Training bonds - enforceable or not?

[jetblast101]

Hi all,

I'm sure most of us at some stage in our career have found ourselves in the clutches of a training bond. Through many discussions with some of my colleagues and friends from other airlines, it seems there are many different ways in which companies word their terms of such bonds. I was wondering if i could get your views on the legality the following:

Bonding for 2 aircraft types at the same time (and whether you have ever challenged this)
Non-reducing bond with time (and if you have tried to leave within the specified time frame)
Whether or not an airline can enforce a bond if they have not stuck to/changed the terms of their contract

I'd love to hear from anyone who has any experience of leaving within the time frame of their bond and whether they were able to get out of paying the cost or otherwise?

Thanks!

[Barcli]

I left my first airline within the 3 year / £15000 bond. They came after me for the remainder of the bond and I asked the for a break down of my training costs. They attempted , with landing fees, GPU, ground handling fees etc etc but would never divulge the hourly cost of the aircraft. My solicitor told them to go away and they did......

[arketip]

And then people wonder why some companies charge in advance.

Seems that some cannot keep to the terms they signed.

[RVF750]

True cost of a type rating with hotel accomodation, three weeks of ground school and 10 4 hour FFS sessions would I think still be be about £10,000 or so. Any more is just profiteering. As to bonds. I joined my last company DEC and type rated and experienced. £4,000 over two years. Covered OCC and 4 Sim sessions. Can't complain at all.

[Kennytheking]

Like any contract, it doesn't matter whether it is enforceable or not........all that matters is who is prepared to spend the most in legal fees.

Generally, repudiating a training bond is bad form and there is a good chance it will bite you in the backside later down the line, no matter how right you are. That said, I see no problem contesting an unreasonable bond as long as you engage through the proper channels and don't just bail.

I might also point out I did get my way with a non-reducing training bond once. There was a bit of legal wrangling for 3 years and we eventually settled out of court for a pro-rata amount which was what I had offered when I left.

I am not a lawyer nor particularly aufait with EU law but you can google liquidated damages. A bond is form of pre-agreed damages(damages = adverse consequences of your ending your contract converted to financial terms). There could also be a penalty clause in order to deter your non-performance but a company would have a hard time using such a clause to deter your leaving. The aim of the contract is to determine reparation for the company when you leave before they have extracted their pound of flesh. In this matter common law may well render any non-reducing penalty as void and would probably impose a pro-rata settlement as that is reasonable. Of course you should consult an attorney as these thing differ from country to country.

[KeepCalm]

Under EU law you can be bond for training costs up to two years and it has to be pro-rata (decrease with time).
If you ask for a leave of absence the bond stalls until you return.

But it's my understanding that if the training is a sinequanon requisite for you to work for the company, the bond is not valid.
For instance I understand you cannot be bond for the OCC, or when you join a flight school for the instructor standardisation.

A type rating is a grey area and I guess it depends on the country, judge, and how good your lawyer is presenting the case.

Having said that, if I was working for an honest corporation and I left because I found something better I would honor the agreement.

[thetimesreader84]

I left a company (it probably wouldn’t take much searching through my post history to figure out which one) in 2012. Let’s call it company A. I paid off my remaining training bond.

When my airline collapsed in 2017, Company A were one of the first to phone me & offer a job. Can’t help but think if I’d left sticking 2 fingers at them and asking them to chase me, they might not have been so keen.

Despite appearances, it’s a small industry at times. Go careful.

[Johnny F@rt Pants]

True cost of a type rating with hotel accomodation, three weeks of ground school and 10 4 hour FFS sessions would I think still be be about £10,000 or so. Any more is just profiteering.

Plus Base Training which is another few grand.

[ZFT]

So 5 weeks hotel assuming UK as you quote GBP would cost around GBP 3K. If an ATO can be accused of profiteering charging GBP7K+ for a TR I would be amazed

[TinFoilhat2]

arketip

Maybe if companies invested in people and accepted training as part and parcel of doing business then this would not happen. Expecting people to be liable for the costs of the very business the company went into to make money off is ridiculous.

