Training Bonds - I need info for an article please.

[Flying Journalist]

Hi All,
I'm new to this forum so I'm sorry if a thread like this exists already.

I'm a journo and I'm researching a piece on the ethical standards of airline Ts&Cs of employment etc.
I have questions regarding the bond situation on, specifically, line training and cabin crew training. (Not TR)

Firstly, which of the airlines require a bond for line/crew training? Is it standard throughout the industry or is it merely a few operators?

How much is the bond for and over what period (specifics including year of contract please)?

If a contract is terminated by the operator within the bond period is the remainder still repayable?

If the training is terminated is the bond repayable? How much?

What do pilots/crew think about such schemes? Are contracts weighted fairly in your opinion?

I would be grateful for copies of such contracts and agreements - but please remove personal identifiers. I realise that some of these are considered confidential, of course, and appropriate discretion will be used. PM me if you are willing to supply.

Finally, can anyone PM me if you have had bad experiences. If my article has legs and runs I will need details and your id for fact verification but your identity will be protected should you wish to remain anonymous. I already have some accounts but need more to determine if the issues raised are widespread enough to be in the interest of the public (and to prevent ID's being compromised by deduction).

I won't be replying on the forum as it is not my place to express an opinion - this is preliminary research and a fact finding effort. Finally, all opinions here will be taken into consideration to give an objective view so keep it professional please.

Many thanks in advance to anyone who contributes useful info.

[No Country Members]

Aviation is a small world, whilst people may well be happy to give you details of contracts, I suspect there will be a reluctance to reveal any identity for fear of persecution. You don't say who you are yourself, just that you are a journalist. Where is any such article likely to be published?

[MrKipling]

Ahhhh bonds, I remember them. They were in the good old days of aviation. Thing is you are a few years out of date.

People don't get bonded much theses days, they end up paying for their training instead. Even for line training.

[captjns]

Also the plight of experienced pilots who can no longer find work because of the 200 hour cadets willing to prostitute themselves for less pay than they'd receive at their local McDonalds.

Let's not forget the DEC's working for free at Ethiopian until they've completed their line training:*:mad:.

[Wodka]

Couple of years ago I got chatting to a journo for one of the red tops down the pub... got onto the subject of P2F and he was initially interested in learning more... gave me his business card etc and I followed up with a long email outlining the practice - who to contact for quotes, blah blah.

Outcome... he thought as it was not illegal, there wasn't a story to be had! I suggested he'd missed the point but it never went any further sadly :ugh:

I fear it will take a smoking hole to finally get this to the public's wider attention... but will they care? as long as the £10.99 flights to Malaga keep flowing, I doubt it :rolleyes:

[Flying Journalist]

Thanks for the PMs and comments so far. Some fascinating reading. Keep it coming, the more info, the better.

[Firestorm]

Airlines don't bond pilots anymore, they use pilots as a revenue stream. Next time you are on an aeroplane it is likely that the pilot will have paid more than you to be on the flight. Interns in most professions don't get paid to gain experience: in airlines FOs pay the airline to be 'interns'.

Your article is about 20 years too late, Buddy.

[lederhosen]

I suggested on another thread that insurance companies could play a helpful role. If they make it more expensive (by increasing premiums) to use pay to fly pilots then to recruit, train and retain skilled employees then that will at a stroke improve what we all seem to agree is a downward spiral. My suggestion was met with deathly silence. Maybe it is unrealistic. But if you hit the beancounters where it hurts in my experience you will get their attention.

[Natstrackalpha]

Hi you want a story.

Then write this.

UK Civil Aviation Authority brought to a standstill due to highly ineffecient paperwork forced onto the aviation industry under the new European Aviation agency EASA.
Professional and Private Pilots are having to wait for months for their licences to be issued, Normal turnaround time was ten days to two weeks. Now it is totally out of control as EASA legislation demands excessive form filling and copius amounts of application forms which are not only unnecessary but are disabling the administration system of pilots in the UK.
Pilots have to pay up to £100,000 for their training but cannot start work to pay back the money until their licences have been issued to them. Also, the pilots licence paper was sub divided whereby one cut a whole page of A4 and placed the individual pages into the page pockets on the licence. Unfortunately, EASA say that this is illegal and is promptly fining thousands of pilots for slipping into the trap of thinking logically and they now have to stuff an A4 size sheet of paper into an A5 pocket thus tearing the wallet of the licence anyway.

