Tiger bonding
Thread Starter
Tiger bonding
Just wondering if it's true that Tiger will apply a 2 year bond for the transfer to the 737 and, if so, what do the guys think of this.
After all, it is a mandatory aircraft transfer, no choice. Aircraft transfers within an airline have happened since Pontius was a co-pilot, and no bonding (as far as I know). And most of those transfers were pilot request when vacancies were advertised.
Is this just another sign of an industry changed for the worst? At least they haven't sunk to Cobham's ultimate low of making the pilots pay.
Rod
After all, it is a mandatory aircraft transfer, no choice. Aircraft transfers within an airline have happened since Pontius was a co-pilot, and no bonding (as far as I know). And most of those transfers were pilot request when vacancies were advertised.
Is this just another sign of an industry changed for the worst? At least they haven't sunk to Cobham's ultimate low of making the pilots pay.
Rod
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Sydney
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes.
And I hear Tiger value the endorsement at $45,000
So if you did the endorsement, and left on day one you would owe them $45K.
On what planet does it cost $45K for a 737 endorsement? Around half of that is the going rate.
I'd like to know what your union is doing endorsing this deal, it's a dud.
Qantas recruiting now, and for the foreseeable future, and in increasing numbers. Emirates desperately short and recruiting like mad. Contracts in China and Hong Kong becoming more attractive every time you look. Tiger should be trying to make the decision to stay and be trained on the 737 an easy one, not giving their pilots more reasons to leave.
One one hand, tying yourself to a two year bond in an airline with a questionable future, on the other a secure future in an expanding airline with no up front training costs or bond. No brainer.
I can see increasing numbers of people telling them to shove it and leaving for a more lucrative and more secure future.
And I hear Tiger value the endorsement at $45,000
So if you did the endorsement, and left on day one you would owe them $45K.
On what planet does it cost $45K for a 737 endorsement? Around half of that is the going rate.
I'd like to know what your union is doing endorsing this deal, it's a dud.
Qantas recruiting now, and for the foreseeable future, and in increasing numbers. Emirates desperately short and recruiting like mad. Contracts in China and Hong Kong becoming more attractive every time you look. Tiger should be trying to make the decision to stay and be trained on the 737 an easy one, not giving their pilots more reasons to leave.
One one hand, tying yourself to a two year bond in an airline with a questionable future, on the other a secure future in an expanding airline with no up front training costs or bond. No brainer.
I can see increasing numbers of people telling them to shove it and leaving for a more lucrative and more secure future.
Last edited by IsDon; 15th Aug 2016 at 23:50.
Nunc est bibendum
The rest of IsDon's point is quite valid though.
(Just quietly I think that the QF bonded amount is unchanged for quite a while. I don't have access to EBAs prior to the 2013 determination but it has $30K as well. So it's unchanged from 2013- 2019).
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Sydney
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QF have a three year $30K bond for initial joiners. It's pro rata though so decreases year on year. No up front costs though!
The rest of IsDon's point is quite valid though.
(Just quietly I think that the QF bonded amount is unchanged for quite a while. I don't have access to EBAs prior to the 2013 determination but it has $30K as well. So it's unchanged from 2013- 2019).
The rest of IsDon's point is quite valid though.
(Just quietly I think that the QF bonded amount is unchanged for quite a while. I don't have access to EBAs prior to the 2013 determination but it has $30K as well. So it's unchanged from 2013- 2019).
Doesn't change my point though. Why shackle yourself with a two/three year bond when Tiger might not even be here in two/three years?
If the airline were to fail within that period, would the administrators still chase you for your bond? You betcha!
Thread Starter
Yeah Keg an initial bond is fine. You choose to join, company trains you at their expense, voila, bonded. But this is a case of a fleet change at company's demand, in other words, you have to change fleets or no job, and by the way, we'll bond you. Were you bonded to change from 767 to 330? (serious question - not trying to sound malicious)
Bonded to go from jstar320 to qf mou?
Vv?
Vv?
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: In the land of smog
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cathay, Dragonair, Hong Kong Airlines, and Hong Kong Express are all hiring..
Starting salary for a A320 DEFO is circa HK $1.2 Million p.a less 12% tax.
Starting salary for a A320 DEFO is circa HK $1.2 Million p.a less 12% tax.
Yes.
And I hear Tiger value the endorsement at $45,000
So if you did the endorsement, and left on day one you would owe them $45K.
On what planet does it cost $45K for a 737 endorsement? Around half of that is the going rate.
I'd like to know what your union is doing endorsing this deal, it's a dud.
Qantas recruiting now, and for the foreseeable future, and in increasing numbers. Emirates desperately short and recruiting like mad. Contracts in China and Hong Kong becoming more attractive every time you look. Tiger should be trying to make the decision to stay and be trained on the 737 an easy one, not giving their pilots more reasons to leave.
One one hand, tying yourself to a two year bond in an airline with a questionable future, on the other a secure future in an expanding airline with no up front training costs or bond. No brainer.