The pilot already paid for his training to get a licence, the company must pay for training within their own organisation and if they cant afford it then they should not be in business.

Bonding and asking for pilots to pay for type ratings should be outlawed period!!

[srjumbo747]

Barclay

Good character Barcli. Makes a mockery of those of us who have done the decent thing in the past, paid our bonds and left amicably.

[Nightstop]

Many years ago I walked out of a Miami Airbus A340 course on Day 2 after Virgin Atlantic unilaterally downgraded my course (of 6) from First Officer to Second Officer. I can’t remember if I was bonded or not but, when I said I was taking Virgin Atlantic to Court for breach of contract, they agreed to let me keep the 6,000 US dollar training float and call it quits. Never regretted my decision, it took one of my course mate 7 years to get his Command there as a result the downgrade (lost it though after 9/11).

[NoelEvans]

A tricky subject!

I have worked out several bonds and they have varied significantly in style.

The first one was quite clever: A three-year bank loan in my name was arranged by the airline and paid to the airline to cover the type-rating training costs, with the airline making the monthly repayments, stating from the date of the loan, while I worked for the airline. If I left the airline, the repayments from then on were my responsibility (they did have some protection, maybe their own insurance, that if the airline went bust the loan would be paid off so no more liability for me).

The second one was more thought-out: The bond agreement itemised the costs of all of the training with the date of commencement of the bond being the date that I got the type on my licence; the situation that Barcli mentioned could not happen there as their lawyers had already thought that out. (I needed to have a witness to my signature on the agreement and my non-flying friend who did so found the concept and figure to be eye-watering!).

In both airlines any new type-rating bond would cancel any existing bonds.

Subsequent bonds have been far less thought out and I am convinced that could easily have led to the 'get out' that Barcli mentioned. There are also some rather 'woolly' terms, such as when the bond starts, that could also be contested (neither of my first two bonds left that sort of 'fuzzy' loophole).

But this is a small industry. Think very carefully about the situation that thetimesreader84 mentions. (I have been employed by the same Flight Ops Director in two different airlines about 4 years apart, so you don't want to muddy waters behind you!) But that goes two ways too: I have had an airline manager say to me "We don't know the management at xyz, but we know about the management at xyz"! I knew two pilots who 'jumped' very harsh bonds (huge amounts for a very long time) abroad, they both ended up in jobs in major UK airlines and at their interviews each has 'come clean'and said that they had jumped this bond and in both cases had the answer "yes, we know"!! So it does work both ways.

[Barcli]

srjumbo747

I would have done exactly that if the bond was reasonable - it was £25k for some groundschool, no sim , 45 min base check ( ok - empty) and 4 hrs flying the line ( obv not empty !!) in a 1950's turboprop......

[CargoOne]

Well I guess when you have signed for it you have considered it reasonable, otherwise why did you went for it? And then all of a sudden it become unreasonable. This way of thinking and behaviour is very common and this is exactly the reason why the bonds are there. A typical direct cost of type rating to airline is above 25k (name it $ or EUR) for a narrowbody jet when you really account for all the elements and here I am not counting the expenses of line training and pilot salary during the type rating course if applicable.

[arketip]

Did you not know it was like that when you signed?

[Kennytheking]

arketip

Whilst I take your point that an agreement is an agreement, this is clearly predatory behaviour by the employer. Fortunately common law protects us from ourselves. A training bond represents actual damages suffered by an employer - a punitive/deterrent or profit motive should not form part of such an agreement. Vultures that employ tactics like this deserve to have their contracts taken on review.......I believe most of the employers of this ilk have moved to PTF schemes anyway, so probably a moot point.

My second point, is that there are many reasons for leaving a company, many of them induced by the employer side and there is no reason why they should profit off me for their actions. In my case, it was a command that never materialised. When the company recruits you, they make certain statements that will induce you to enter into a contract with them. In my case, had the company said to me that I would join them as a F/O with no prospect of an upgrade due to internal politics, I would not have entered into the contract. Whilst I will unhappily pay my dues, I will not support them making a profit off my training bond, because of their misrepresentation. Had I gotten my upgrade and willingly chosen to leave for a greener pastures, I would have no issue with paying the full bond. In my case I went back to the job I had previously........