Coupled with (I hope you are writing this Mr reporter!!!) Coupled with the above insanity, British born English speaking people who have lived in the UK for their entire lives, have English Mothertongue, went to English speaking schools, in England, have to prove that they, speak English!
In order to do this. They have to attend an English course, and have a form telling them they can in fact speak English and have the form signed by a teacher and then trapse all the way across the country to have it countersignesd by the head of training who has to make a statement exactly as written in the instructions, so that the English speaking people in Gatwick can believe that the applicant although born in England, went to an English School, having spoken all their lives, English, can in fact speak English, after having undertaken an Airline Pilot Training course, in English!! Well, one can`t be too careful can one?

Each of the copies of the pilot application paperwork has to be filled in at the completion of the course. There are about 7 or 9 papers. All saying the same thing...........? Why is this?

In the past the UK CAA had one form for one type of licence. One form for another type of licence. So pilots filled in whichever single form was required in order to apply for their licence. Now they have 9 forms for no reason.

If ever there was a reason, an excuse for the UK pulling out of the common market - then this is it, yes, this one seriously takes the biscuit.

After shedding approx £100,000 on their training UK pilots are penalised by excessive delays having their licences issued to them, or not, as is the case.

The cabinet want to know what is happening. The CAA don`t know what is happening., EASA are causing it to happen and the pilots of the UK and indeed Europe, as the damage is not just at home, all European pilots are on the verge of a pilots strike. The British Airline Pilots Association, have yet to comment.

This is an intrusive invasion of a perfectly working system which has been sabotaged - directly - by Europe and the UK CAA have little or no say in the matter and are battling to keep their heads above water as the entire UK pilots licensing system has effectively ground to an ignominious halt.

In light of the coming holiday season it is envisaged that this will cause excessive delays as airlines will not be ablr to fly their routes due to the lack of pilots who are waiting for their licences to be issued. EASA have said that no one can fly until they have recived their licences.
Pilots phoning the UK CAA are unable to get through on the phonelines as there is simply no answer. Emails sent to the CAA are not replied to as the UK CAA are drowning in the workload. There was a suggestion that this may have been a deliberate attack on the UK aviation system by European members of EASA in order to disable UK aviation to enable European airline companies to take over UK routes and passengers and revenue.

Thereby, simply putting UK aviation out of business. A sort of ecomonic cold war. Whether we agree that this is indeed the case or disagree - the fact is, this is exactly what has happened.

[Flying Journalist]

I am receiving some good information - thank you to those of you who have given me an insight to what's going on in some airlines in particular.

Keep it coming. I appreciate your time.

[PH-Chucky]

I started my flight training at a well known flight school in the Netherlands where a major Dutch airline is normally getting it's pilots from. However, students still have to pay the complete initial (integrated) flight training themselves. Costs are almost 120.000 euro....

Then normally this Dutch airline would hire you if they are in need for pilots. They don't bond, and they pay the typerating and linetraing with a fairly good salary. So no problems if starting for that airline to repay any debts.

However, due to crisis, these cadets are sitting at home working their ass of trying to get a job somewhere else.. But then they find out that the rest of the airlines are asking to pay 2 fly (P2F) with costs in excess of 50.000 euro. That makes their debts going to 170.000 euro. And mostly their salaries are so bad, that they can only afford to pay their interest....

I was somehow lucky to start working for a major German airline. They didn't require me to pay for training or pay to fly, instead they paid everything for me. Their bonding was 55.000 euro for a period of 2 years. And now I enjoy a fairly good salary to repay my debts in a period of 5/7 years...

So if i did quit my job, I am supposed to pay back the remaining of this bond. So if I quit my job after one year, I stil have to pay back 12/24 amount of this initial 55.000 euro that the airline has invested in me.

