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...

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.

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! :E :ok:

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.

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:rolleyes:

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. :D

They are plastic.....everything should be bonded.:E

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'. :eek:

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 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?

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.

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 F@#$ 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:yuk:

VH-JJW & Others
 

With due respect,Stockholm Syndrome ?

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. :}

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.

Like I said above:
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:(

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 :mad::rolleyes:

Look whats happenin there now..........:hmm:

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:confused:

Gnads,
Eat me. (wasn't my fault they sent me there).

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.