[oggers]

TinFoilhat2

Mate, if you do not have the type rating you have not “already paid for your training”. You need to get real. Reality is there are plenty of pilots ready to take the training and then jump ship when they get a better offer. It is human nature and to be expected which is why it is perfectly reasonable for any company to mitigate the loss by way of a bond. Period.

[2 Whites 2 Reds]

1) Contract Law
2) Small industry
3) Litigation Lawyers are VERY expensive....circa £300 an hour last time I used one.

It might be hard to swallow but if it's really a move worth making my advice would be to just pay the money and move on.

[Officer Kite]

RVF750

I'm doing a bonded type rating on a regional turboprop and I've seen the invoice of what my airline are paying the TR provider (my bond is a lot less though), it's over double your estimate, not including hotel accommodation, meal allowances and flights they're also forking out on

I do think it's poor form for people to bail out on companies who bond candidates rather than ask for up front fees, we are the first to criticise airlines who charge for the rating. Those bonding people should be commended, not left with a bitter taste in their mouths and managers determined to make every future pilot pay.

[arketip]

Kennytheking

What company guarantees you a upgrade? (not only in aviation)
Did they bond you for the upgrade that never materialize? Did you pay for it? Was the upgrade part of the written contract?

[beamer]

Some thoughts:

Airlines like training bonds ( or similar ) but do not want to get involved in litigation.

I flew for an airline whose bond was complete fiction. It was ill thought out and there were at least three different break downs of 'costs' which had been put together by Chief Pilot, Finance Director etc, all were at complete variance to one another. Due to high turnover of pilots before the expiry of the three year period, the Company was very keen to be insist upon repayment of bonds. It reached a point where they did deals with some pilots in which costs were reduced in secret if the pilot told his mates that he had paid in full. Costs have to be reasonable, if not, a Court of Law could take a dim view. Balpa were itching for a fight with this particular outfit but as far as I know, nobody volunteered to be a test case.

It is my understanding that NOT signing a training bond will not make such a bond invalid per se because acceptance of a position and subsequent employment would be interpreted as acceptance of the terms and conditions offered.

Threatening letters from solicitors may not amount to much as they may be retained upon a ' no win no fee' basis.

As others have intimated, aviation can sometimes be a small world and a call from one CP to another CP could be as issue. That being said, if demand exceeds supply, a prospective employer may not pay much attention to the manner in which a pilot applicant leaves his current employer.

Food for thought, thats all !

[Kennytheking]

arketip

For a company to profit from a bond is predatory and illegal and should be challenged. You may not agree and that is your right. Fortunately the courts agree.

The upgrade does not need to be written into the contract. The employer misrepresented their position in the market, thereby enticing me into a contract that I would not have otherwise entered into. This is all covered under the ambit of commercial law and you can go look it up. I didn't invent it. I am not going to litigate this again in public. Suffice to say we reached an amicable out of court settlement.

I should add, settling the bond cost me more than I made working for them for 18 months.....I didn't walk away smiling from that deal but at least I stood up for my rights after they screwed me over with their shenanigans.

[jetblast101]

Small cog

This is exactly my point, Small Cog, as I said in my initial post. Could the company hold one to a bond if they had in some way, be it large or small, breached the agreement they had originally made with you

[bumpy737]

Anybody got the information under which EU Law the max. lenght of the bond may not exceed 2/3 years?

[jetblast101]

KeepCalm, do you know where exactly this legislation can be found?

[dboy]

A few years ago i was flying for a GA company on a small private jet. The management had no respect for their ppl and i was eager to get out ASAP. One day they decided to buy a new aircraft and without asking me first, they wanted me to do the new type rating and planned everything from starting date, flight tickets etc. Then a month before starting they were putting me the bond under my nose asking me to sign that. I refused because i never asked for doing that rating, i was just listening to my employer. They saw it a bit different and were pushing me to sign. In the end i was so fed up with them, i gave them my resignation and went somewhere else. Best decision ever!!