I must say that my airline really invested 55.000 in me. Their typerating on an Airbus takes almost 100 hours of simtraining and a very large linetraining to get wel trained FO's in their aircraft. Some companies ask their pilots to pay 50.000 euro for type- and linetraining, but mostly make money out of it since they only give a minimal training with minimum hours in sim.... (I think minimum hours for an airbus typeratingprogramme in simulator is about 30 hours or so).

But my own story finding a job and not paying for TR and linetraining is not very common any more in modern world. Most guys that I know did had to pay for their own typerating and linetraining. Some stories here on PPrune.org even suggest that Lionair pilots have to pay 50.000 dollar for their flight training and still getting bonded for a period for 5 years.....

And to make sure you get your story right; its now normally to pay for the initial flight training starting from 0 hours. That training normally takes 2 years whereby the cadet has to pass 14 different subjects in theoretical knowledge, and fly about 200 hours to get their CPL(A), Instrument Rating, and ATPL (A) theory (called "frozen" ATPL(A). This training varies in cost between 50.000 euro (modular) up to 120.000 euro (integrated). Also different cost per country due to differences in tax.

Then after this initial flight training, the airlines take their turn in asking money for typerating and linetraining.

I tell you this because if your article is only about us paying 50.000 euro for typerating and linetraining, then please tell your public that these amounts are being invested after already having invested almost 100.000 euro for the initial triaing.

[Firestorm]

lederhosen: the premiums won't go up until there are accidents and loss of life that can be directly attributed to P2F co-pilots. I agree that the risk must be greater with P2F pilots, but I expect that the airlines either haven't told the insurers, or have made a good job of saying that there is no extra real risk.

[RedBullGaveMeWings]

Ehmmm... let's make it clearer then. Some airlines don't even test pay-to-fly pilots properly. The only requirement requested is in a bank account...
Ryanair is not one of these though.

[lederhosen]

Firestorm you are of course right, which is why it will be interesting to see if the indian co-pilot in the Lionair crash originally came through the P2F route. Apparently he had a couple of thousand hours which would be two and a bit years there.

Not telling your insurer everything is of course a risky course of action as many claimants have found out in the past. I actually know someone responsible for the aviation line of business with one of the big reinsurers and will sound him out next time we meet.

[vianostra]

"... the premiums won't go up until there are accidents and loss of life that can be directly attributed to P2F co-pilots. I agree that the risk must be greater with P2F pilots ..."


What is the "risk"? Oh do pray tell!


Just a little bit of honesty would be appreciated in the P2F discussion especially by those, basically almost all pilots, who have literally paid to fly. P2F is something exercised by most, if not all pilots, at some stage during their life in aviation, be it one cent, 50,000 or 100,000 plus dollars. That first dual hour in the first log book was for most us our first step on the P2F bandwagon, with many different routes, options, choices or end points along the way. The fact is that some drivers make an essentially economic decision (yes, with or without a thorough risk assessment) to outlay an additional and incremental payment to progress, advance or continue with their training and flying. In the end, there is no free lunch in life, no-one owes you anything or a job.

For the time being no recruitment ban on P2F pilots led by operators or pilot unions, exists or has been even mooted. No NAA regulator ban or license suspension or revocation of P2F pilots exist because the issue is simply one of proficiency, standards and checks. Why? If the P2F pilot or former P2F pilot passes the checks, meets and maintains the required standards and proficiency then where is the safety issue? My present operator happily and fortunately employs pilots from almost all sources and routes (including former so called P2F pilots) the current exception being the MPL route or former MPL pilot.

Again the issue is not P2F, but rather it is how any airline or AOC holder maintains acceptable levels of safety. The business model simply must be able to sustain safe operations. The fact that the model may include a P2F element is totally irrelevant. If the P2F FO or P2F Capt meet on entry, and continue to operate to, the required standards, then P2F will have no bearing on the safety performance of the airline. The P2F pilots I fly with must be a different bunch as they do not seem to be exhibiting and presenting risky behaviour any more or less than equivalent pilots from other routes.

Similar arguments were trotted out when the low costs and low cost hybrids went into operation only a few years ago ... essentially critical of the pilots and standards and forecasting doom and gloom in terms of safety and accidents and incidents. Has it eventuated?


Or, is your argument that P2F is only acceptable where the operator is governed by EASA, FAA, or other Western and Developed State NAAs?

