Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

JQ to BOND on 787..

Old 23rd Jan 2008, 09:05
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: syd
Age: 54
Posts: 78
JQ to BOND on 787..

Where will it all end......

we have just found out that if the EBA gets up there is going to be a (possibly 5 year) bond on the 787......

If that not reason to vote NO, I dont know what is...
G Cantstandya is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2008, 09:55
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: AUS
Posts: 80
Why is that unreasonable? Why should Jetstar bear other organisations training cost WRT the 787? It is not uncommon in the industry. The simple answer is don't accept a 787 position if you intend on leaving straight away, or accept it and pay the bond.

G.C - Actually I highly doubt you are Jetstar. More likely a QF driver - probably ex AN. This information is not new, so how did you 'Just find out'? Please stop pretending to be Jetstar and then posting drivel on this site.

If you are Jetstar then you could at least post the ENTIRE EBA for our edification.
VH-JJW is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2008, 10:08
  #3 (permalink)  
Keg

Nunc est bibendum
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 5,581
Talking

Very few QF drivers take the endorsement and run. I wonder why that is.

Perhaps if the terms and conditions were appropriate then they wouldn't need to bond to start off with!
Keg is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2008, 10:27
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 212
When Jetstar first started a lot of people assumed (me included) that a lot of the Impulse boys would get the A320 endorsement and head overseas to get the "real" money. That didn't happen and instead it has attracted a lot of people from overseas to the airline. The bond for training is not an upfront payment. Jetstar are applying the same principle that a lot of other airlines do.
permFO is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2008, 10:32
  #5 (permalink)  

Grandpa Aerotart
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: SWP
Posts: 4,620
Bonding is a completely transparent and fair system..provided the amount and time frame are realistic (unlike SQ's bonds - 10 times the real cost of the training)...only a QF pilot could find fault with it
Chimbu chuckles is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2008, 10:39
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Oztrailia
Posts: 2,924
Yeah.........back in my day you joined a "CAREER" Airline and stayed, they paid well and no Bond was even thought of.

It's only the cheap charlie Airlines that screw the Pilot's now. And why? because guys/girls keep throwing themselves at the jobs.
Me me me.......
The race to the bottom continues.


p.s. I'm a CX Pilot and I find fault with it, as would a BA, AF, KL, DL, UA Pilot.

Just looked up my dictionary to check the spelliing of Career and guess what I found?
careerist n : person who seeks advancement by any possible means

That is the war cry of the LCC Pilot if I ever saw it.
ACMS is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2008, 11:04
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 53
Posts: 6,852
They are plastic.....everything should be bonded.
Jabawocky is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2008, 11:45
  #8 (permalink)  
Keg

Nunc est bibendum
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 5,581
Exclamation QF pilots and bonds

Actually I don't see a big problem with a reasonable bond. Every QF pilot signs on for one when they join. I've never bothered looking if there is a bond for aircraft change or promotion but there certainly is a 'freeze' once you check you.

I don't fault a bond in this case either. Five years is extreme and unwarranted. Perhaps they're hoping the response from the pilot group is 'keep the bond, we'll pay for the endorsement ourselves'.
Keg is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2008, 15:59
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: New Zealand
Age: 59
Posts: 34
Bonds are not unreasonable .. if ....

I too do not regard bonding as unfair. It is only reasonable that an employer be protected from unscrupulous folks who will take a rating and leave.
Unfortunately we see more and more of them in our profession these days. Careerists in the truest sense of the word.

Having said that, the bond MUST accurately reflect the cost of supplying the rating and be amortized over a reasonable (read MUTUALLY AGREED) period. It should not include Line Training or Checks as these are revenue ops.

Bonding should not be used for any other purpose. It is simply contractual insurance.