[TinFoilhat2]

Dboy, exactly right. Companies are wrong to ask for bonding as it was their choice to use that aircraft to make money from it. If they need people to fly it, its down to them. Its called the cost of doing business and the sooner European pilots and companies learn this the better.

If you go into business and you cant afford to train your staff at your expense or expect them to pay for training as part of your business plan to save costs and possibly keep you in business then you do not deserve to be in business...PERIOD!

What will you do for arguments sake if you cannot get type rated pilots or any pilot you plan on hiring refuses to be bonded or pay any training costs? If you do not pay you are out of business so it makes no sense not to include the type rating as 'THE COST OF DOING BUSINESS'

Imagine telling the people financing your operation we will be fine providing the pilots we hire sign a bond or pay themselves, they will laugh you out of the room!

[Spooky 2]

I seem to recall that Singapore went after one or more pilots who were instructors in their abinitio program many years ago. The suit went al the way to a court in California and they prevailed. It was considered a watershed decision at the time.

This issue cuts both ways as a well known technology company in California lost several pilots who had just received ratings in newly acquired Gulfstream 650's and the Falcon 8X. Both of these ratings come at a very high price, this making the holder of such a very marketable pilot when looking for a new job.

[CargoOne]

TinFoilhat2

here we are discussing bonding which has nothing to do with paying for the training. If aviation authorities would permit type ratings paid by airline to be kept with airlines, bonding may become the thing of the past.

[Snr]

TinFoilhat2

I'm afraid I disagree. To charge people for a TR, or force someone into a new TR and bond them - your point is fair enough. But a simple bond of say 2-5 years in exchange for providing training is, and should be, completely fair. You're right that an airline should be able to factor in the cost of type rating a pilot into their business model, if that's what is required to fly their planes to make money - however to allow said pilot to leave after 6 months and being forced to pay another £15-20k to recruit a new one (only for them to do the same) is completely unreasonable. That money could be used to prop up the business, pay better wages to the pilots that currently work there, improve T&C's, or pay for better maintenance.

More importantly, if you have entered into a contract to be bonded for 3 years in exchange for zero training costs, then if you break that agreement you should pay what you owe. Why should my colleagues and myself be burdened with the financial responsibility because you decided to jump ship for a better job, despite signing a legal agreement to say you wouldn't? All of us, as pilots, should be of this mindset, because if we are happy for the airlines to pick up the training bill for little-to-no return in work, then they will go down the PTF route again, or ask for upfront TR costs. And we all know where that road ends up.

[TinFoilhat2]

CargoOne


So if you get typed on the A320 with BA for example you cant use that rating with any other company, is that what you are saying?

Does not make sense to have that kind of approach either. Every time you leave 1 company you would have to do the type rating all over again.

[CargoOne]

Not necessarily, for example there could be an additional remark or a field in the license indicating whether this type rating is owned by the airline or by the license holder. If pilot is departing airline in a way agreed by his contract, airline shall ask authorities to transfer the ownership of type rating. Otherwise rating is cancelled and need to be done again. This will not protect airlines against the loss of investment if pilot decides to jump anyway, however the next employer would think twice.

[2unlimited]

I would say one thing, the world of aviation is smaller than you may think, you never know who you will meet at your new / next job.

[RAFAT]

I was Royally stung by a biz jet operator who made me redundant shortly after returning from the type rating course (due to the 2008 financial crash) and they demanded repayment of the training costs. My legal challenge was rejected on the basis that I signed the contract which stated that they could terminate my employment for ANY reason and the training costs would be repayable.

So the answer to the question posed in this topic, yes they are enforceable.

[Banana Joe]

CargoOne

We already have too much bureaucracy. I could do with less of it, to be honest.

[NoelEvans]

Some here are against bonds for type-ratings. However, there is a big warning: if you don't want bonds for type-ratings or try to find ways of jumping out of them then employers will insist that you arrive fully type-rated at your own expense before being considered for a job. If an employer is making you more employable by paying a lot of money for your type-rating, then it is quite reasonable for them to want some protection from you jumping ship and using that type-rating. that they spent money on, elsewhere.