[lederhosen]

There is a spectrum from those who have been lucky enough never to have paid a cent of real money, for example trained by a national carrier and repaying their training costs out of an excellent salary to at the other extreme people who have spent upwards of 100,000 euros in getting a licence and then pay another 50,000 to get a type rating with a few hundred hours on type.

If you think this is not safety relevant then we will have to agree to disagree. You are limiting your pool of trainees to those that can afford to pay. Airlines that use this business model (as you call it) have an incentive to churn their pilots so they can earn from the next trainees. So in the worst case they have a continuous turnover of inexperienced, unpaid temporary co-pilots. I see a very real increase in risk.

A decade ago there was outrage at the concept of bonding. But things have moved considerably further down the slippery slope. I think there are going to be accidents in Europe very similar to Colgan and I think the concept of corporate manslaughter will certainly be an issue for the managers responsible.

[What Now]

At least the H&S Act 1974 does eventually get results.

BBC News - Firms charged over River Clyde Flying Phantom tug deaths (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-22250008)

It would be a shame to sit here in five years time with a similar story in an aviation context but that is where we are heading. If a 3000 hour pilot for Air france can't recognise and recover from a stall then what chance has a guy who has 200 hours and pocket full of cash to pay for a type rating?

Bracing for incoming.

[parabellum]

The underwriter's/insurers approach will be that, if the airline is a properly regulated carrier, operating to the satisfaction of a recognised regulating authority, CAA/FAA/JADA etc. then that will be good enough for them and no pilot warranty** will be invoked. Insurance is an industry, not a profession.


** Insurers may call for a pilot warranty with single aircraft operations, new operations with no track record, (light to medium aircraft) and will specify minimum hours required, possibly including hours on type etc. When an operator has demonstrated a satisfactory safety record warranties may be removed but more likely the rate will be reduced. From the insurance point of view it hinges entirely around the confidence the underwriters have in the operation.

A bond, in the flying sense, is usually an agreement to give a specified period as return of service after receiving a training course, the bond has a monetary value but provided the return of service period is completed then no money changes hands.

P2F is simply a commercial contract to receive/provide training where money definitely does change hands. I suspect the word 'bond' has been hijacked by the providers to make the whole squalid arrangement sound more acceptable.

BOND:
1.A binding agreement; a covenant.
2.A duty, promise, or other obligation by which one is bound.

[733driver]

Two questions if i may:

Does anyone know how UK law treats a bond for existing employees (already rated on one company aircraft type, for which the pilot was bonded when he joided) when he fleet-changes to another type:

a) on his request

and

b) on the company's request.

Somehow I can't imagine that another bond would be legal in case b) but that's what's happening at an operator I know (but won't name).

Also, how common is it for companies to bond pilots who change fleets whislt employed by them, even if the fleet change is due to pilot preference?

[lederhosen]

Parabellum do you have any evidence for your assertion that this will not affect the insurer's approach. My understanding was that this is much more a bespoke market with negotiation involved. I would suggest that big companies based in Ireland and with a known track record get a different rate from people who keep damaging aircraft in the tropics.

Sources tell me that this has been a pretty good time with few big claims and that premiums are under pressure. So any ideas to get rates moving up are welcome. The really big claims are apparently not for aircraft loss but killing lots of litigious westerners. I think if the beancounters work out that P2F saves them less than the cost of the additional insurance then they will stop doing it.

I am in agreement that this is not the case yet. But I think it would be incredibly helpful if the insurers looked into this. I hope the unions will not just lobby the authorities as they are starting to do, but also the insurance companies.

[shaun ryder]

If you're a journalist your piece would be better off highlighting to the general public the pay to fly issue and the degradation of experience and T's & C's which is making the sky an undeniably less safe place to be. Also the plight of experienced pilots who can no longer find work because of the 200 hour cadets willing to prostitute themselves for less pay than they'd receive at their local McDonalds.

I agree with most of what's written here however I do not think the skies are any less safe because of the degradation of experience. Tell me Rex old son, were you not once a 200 hour hero straight out of Oxford? Pay to fly/Oxford hot shot, what's the difference?