I can see increasing numbers of people telling them to shove it and leaving for a more lucrative and more secure future.
And I hear Tiger value the endorsement at $45,000
So if you did the endorsement, and left on day one you would owe them $45K.
On what planet does it cost $45K for a 737 endorsement? Around half of that is the going rate.
I'd like to know what your union is doing endorsing this deal, it's a dud.
Qantas recruiting now, and for the foreseeable future, and in increasing numbers. Emirates desperately short and recruiting like mad. Contracts in China and Hong Kong becoming more attractive every time you look. Tiger should be trying to make the decision to stay and be trained on the 737 an easy one, not giving their pilots more reasons to leave.
One one hand, tying yourself to a two year bond in an airline with a questionable future, on the other a secure future in an expanding airline with no up front training costs or bond. No brainer.
I can see increasing numbers of people telling them to shove it and leaving for a more lucrative and more secure future.
Nunc est bibendum
Rodney. No. And nor would I have expected to be. I agree that what is being done to Tiger crews is uncool. I was simply pointing out that QF have an initial bond.
We can also be denied a type transfer of QF won't get a 2 year return of service on the new type but no $$$ are mentioned.
I think that's just pay for the endorsement maggot.
We can also be denied a type transfer of QF won't get a 2 year return of service on the new type but no $$$ are mentioned.
I think that's just pay for the endorsement maggot.
IsDon, 737 type ratings can be had for considerably less than $45K elsewhere. The cost of the TR to Tiger for transferring a crew member however may well come to $45K if the two months off line for the course is included.
I doubt you'll find anyone who is not already considering jobs OS will leave Tiger over this.
I doubt you'll find anyone who is not already considering jobs OS will leave Tiger over this.
Virgin apply a 30k bond reducible monthly over 30 months where they pay for the endorsement, payable if you leave the business.
You also have a freeze period of 30 months, which means you can't change types inside the 30 months.
The true cost of the training is well in excess of 30k and in the current EBA negotiations they are trying to up it to 45k, which is still well below what it actually costs.
The bond isn't a bank type bond where you put up money and it is held essentially as a security deposit, it is just an amount they can recover from outstanding monies owed and send you a bill for the rest.
Now before anyone was a rant about how it doesn't cost 30k or 45k or whatever, the amount paid to the training provider is only part of the cost.
Even if you do the training in house you need to provide the training facility, licensing for the courseware, the cost of the sim in both fixed base and full motion, the cost of providing the various instructors and check pilots. You also need to pay your wages, and if the course is not in your home base then they pay allowances, accom, and have you offline not being productive and earning a quid for the business for a good two months.
Even if the type rating provider charged say 15k, allowances, accom, salary would bring the amount to close to 50k assuming you were earning around 150k a year. Add super to that, the cost of a supernumerary FO during the first few sectors, the cost of the training captain (there is a differential cost between the cost of a line Capt and line FO and a training Capt and a trainee - particularly if the trainee is a capt) and the real cost of the training mounts up.
As an aside QF are charging external customers over 70k for a 330 endorsement and many providers in Europe are charging 30000 Euro for a type rating.
That all said I don't believe there should be a bond or freeze period for forced transfers, if you put your hand up and said I wanted to move to the new type fair enough, but if the company is forcing the move then it should be the company that bears the burden not the pilot.
You also have a freeze period of 30 months, which means you can't change types inside the 30 months.
The true cost of the training is well in excess of 30k and in the current EBA negotiations they are trying to up it to 45k, which is still well below what it actually costs.
The bond isn't a bank type bond where you put up money and it is held essentially as a security deposit, it is just an amount they can recover from outstanding monies owed and send you a bill for the rest.
Now before anyone was a rant about how it doesn't cost 30k or 45k or whatever, the amount paid to the training provider is only part of the cost.
Even if you do the training in house you need to provide the training facility, licensing for the courseware, the cost of the sim in both fixed base and full motion, the cost of providing the various instructors and check pilots. You also need to pay your wages, and if the course is not in your home base then they pay allowances, accom, and have you offline not being productive and earning a quid for the business for a good two months.
Even if the type rating provider charged say 15k, allowances, accom, salary would bring the amount to close to 50k assuming you were earning around 150k a year. Add super to that, the cost of a supernumerary FO during the first few sectors, the cost of the training captain (there is a differential cost between the cost of a line Capt and line FO and a training Capt and a trainee - particularly if the trainee is a capt) and the real cost of the training mounts up.
As an aside QF are charging external customers over 70k for a 330 endorsement and many providers in Europe are charging 30000 Euro for a type rating.
That all said I don't believe there should be a bond or freeze period for forced transfers, if you put your hand up and said I wanted to move to the new type fair enough, but if the company is forcing the move then it should be the company that bears the burden not the pilot.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Western Pacific
Posts: 721
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't forget the lost productivity when you go to the toilet. You have to pay for that as well. Snakecharma, you sound like a company accountant, trying to spin things to get the highest cost possible.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Sydney
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IsDon, 737 type ratings can be had for considerably less than $45K elsewhere. The cost of the TR to Tiger for transferring a crew member however may well come to $45K if the two months off line for the course is included.