However, read all the details of that bond very, very carefully before signing. The first two that I signed were very reasonable, but subsequent bonds less so and I almost breathed a sigh of relief once I had come to the full term of the bond because of some of the 'more questionable' aspects of them.

A friend who had sons in a completely different industry summed things up beautifully once: in their industry people were stopped from leaving by being weighed down by more gold bars in their pockets; pilots are stopped from leaving by having lead bars, called 'bonds', in their pockets.

[NoelEvans]

CargoOne's suggestion is not quite so far fetched: we already have licences that are 'fixed' to an employer: the MPL.

But I fully agree with Banana Joe about wanting to avoid increased bureaucracy.

[TinFoilhat2]

CargoOne

Not true, a lot of so called bonds are taken out of your salary over a 3 year period so you are in fact paying for it yourself, you just did not have to stump up the cash upfront.

[CargoOne]

Most of the bonds I’ve seen in Europe over the last few years are simply decreasing with time and that’s it, there is no repayment from salary.

[Banana Joe]

In my airline, the trained pilots are on a reduced salary for 3 years. AeroLogic retains for 3 years an amount of €208,33 from the basic salary.

[KeepCalm]

jetblast101

I'm afraid I wasn't precise enough there. I had a few conversations about this in the past with my wife and I had the understanding it was EU-law.
Took a look on the internet, but could not find anything in EU labor law, but just in the Spanish "generic labor law", where it says the employer may ask for a training bond to be signed, for a maximum period of 2 years (very generic)
Asked the missus and she told me that it does not specify that it has to be pro-rata, as it's a common "law-convention".

And she also told me if taken to court it depends on what the judge deems reasonable, that you would need to check on previous sentences (precedent). Her understanding is that an employer would have the right to enforce a type rating bond, as it's something that you can carry on to your next employer and/or gives an advantage to your next employer, but for instance the OCC (operator's conversion course) would not be eligible as it's company-specific training.

Having said that, the type rating bond contract has to be well-written and has to be reasonable (as already said by other colleagues in this thread) for it to not be shot down in court straight away (this applies to any kind of contract really). For instance, abusive clauses or quantities claimed (i.e. asking for a compensation of 25k, if the type rating cost for the company is 15k) would probably make the employer lose the case.

[ratpackgreenslug]

oggers

All very Jim Dandy and copacetic mate - but an airline must pay the costs of crew training as it's the cost of doing business mate - and it's a cost not to be paid by the employee. If an airline can't afford training costs then it can't afford to operate as it's dangerously underfunded. Note the BA fight and hope the rewards tumble downhill mate. Period.

[RAFAT]

CargoOne - TUI in the UK has a bond which is repaid via a salary reduction, even for type-rated pilots! Hence I didn't apply.

[Banana Joe]

Hear hear... Why would it be the case? Now that I know this I am happy that their lady 787 FO in charge of recruitment rejected my application before I even applied.

[dirk85]

Wizzair does the same, but you didn’t mind applying.

[Banana Joe]

I applied as NTR, the bond in that case made sense. If I paid for the TR on my own with no base training, they would provide me base training and they would only require a minimum of one year commitment, but no money withdrawn from the salary was mentioned.

I don't see why I need to be bonded by TUI when I am already qualified and fly the 737 for a living. That does not make sense.

[dirk85]

You were speaking about 787 before, not 737.

[Banana Joe]

The lady in charge of recruitment is a 787 FO in TUI.

[deja vu]

TinFoilhat2

Absolutely correct.

The thing that amazes me is that those companies that want a bond, pay only 50% salary during line training and other unethical practices then expect LOYALTY!

[deja vu]

Snr

Wow, now I see why this industry is so screwed up and so many :mad: operators survive. Disgraceful.

[Snr]

May I ask why? I work for a regional "training airline" if you will. Things are far from perfect, but the vast majority of those that leave within their bond period do so because they want to fly a shiny jet, or go long haul to explore the world. That's fair, each to their own, we all have different goals in life. If everyone that left within the first year paid no bond back, the airline would be paying £15k training costs, plus 1 year salary, to only get 1 year of service out of them. That is unsustainable long term. That money could be used to increase wages for current pilots.