[parabellum]

Parabellum do you have any evidence for your assertion that this will not
affect the insurer's approach.


During a period of aviation recession I spent nearly three years working in the London market, dole wasn't an option. Regularly crashing and killing people will certainly get an airline a higher rate but that is a bit different to using lesser experienced junior crew. The aviation market is currently oversubscribed and competition for the business is stiff, insurers aren't going to start arbitrarily introducing limitations if it will affect their share of the business, as I said, if the airline is subject to recognised and proper regulation and the regulators allow the use of P2F, that will be accepted by underwriters until such time as they have justification to change or introduce additional premiums.

Both Lloyds and the companies market have their own, separate, survey departments who will have looked into and will continue to monitor the P2F situation, if it is the considered opinion that using P2F justifies an additional premium then it would be applied across the board and not individually by some lead underwriters but not others.

[Journey Man]

agree with most of what's written here however I do not think the skies are any less safe because of the degradation of experience. Tell me Rex old son, were you not once a 200 hour hero straight out of Oxford? Pay to fly/Oxford hot shot, what's the difference?

Referencing the recent CHIRP I received where a training captain expressed concerns about the cumulative fatigue effect of constantly training due to the higher workload on the Captain of an inexperienced First Officer. Some bases, it stated, were purely training and the regulator's response was that it issued recommendations to operators to balance experience levels. Clearly, if there is a high volume of low houred guys then the fatigue levels of training captains will increase significantly.

Furthermore, the low-hour First Officer is operating under extreme financial stress, which is a symptom of the industry at the moment. So, whilst everyone was a 200 hour pilot at some point some were cadets and financially protected from the massive financial risk or gaining hours on MEP and MET aircraft. That's a significant difference the "we all had 200 hours at some point" fails to address.

[shaun ryder]

There are Captains working under financial and personal stress. Whilst I don't agree with PTF, the integrated to right seat mentality is not far removed from PTF. We have all flown with them. That's not a sweeping statement as there are some very talented guys out there. PTF whatever.

[angelorange]

Of course many civilian pilots pay for training - that's the same for every industry but by P2F we mean paying to do someone else's job - and paying to sit in the RHS (and even LHS "upgrades") - paying to fly passengers so the airline doesn't have to pay professionals.

Standards vary hugely amongst P2F and if you are a customer then standards are certainly lower mainly through the entitlement culture and idiom of "the customer is always right".

P2F has already killed passengers :

The Colgan 3407 Captain who pitched the Q400 TP airliner beyond the stall into an incipient spin was P2F with Gulfstream in the US flying passengers in a B1900 before joining Colgan - he failed IR and SIM rides but was passed through the system:

www.operationorange.org/colganQ&A.pdf

The victims families reacted by forcing Congress down the 1500h minimum flying experience route before flying airliners.

This is already the case in Australia for B737/A320 sized aircraft but in the EU we have lower and lower experience and so lower and lower Ts&Cs for pilots.

When a doctor qualifies do they have to pay for training on the surgical instruments they use in operating theatres. Do they rent those theatres (without financial gain) to practice on the public? Does a Tube driver pay for the specific type of Tube he drives? Does he pay to drive those carriages for the first 6 months and then get told to move on into unemployment so another driver who wants to pay for 6 months can take over?

When a punter pays a just a few £GBP (pre tax) for a LoCo flight do they realize the Pilot occupying the front RH seat may be subsidising the flight by paying to work?

P2F is not an apprenticeship scheme, these are fully CAA qualified Commercial Pilots who have passed the Authority approved flight tests and ground exams which has already cost them between £75000 and £120,000.

How has this come about?

Because the system changed from UK National to JAR (European now EASA) rules, these new commercial pilots have around 250 flying hours on relatively light aircraft. Under the National system in the 1990s, they would have required at least 700h.

If you weren't ex Military or a fully sponsored British Airways cadet, in the past the route was to become a flying instructor. "Those that teach can" but the pay has not risen much since the 1980s (a weather dependant £10 a flying hour) unless you are highly experienced and work under contract for the military or large commercial flight school. Alternatively, you could work in General Aviation (Medivac, Banner towing, glider or parachute schools, Business aviation flying turbo props/jets, Freight, aerial photography etc, etc). This apprenticeship scheme gave commercial pilots well developed flight skills and huge experience of poor weather operations, logistics, and airmanship. The pay was not always good and some work was part time but the flying was fun and the pilots learnt a lot.

