that company as the pilot pool becomes more and more lower time and less experienced by the year..

They think that by holding guys to a contract they are solving retention issues...when in fact there are quite a few ways out of a training bond and most have figured out how to do it.

Training bonds don't keep people around, they still jump when the right job comes up.

It's a little bit like the military..people leave early, may not be as easy as quitting but there's always a way out.