This isn't a question of the airline using a bond to keep T&C's low, or make money from new pilots. The people leaving aren't doing so because another operator is offering better pay and conditions, they are leaving because they had no intention of staying in the first place. I don't know any figures for who ends up paying and who doesn't, but everyone I know who has left has dutifully paid their bond, factoring that cost into their career decision. Any quite frankly they are happy (happy enough anyway) to do so, having signed the bond and been given their first airline job in the process.

Are you saying that pilots who are happy where they are should be the ones paying the price for those who break a legal agreement? Because I'll say it again - if everyone that left in the first 3 years didn't pay back their bond, the airline has 2 options. Ask for training fees up front, or go bust. There is no other sustainable option.

[TinFoilhat2]

There you have it....go bust because they can’t afford the training fees. If that was never factored into their business plan then they should not be in business.

if they factored in all of these costs plus offered decent T&C,s as well as QOL and decent treatment from management then they would have extremely low turn over.

Again it is the cost of doing business and if they cannot afford it then they should not be in business.

[Officer Kite]

This isn't unique to piloting. When any company invests a significant amount in you most would expect some return on investment. They have spent the money and are within their right to do so. It's unreasonable to expect a comoany to sign everyone up for 20k then have everyone leave and the company keep bleeding cash and no one questions why when they never get their return.

[TinFoilhat2]

If you look after your employees financially and give them quality of life you won’t have that problem.

when employees leave, it’s just business. They have families to support and will do what is in their best interest so look after them and they won’t leave.

If you can’t afford to or won’t then you should not have gone into business.

Just like when times are tough for companies during economic downturns they will cut employees loose in the blink of an eye regardless of their mortgage, kids school fees, food for their family etc and their motto is it’s nothing personal..,Just business, well it works both ways.

[arketip]

Do you really expect a regional/commuter airline to be able to pay and give same conditions like a major/legacy?

[Officer Kite]

TinFoilhat2 The issue is a sizeable portion of those who join regional carriers have no intention of staying at all, they want to fly heavy metal as soon as they can and it has nothing to do with terms or conditions at the regional. Nothing wrong with that at all, we all have our aspirations, but what makes us think we don’t need to accept the bills we’ve built up for the airline that have effectively been used as a stepping stone?

I’m all for keeping our t&c’s acceptable but in this case I struggle not to side with the airline. Someone has joined, taken advantage of an airline who were willing to give them their first break and paid their rating (they absolutely don’t have to in the current climate for low hour pilots) that likely allowed them to even get the experience before the airline wih the heavy metal would even look at them, then it’s acceptable for them to just wander off? Especially for airlines that don’t deduct the tr from your salary and are trying to be ethical when others are charging 50k for the rating and line training, i think this is really poor form. Where is the encouragement for an airline to pay for the tr of young pilots in future who can’t afford it up front? If everyone ran for the hills there wouldn’t be an airline on the planet with a half competent financial department that would pay for anyone’s rating, then we’d all come on here moaning that no airline is willing to sponsor new aviators for the tr after they’ve forked out on an ATPL. Well who is to blame when we threw it back in their faces everytime they tried doing something even half ethical.

[deja vu]

I am trying to think of any other industry that expects newly hired full time employees to pay for training on the employers equipment. Not only that but to forgo salary during that training in some cases and then be placed on a probationary period where summarily dismissal is an employers option.

[Snr]

That's the whole point of this argument. Some airlines (including my own) don't charge newly hired employees to pay for training. The airline pays for the training, and in return asks you to stay for 3 years. No salary sacrifice until you're passed the line check, no money upfront to cover costs. That's completely fair in my book.

[deja vu]

When you say your airline asks newly hired employees to stay for 3 years, what happens if they don't.? And does your airline guarantee that they will continue to employee this new hire over that 3 years?

[TinFoilhat2]

Officer Kite Well let’s reverse that then. Use myself as an example. I have thousands of hours on both turboprop and jet aircraft in charter work and airlines.