When the CAA rules changed to allow much lower flying hours to gain a commercial licence, the LoCo airlines in unison with less than scrupulous schools (in the USA the slang is "Pilot Mills") took advantage of a new market. This deteriorated into the money making racket we have seen over the past 5 or so years. They know these new pilots without much experience find it hard to find jobs or simply want to get the best paid employment asap to start paying back huge loans. So they sell the "shiny jet syndrome". This involves selling not just the "approved" commercial pilot course but they tell the new pilot he/she needs a Jet Type Rating ( previously a business expense of an airline that the employer bonded the pilot to 1 to 3 years service with no repayment if they stay working that long).

A Type Rating costs around £18,000 to 25,000 for a B737 or small Airbus. It is mostly Simulator time and lots of ground school. The tests are multiple choice except the "flight test" which is conducted by a CAA approved examiner (TRE). To have it issued on the pilot's licence also requires 6 landings in the real aeroplane which can add a further £5 to 8k. Some schemes led to a genuine job with the likes of easyJet - until 2008.

The Ryanair scheme never guaranteed employment. They even charge for interview! It runs to this day and those that pay ( see: https://pilot.cae.com/Programs/Ryanair.aspx - around 30,000 Euros) are placed in a holding pool on contractor pilots who often have to set up their own businesses to become self employed (except the Inland Revenue says to be self employed you need more than one client - not just Ryanair!).

However, the Pilot Mills now tell airline pilot wanabes that Type Rating on own is no longer enough to get a job in the post 2008 market. They may have as little as 200 hours total flying experience but are already in £120,000 debt.

The Pilot Mills and some airlines now say these pilots need time on type in real operations. This is called Line Training and should take about 40 sectors ( a sector is one trip eg: Luton to Amsterdam). However, the LoCos/schools sell 100h to 500h blocks of time on type for up to another £30,000. So the pilot on your next holiday flight may only have 300 hours with just a few on the Airbus when the Captain collapses from a heart attack mid flight (eg: Qatar: Pilot dies mid-air of heart attack - Oneindia News (http://news.oneindia.in/2010/10/14/qatar-pilot-dies-in-mid-air-for-heart-attack.html) )

The worst examples are the schools that send P2F cadets to FAA and EU blacklisted airlines such as Lion Air:

Eagle Jet - Airline Pilot Central Forums (http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/foreign/64177-eagle-jet.html)

Eagle Jet International, Inc. (http://www.eaglejet.net/HeavyJetPrograms.asp)

http://www.pprune.org/terms-endearment/410089-p2f-cancer-aviation-merged-petitions.html

A whilse ago I met with 5 unemployed A320 Type Rated pilots. One young chap had been promised easyjet employment - he had been through the approved pilot mill and come near top of his class. After Type Rating he did Line Training and was failed by the company for a lack of confidence (he had around 100 hours on type and under 400h total flying). he is now unemployed with huge debts to repay and insufficient experience to get a real airline job (need min of 500h on type these days even abroad). Another slightly older pilot had flown 100h with easyjet and wanted to do some more but they refused after that last flight. he remains unemployed looking for a flying position.

Often a P2F airline will eject the P2F cadet after the term and get another one. This process means they never have to hire another First Officer (FO) again. In the meantime, the employed FOs are on the ground on standby, unable to gain flying experience needed towards a command/captaincy.


How do these Pilot mills operate? They use LoCo airline Captains who wish to top up pensions or just gain Instructor ratings. Apparently, Stellios approached one such school at airline startup and was quoted a huge figure to pay for training new pilots. He was told it was less than an accident!

Thankfully we have not seen any major accidents in the UK as yet but there have been many incidents, including tail scraped landings and very high cockpit workloads for the Captains who have to fly with low houred cadets or P2F pilots. See: http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/Airbus%20A320,%20G-DHJZ%2012-08.pdf

[mikehammer]

Flying Journalist, I dare you to print, word for word, together with the references provided, what Angelorange said above. Go on, I dare you, it is, after all the truth.