I doubt you'll find anyone who is not already considering jobs OS will leave Tiger over this.
I doubt you'll find anyone who is not already considering jobs OS will leave Tiger over this.
Explain to me why it's is a pilots responsibility to compensate his employer for a decision made by his employer to change aircraft types.
If Tiger wish to change types it is their responsibility to cover the cost of that change.
What about the income loss the pilot has to forego during the time off line for training?
What's next? Expect the pilot is to kick in for the cost of buying the aircraft?
If you think this won't influence anyone's decision to leave then you're kidding yourself. You can only kick a dog for so long until it decides to bite your leg off.
IsDon, absolutely correct. If a company requires you to be trained then they should wear the cost.
If you however apply for a position which requires training to a certain level, that then is a different story.
Make a stand on the principle I say.
If you however apply for a position which requires training to a certain level, that then is a different story.
Make a stand on the principle I say.
oakape
Well if I sound like an accountant trying to "spin" things then you clearly have no clue as to the realities of running a business!
There is no spin in the stuff I wrote, it is all fact.
I am not an accountant, never have been and never will be, but I do have a higher degree that taught me a thing or two as well as nearly 30 years as an airline pilot. I suggest you have a read of my post and tell me where I am incorrect, as I am happy to rethink based on your feedback.
You will also note that I wasn't advocating for higher bonds or in fact for bonds at all for those forced to make a fleet change, merely pointing out the fact that howls of indignation about the 45k and how a type rating "costs half that" are not in fact correct and there are other components involved.
At the end of the day we need to be aware of what the cost of our actions are so we can make a value judgement on whether we should be indignant or not!
Try and stick guys who bid for a type change with a 100k bond then there is reason to be grumpy and to fight it. Try and stick guys with a bond of 30k or 45k then fight it if you wish but if you ask for the actual cost to be the bond then you might be in for a surprise!
Same as the guys who bang on about wanting CPI pay rises instead of 2-3% (in the current environment). Be careful what you ask for as CPI isn't what you think it is.
6401.0 - Consumer Price Index, Australia, Jun 2016. rose 0.4% this quarter, compared with a fall of 0.2% in the March quarter 2016. rose 1.0% over the twelve months to the June quarter 2016, compared with a rise of 1.3% over the twelve months to the March quarter 2016.Jul 27, 2016
Snakecharma, you sound like a company accountant, trying to spin things to get the highest cost possible.
There is no spin in the stuff I wrote, it is all fact.
I am not an accountant, never have been and never will be, but I do have a higher degree that taught me a thing or two as well as nearly 30 years as an airline pilot. I suggest you have a read of my post and tell me where I am incorrect, as I am happy to rethink based on your feedback.
You will also note that I wasn't advocating for higher bonds or in fact for bonds at all for those forced to make a fleet change, merely pointing out the fact that howls of indignation about the 45k and how a type rating "costs half that" are not in fact correct and there are other components involved.
At the end of the day we need to be aware of what the cost of our actions are so we can make a value judgement on whether we should be indignant or not!
Try and stick guys who bid for a type change with a 100k bond then there is reason to be grumpy and to fight it. Try and stick guys with a bond of 30k or 45k then fight it if you wish but if you ask for the actual cost to be the bond then you might be in for a surprise!
Same as the guys who bang on about wanting CPI pay rises instead of 2-3% (in the current environment). Be careful what you ask for as CPI isn't what you think it is.
6401.0 - Consumer Price Index, Australia, Jun 2016. rose 0.4% this quarter, compared with a fall of 0.2% in the March quarter 2016. rose 1.0% over the twelve months to the June quarter 2016, compared with a rise of 1.3% over the twelve months to the March quarter 2016.Jul 27, 2016
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: fs2000
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The company need you to fly their aircraft to make money, they are not doing you a favour. It is their responsibility to train you. Being time bonded for the cost of the rating (~30k) is fair, the cost of your line training? Sorry, their responsibility.
The end
The end
I believe it's going to be a 2 year return of service. Not bad if you want to get out of your turboprop. 2 years would fly by. Who cares if it's $45k, you're not paying, and let's not even mention the quality of those $10k USD "type ratings" that are out there !
In relation to a current employee being forced over and sign up - hmmm yes a good point. Those with "itchy feet" might indeed refuse!
In relation to a current employee being forced over and sign up - hmmm yes a good point. Those with "itchy feet" might indeed refuse!
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 465
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilots only have themselves to blame for bonds being introduced in the first place.
Bonds are the fairest way for all parties and for companies to avoid the large cost involved in guys leaving quickly. Paying upfront is a different kettle of fish though...
Good post Snakecharma. Shame some pilots let their sense of entitlement get in the way of accepting the facts.
Bonds are the fairest way for all parties and for companies to avoid the large cost involved in guys leaving quickly. Paying upfront is a different kettle of fish though...
Good post Snakecharma. Shame some pilots let their sense of entitlement get in the way of accepting the facts.