Lets say you need to hire pilots and you don’t want to sponsor the young guys with no experience in case they run away early (which is unlikely because a major airline unless desperate is not going to hire a pilot without serious experience first) so you decide to go after a pilot like me or one of the many experienced guys on here who have multiple type ratings.

So let’s say I fly the type you are looking for, what are you going to offer me? I’m sure as hell not taking a pay cut out of the goodness of my heart to work for you, you are not typing me so all that is left is T&C’s, salary and QOL.

which means if you can’t afford us experienced guys you need to go after cheaper inexperienced Labour and ensure they are typed on your aircraft you purchased or leased to make money off. That is your responsibility to your business and possible shareholders.

It is not a pilots problem whether you can afford to or not. You as a responsible businessman need to ensure your pilots will stay for a certain amount of time because it’s not the cost of a TR that will bankrupt you, it is aircraft sitting on the ground.

No other industry in the world charges their employees to work for them and help reduce their business costs. If you choose not to type those inexperienced young guys that’s fine but you won’t have any pilots because you cannot afford us experienced ones so you simply go out of business.

So again, factor in all cost of doing business and ensure the carrot is big enough and juicy enough for 95% of your pilots to do their 3 years. If Emirates comes along and offers them the A380 on huge salaries, well that’s part of the risk of going into business and you knew that from the beginning.

As I said above earlier when times are tough for companies they just shred and cut loose employees in the blink of an eye regardless of their families, mortgages, medical bills etc yet the directors and CEO’s collect their huge bonuses and take no pay cuts so dont blame the little guy for looking after himself.

Pilots never made the rules but are entitled to play by them, it works both ways.

[TinFoilhat2]

Snr

It may seem fair but in the grand scheme of things when there is a downturn and money is tight will the company honour the agreement they signed with you when they employed you, most likely not.

To them it’s just business and you knew the risks of becoming a pilot in a very volatile industry. In other words they are looking after their best interests and the company.

Well a pilots company is himself and his family. When opportunity arrives to look after their best interests they like the company have every right to do so.

You can’t bring the moral argument against the pilot but not the company when they let people go for business reasons, works both ways.

Your company does not charge newly hired inexperienced guys because they cannot afford to hire the typed experience guys so they really have no choice as they can’t get pilots otherwise.

So factor in ALL COSTS including a type rating before hiring in the event you lose a guy early but if your T&C’s are good enough 95% will prolly do their 3 years as they know they need proper experience before going anywhere else like a major airline.

Imagine I open a Sushi restaurant and I tell the chef I’m bonding him for 3 years for using the kitchen because he has no real world experience and I put him thru a specialized Japanese sushi course.

I chose to open the restaurant knowing the risks involved and am responsible for factoring in all costs. It’s not the chefs fault I go bankrupt because I did not hire or could not afford an experienced Sushi chef so went the cheap route and got an inexperienced guy..

Then Gordon Ramsay opens up across the road and with a lot more money offers this guy a job in a restaurant that is going to do wonders for his career and he takes it because he is married and has 2 small children to support.

Can you really blame the young chef for grabbing a once in a lifetime opportunity.

The end result for the first restaurant owner all boils down to the fact he never factored in the costs of doing business and what happens if he loses his chef. Knowing this if your argument is well it’s then too risky to give these young guys a chance then hire experienced guys but be prepared to stump up the cash and good benefits.

Either way it’s going to cost you and you still need to factor in all of these expenses. Pay for type ratings with lower salaries or get experienced typed guys and end up paying a lot higher salaries (more than the cost of a TR) but either way....

It is the cost of doing business and there is no way around it.

Your business costs are not the responsibility of the pilot nor are they his concern. You knew the risks and if you could not afford it or never planned properly that is your problem and yours alone. It is simply business.

[Snr]

When you say your airline asks newly hired employees to stay for 3 years, what happens if they don't.? And does your airline guarantee that they will continue to employee this new hire over that 3 years?

If they don't stay for the 3 years (many do leave within that period with the current market) then they repay the bond, which has been reducing. So the £15k bond as an example results in the pilot repaying £10k if they leave after 1 year. If you stay the 3 years, you have a TR you've not paid a penny for.