[RAT 5]

Where's the regulator? Indeed where are all of them? It is they who are supposed to police standards of the industry, not just rake in the money for LST's, licence issues, sim audits, airline audits, etc.etc. I wonder how an XAA head would stand up on a really well researched 'Hardtalk'. There in lies another hiccup...well researched. I've seen a few of those programs with an airline CEO in the supposed hot-seat. The questions were trivial and not the root core of the problems. The CEO could run rings around the interviewer. The real crux of the matter never was debated.

[MaxReheat]

Flying Journalist

I don't think there was any P2F element, but just have a look at the experience level on the flightdeck of the Metroliner that crashed in Cork. That will lead you into your next project: ticket agents pretending to be airlines.:eek:

[slowjet]

Parabellum, re your post =19= " no money changes hands". Is that quite so ? Forgive me if I am getting terms mixed up, but as a candidate for SIA DEC long time ago, I was required to put up front a cash deposit known as a Training Deposit. It was a lot of money. The cash would be placed in a Singapore Bank Account & returned, with interest, on completion of the five year "bond" period. Quite a good deal , actually, if you had the money in the first place. UNfortunately, exchange rates not favouring the GBP at the time, the amount required was increasing. By the time I would have worked my notice with my existing employer, by joining date for SIA, the "Training Deposit" would have exceeded my ability to pay. So, cash really did change hands !

Moreover, the company applied a rigorous bond on top of the aforementioned. Leave or "jump-ship" within the five year period would mean losing the deposit and then being pursued for a contract break. The latter was for a huge amount of money or jail time.I believe that a couple of cases were successefully pursued in the States by SIA and the pilots were ruined or did time in the Pen. Can't remember.

I bear no criticism for SIA and training bonds in one form or another are commonplace. Actually, it is the rather unprofessional actions of a number of pilots who accepted sponsored pilot training or type conversions in exchange for "bonded" service and then reneged that caused an increase in the bonded activity.

[Gordomac]

Flying Journalist, hope this is useful stuff and we are remaining close to thread. I agree with Slowjet, I too was unable to fund the initial training deposit for SIA which cost me my dream job. Fabbo company, great people & marvelous place to live. Bonds work two ways sometimes. In my last job, I was moved from 767 to A340 & bonded for two years. Quite happy but I did poke fun at the company for issuing a ONE year contract (part of the Age Over 60 problem ) but bonding for TWO. Instead of beating me round the ears, my CP gave me dates, coffee & told me to calm down, explaining that the deal worked in my favour (thanks Nasser). If the Company failed to renew my contract, I would be free to leave with a valuable rating & no bond to pay off. If I left within the one year contract, that would be a contract break plus bond break & I could look forward to many sleepless nights. At which point, he winked and asked " More Coffee ?" !

[lederhosen]

There are two sides to every story. I suspect a number of non pilots reading this, if offered a free MBA on the basis that they stay with their sponsoring employer for a minimum period of time after completing the course, would not feel unduly exploited. It depends on the fairness of the terms. At the end of the day bonds (if they even exist) at good employers are largely irrelevant. At dodgy employers they go hand in hand with confiscating passports, pay to fly cadets etc. So I would argue it is not bonding per se but rogue airlines that are the problem.

[Flying Clog]

Bonds are fine, 'Pay to Fly' isn't. Simple.

The industry is hitting rock bottom and still finding new depths...

Lynch the bean counters (and the profiteering CEOs)! They don't give a monkey's as all they care about is:

-the bottom line (short term)
-their share of the (short term) profit
-where their next job will be on the way up the snake's ladder...

...Leaving all of us who are committed to our carriers as a career to deal with the :mad: when it rears it's ugly head a few years down the road.

And we are the ONLY ones that suffer. Along with the pax when the smoking hole occurs...

[Fly1000]

There are a few airlines out there that still bond pilots and pay for type ratings. CityJet is one - although, probably more because no pilot would pay for an RJ rating than for any other reason.