Cheers,

Brad
Bradley Marsh is offline  
Old 24th Jan 2008, 00:03
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Where I'm not alarmed
Posts: 454
Bradley Marsh is right. In addition, I would ask why pilots should see themselves apart from any other trade or job. very few people in this day and age receive free training. That said, why should anyone be highly trained for a specific purpose at significant cost and then be free to immediately bugger off and prostitute him or herself to the highest bidder or to an employer perceived to offer better opportunities or, dare I say it, lifestyle (whatever that might be)? Pilots should not forget that employment is a two-way street: how can they expect to be treated with respect and loyalty if they don't reciprocate?
B A Lert is offline  
Old 24th Jan 2008, 00:28
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 165
However I would like to point out the difference between initial training and subsequent training. Most of us paid for our initial flight training, one way or another - as do truck drivers, doctors, engineers, digger drivers, etc. However few industries bond or charge for subsequent training on work related equipment. Just a thought.
rick.shaw is offline  
Old 24th Jan 2008, 02:24
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Cloud cuckoo land
Posts: 102
A reasonable bond when you start with an airline is reasonable. i.e. it follows reason. If they are paying for your training they may want some time to amortise the cost. However, if you pay for your own training to get qualified for the job and they now want you to fly different equipment because it's more cost efficient for them, it is very simple. THEY pay because it's for their benefit. Some are going to say well it's your benefit as well, true but that's only as a result of what they want. They want you because your are a known quantity, they respect and require your skillset. Indeed if it wasn't tranferable they may make you redundant like some who were in IT found out. To be bonded is typical of this current management's style of the big stick approach.
Wouldn't it be nice to see that you weren't bonded because they had your loyalty earnt through respect and good conditions. In the meantime (Reykjavik becomes tropical paradise) tell them to [email protected]#$ OFF!

P.S. Simple equation

To start in airlines (2 different approaches)

Eq 1 Bond / Reduced salary for endorsement = Pay for endorsement

Once in airline

What their offering

Eq 2 Promotion = Bonded for endorsement

Substitute Eq 1 in 2

Therefore PAY FOR PROMOTION!!!!!

PULL UP PULL UP
maggotdriver is offline  
Old 24th Jan 2008, 03:44
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sydney, NSW,Australia
Posts: 91
VH-JJW & Others

With due respect,Stockholm Syndrome ?
Jackneville is offline  
Old 24th Jan 2008, 03:53
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Eden Valley
Posts: 1,980
More likely a QF driver - probably ex AN.
That's an odd outburst from a bloke with an Ansett 146 rego as a handle.

That said, the blokes from the West in Ansett were up there with Arabs and Bulgarians for the oddest mix I've met in aviation.
Gnadenburg is online now  
Old 24th Jan 2008, 04:17
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 1,744
Stability

There was a time when endorsements were paid for by the operator, but, in recent times this has been exploited by pilots, and flying schools encouraged this exploitation. This killed it.
Now we have pilots trying to exploit operators, and operators (big and small) trying to exploit pilots. Both try to get government money.
Bonds are becoming common, and some companies are reluctant to employ pilots who are able to be mobile. (who have qualifications and experience). Some have been employing pilots on a part time basis. This does not work well. I think contracts may become more common.
I think pilots who are about to spend lots of time and money to get qualifications that are required by an airline should seek some commitment from the airline (eg a provisional contract). They should also expect to commit themselves to that airline for a reasonable time.(eg a provisional contract)
If there are not some stabilising factors it will become just like GA has become. And if it does, why would anyone bother?
A big shakeout is occuring.
bushy is offline  
Old 24th Jan 2008, 07:54
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Oztrailia
Posts: 2,924
Like I said above:
careerist n : person who seeks advancement by any possible means
ANY POSSIBLE MEANS TO GET AHEAD OF YOU, INCLUDING PAYING FOR THE ENDORSEMENT.

It's no different to what GA was like in the 80's.

It wont change until.......................nah it wont change
ACMS is offline  
Old 24th Jan 2008, 12:35
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: bush
Age: 47
Posts: 32
Sounds very much like what one of the operators does in WA.

Pay for ur f/o trng then when the company wants you to upgrade they throw the $20000 bond at ya

Look whats happenin there now..........
strobe12 is offline  
Old 25th Jan 2008, 01:25
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Travelling the World
Posts: 18
Wake up Jeff

If you think Jetstar are going to be doing th 787 wake up guys theres a company in OZ already primed for that role and why would it already be in my contract--------OH did i just say that out loud
VRBNE is offline  
Old 25th Jan 2008, 02:10
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: All over
Posts: 626
Gnads,
Eat me. (wasn't my fault they sent me there).
boocs is offline  
Old 25th Jan 2008, 13:43
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 725
Originally Posted by permFO
When Jetstar first started a lot of people assumed (me included) that a lot of the Impulse boys would get the A320 endorsement and head overseas to get the "real" money. That didn't happen...
Oh, it didnt, did it?

What about that group of Impulse/JQ lads that did their A320 type rating in Europe, caught the plane home with that ink barely dry, and dropped into the Dragonair HO on their HK stopover and had a friendly chat -- one they had organised before they left Oz?

A win/win situation I believed one called it. The pilots weren't bonded, Dragon didn't have to fork out for a type rating. And the bill was paid by JQ.
ITCZ is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.