The airline guarantees your employment for the 3 years (and longer) - of course potential redundancy is a threat for any airline employee outwith a legacy carrier, but in my 5 years no-one has been forced to leave the company for anything other than misconduct.

[Snr]

TinFoilhat2 What you are asking is not really the point of this thread. I can't say what my company offers for TR pilots as we don't get them that often, but I would imagine there would be a negotiation on the cost and length of the bond if you are already rated. Either way - this thread is about whether you can/should break a Training Bond. Get your job offer, and associated bond conditions, and make your choice. If you aren't happy joining a company and being bonded, then look for a job elsewhere. If you sign on the dotted line, then see through your agreed term, or repay what you owe. It's that simple.

As for a few of your other points. You must not be up to date on the current industry recruitment, because every major airline is hiring pilots with low hours. A selection of carriers that have taken 500-1000 (tel:500-1000) hour FO's from my airline in the past few years - BA, Air France, Tui, Jet2, EZY, Ryanair, Thomas Cook, Iberia, Air Baltic, Swiss, Are Lingus, Condor, Cargolux. So that's 6 months to a year before they can leave for pastures new.

Comparing a professional pilot and an airline to a chef is absurd. If a restaurant had to pay £15,000 to train the chef in his sashimi course, as well as pay his wages for 3 months before they see any return, I can guarantee they would made to sign a bond as well. Or asked for it upfront....

[Des.Vaisselles]

Hi guys,
I have a situation that could use a little help/guidance.
I work with RYR.
When I joined as cadet they asked for 5 grand up front and a 20k bond reducing over five years.
I needed a job, I signed...
With Covid hitting, the finances a going down the drain, I had to change to part time because they unilateraly changed the roster and is not commuting compatible anymore.
I have an other opportunity with a company but I still have this bond pending.
Couple of questions:
Does the fact that the actual conditions are completely different than the conditions when you signed voids the bond (or makes it disputable)?
Is 25 000 eur considered fair for TR737? (with no transport/accomodation etc paid for)
Does anyone have any story or experience in breaking a bond with ryr to know how they proceed?

To be fair, if they ask I will most likely pay my bond and swallow the pill. It just feels really bad having to pay these guys after such a hard time and work in their ranks with reality far from what they promised.
I am not looking for an opinion on whether or not it is honorable, that decision and consequences rests with me.

[iggy]

I have no idea about how FR will proceed if you skip your bond, although I guess they will be very careful to not give the image that skipping a bond doesn't come with consequences.

But I can tell you, based on my own experience, that not having a release letter from one of your previous employers, and/or not having proof that one has fulfilled the contract with all the penalties carried, is going to make you passing an interview very difficult in the next few years, whether you are in the right or not. You could get away with it if it was a small company or an operator that nobody has heard about. But you'll find out (and if you joined FR as a cadet, then FR was your first employer) that everybody knows everybody in the aviation business, that most guys interviewing you will know exactly what were the terms you signed with FR and will be expecting a release letter or a recommendation letter, and that it will be very easy for any management pilot to just lift the phone (or switch on whataspp), contact his bro with whom he did his initial training with, throw him your name, and find out if you can be trusted or not, given your past behaviour. And that is exactly what they will do, they will not give a rat's ass about your reasons and the circumstances that made you not fulfill your contract.

25k EUR is an eye watering sum to give away nowadays, but it might be the difference between you getting that job at home that you are so desperate in need of, or just burning a bridge with yet another employer for the foreeseable future.

[Des.Vaisselles]

I contacted a guy from the union yesterday and he gave me the same answer as you did. And it makes sense.
They tend to drop the bonds when they are letting go of pilots but I guess that is not the case nowadays.

[tubby linton]

I remember a very long time ago the chap who did the recruitment at Elan Air in East Midlands went after through the courts a pilot who left early for the balance of his bond. I was always led to believe that training costs were tax deductible to the company but I cannot remember how this particular issue was resolved.

[Kirks gusset]

https://www.ipapilot.com/about-us/blog/bonds-–-necessary-evil

Worth a read

[Des.Vaisselles]

interesting indeed. Thanks for the article