[parabellum]

Slowjet - Yes, I too was a B744 DEC with SIA and had to put up S$60,000.00 as a bank guarantee on which I paid about one percent, (the DBS charged 3%!), I didn't count this as 'money changing hands' as it didn't go to the employer and within the scheme of things was very small beer. In my case the money was held in a London branch and the guarantee issued by their Singapore office, most of the guarantee was a charge against my UK house and not cash.

My point was that, provided you complete the agreed period of return of service then no money changes hands and that is the case. P2F is a different story all together.

[Dan Winterland]

Pay to fly schemes do increase the threat level. A good example is the A320 accident in Kos. If you don't believe that, read the report.
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/Airbus%20A320,%20G-DHJZ%2012-08.pdf If that pilot hadn't have been paying for his own rating, then he wouldn't have been in that seat. The airline exposed the passengers to increased risk to make money from pilot training.

Airlines who sell the pilot's seat are putting passengers at risk. They justify it through their training requirements but are training way in excess of those requirements because the pay to fly schemes are very profitable.

[parabellum]

Slightly off track but had the FO mentioned in the Kos incident been in the military, (and I suspect a no pay airline cadetship), then long before he got the chance to do damage to anything bigger than a training aircraft he would have been chopped.

Quite how you introduce quality control to a money driven training system, as it has now become, I'm not sure.

[slowjet]

Thanks Parabellum. Guarantee schemes, Training Bonds and contract breaks all linked but seperate. Journo has probably decided not to proceed with his article ! Oh & S$60,000 being small beer; I am coming over to your place & the beers are on you ! I agree that in the wider scheme of things, a lot of these schemes are, in fact, quite good. However, where pilots are asked to pay, up front, in the first place, as with the guarantee scheme, a stumbling block occurs. Some really deserving pilots (not suggeting I am one) are left out in the cold because they are unable or unwilling to put hot money on the desk, even if it is, later, to be returned.

Cripes, just seen where you live. Not coming over. Can't afford it !

[RAT 5]

Another aspect of not having a proper salary based employment with a long-term contract of employment: many cadet pilots these days can be on a contract that pays only when you fly. You are in deep debt and need to repay the loan. Thus you'll be tempted to fly when you are not fit. You can't afford to lose any income. A real safety issue, and with lower and lower experience in LHS even more so.

[parabellum]

The S$60,000 is definitely not small beer slowjet, but the interest payable after discounting the interest earned, if any, definitely is!

[slowjet]

Yes,parabellum, I see that. Still a fearsome amount to raise in the firstplace & would detract many applicants. Not a crtiicism. Still a good deal for those who had the money or could raise it. Glad it worked for you.

[What Now]

Can we have a link to this article when it arrives please?

[vianostra]

“Pay to fly schemes do increase the threat level.”

“You are in deep debt and need to repay the loan. Thus you'll be tempted to fly when you are not fit. You can't afford to lose any income. A real safety issue,…”


So are we trying to argue that any licensed commercial / airline pilot who is

a) not an operator employee
b) without an operator contract
c) bonded
d) in debt
e) P2F, apprentice, work experience, hour building, unpaid intern etc.
f) on a deferred salary scheme
g) other woeful and gruesome arrangement?

are a safety risk or willful and deliberate non-compliers?

I look forward to the toughening up of those rules and regulations that will prohibit ALL of these economic / financial conscript pilots from holding or exercising their commercial licence privileges. So being financially “in hock” is to preclude one from being a commercial pilot? These financial and job insecurity stressors have long existed in the industry; if you can’t stand the heat, then please do us all a favour and get out of the bl##dy cockpit asap and find something else less lethal to crash and burn!

Many of us commenced the risk versus reward assessment well before that first ab initio logged P2F hour on the way to gaining our CPL / ATPL. Having forked out 10, 20, 50 or 100 thousand dollars does not, and nor should it, guarantee a licence, or pilot job or continued employment. A 100, 300, 500 hour on type P2F pilot is no different. As always it comes down to the very boring but essential standards (and supply and demand). If the AOC holder meets and continues to meet the NAA set standard, and if a pilot meets the NAA set standard on licence and type rating issue, on operator selection and entry (and passes the psych tests), and continues to meet the standard then this is what should matter.