Cabin Crew Bonded for the season?!?!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Age: 44
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cabin Crew Bonded for the season?!?!
Been to two interviews this week and both companies have a clause in the contract that 'bonds' you to them for the summer season! It's to cover the cost of training and your uniform apparently. If you decide to leave before the end of your contract you have to pay them back the monetary bond you owe. One is 500 pounds sterling, the other 600! 
Is this common place now? In my 5 or so years of attending interviews (and there have been many!) I've never come across it before.
Do you think it's right or not?
MR XxX
Is this common place now? In my 5 or so years of attending interviews (and there have been many!) I've never come across it before.
Do you think it's right or not?
MR XxX
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: South, UK
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crew being bonded!
Hi!
The company that I work for has a "bonded" scheme to cover the costs of uniform and training! I have heard of a few companies now doing this!
I dont think it is a "new" thing to do, I had an Airtours interview about 5 years ago and remember that they were doing it then as well!
I can see why companies doing it, it stops people from joining and then leaving just after you start when the company has out alot of effort into you!
FMB
The company that I work for has a "bonded" scheme to cover the costs of uniform and training! I have heard of a few companies now doing this!
I dont think it is a "new" thing to do, I had an Airtours interview about 5 years ago and remember that they were doing it then as well!
I can see why companies doing it, it stops people from joining and then leaving just after you start when the company has out alot of effort into you!
FMB
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: england
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have just turned down a job because of that. Fair enough the first 6 months I can understand but if this airline offered you a perm contract you are still bonded for 300 for a further 6 months. But if they dont need or like you they will let let you go but you get nothing. Unfair I feel. I understand training and uniform costs but still say you don't like the airline or the rosters etc its a lot of money to leave. These airlines seem to think that we should be privelidged toi work for them. I think not in this day and age they should be thankfull that any of us are mad enough to want to fly through the sky in a missile that mad people want to fly into buildings with or blow us out the sky. Or even that we leave our lives in the hand of overworked ATC with poor computer systems.
Why do we do it eh!
Why do we do it eh!
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Age: 64
Posts: 3,586
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...they should be thankfull that any of us are mad enough to want to fly...
I approve of new-hire bonding: It seems reasonable enough to me. I would be even more pleased if new-hire crew were bonded to the base they were recruited into for longer, but that may just be an issue within my company
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: here
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do not agree at all. I think that a company should be able to keep its employees without having to force them. Besides, what kind of an asset is a disgruntled employee only willing to leave, and maybe mad at the fact he cannot join the company he'd rather be with. Can you imagine the atmosphere, and the fumes going around the galleys? Have witnessed that already with pilots, and I think it's not in a company's interest to chain someone who doesn't want to stay. Heck, in UK you don't even have the C/A licence like in other European countries, so what does the expense for the company may sum to? And I know for sure most of the UK companies "recicle" uniforms, so again what's the expense? I hope that people will turn down this kind of contracts. We are making our own chains by accepting this kind of constrictions.
And if your argument that there are more applicant than jobs were really true tightslot , why then would companies have to force people into staying?
Dickens's times are over folks.
And if your argument that there are more applicant than jobs were really true tightslot , why then would companies have to force people into staying?
Dickens's times are over folks.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Age: 64
Posts: 3,586
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But there are more applicants than jobs - that's not just my perception, it is fact. If you don't believe me, that's fine, just ask your HR department.
Airlines don't want to retain disgruntled employees: They are however entitled to seek a partial return of the significant costs incurred. The bonding charge doesn't "chain" the employee, but it makes them stop and think carefully. The bonding charge primarily serves as a method of controlling time-wasters at the recruitment/early training stage. The bonding costs charged do not begin to approach the real costs incurred by the employer during the recruitment and training of a new-hire.
People won't turn down this kind of contract, exactly because the number of applicants exceeds the number of jobs. Just as Ryanair is not experiencing a pilot shortage because of its' various bonding charges to applicants.
Dickens' times are not over - on the contrary, they are back with a vengeance, like it or not, and we might as well get used to it. 9/11, Chapter 11, woeful summer bookings and a probable Gulf War mean that all the advantages lie with the employers. A fair percentage (inc. poss me) of those reading this post will be redundant by the end of the year. If you don't like that situation, yell at your elected representative, not me.
Airlines don't want to retain disgruntled employees: They are however entitled to seek a partial return of the significant costs incurred. The bonding charge doesn't "chain" the employee, but it makes them stop and think carefully. The bonding charge primarily serves as a method of controlling time-wasters at the recruitment/early training stage. The bonding costs charged do not begin to approach the real costs incurred by the employer during the recruitment and training of a new-hire.
I hope that people will turn down this kind of contracts. We are making our own chains by accepting this kind of constrictions
Dickens' times are not over - on the contrary, they are back with a vengeance, like it or not, and we might as well get used to it. 9/11, Chapter 11, woeful summer bookings and a probable Gulf War mean that all the advantages lie with the employers. A fair percentage (inc. poss me) of those reading this post will be redundant by the end of the year. If you don't like that situation, yell at your elected representative, not me.
Last edited by TightSlot; 21st Feb 2003 at 13:19.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: here
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My HR department says the best way to avoid time-wasters is to carry out a proper recruitment with recruters who can tell a time-waster from a real C/A wannabee. And maybe recruit some of the C/A already in the profession who have lost their job after 9/11. That should bring down the numbers.
Let's not talk about the hornet's nest Ryanair, it's an entirely different matter and would bring us out of our topic.
Let's not talk about the hornet's nest Ryanair, it's an entirely different matter and would bring us out of our topic.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Age: 64
Posts: 3,586
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fair point about recruiting those made redundant by others and also about the quality of recruitment.
However, with apologies for being tedious, presumably HR confirmed that number of applicants exceeded positions available?
I agree that Ryanair is a hornet's nest - but as they claim to be the most successful short hauler in Europe, they are (IMHO
) regrettably on-topic.
However, with apologies for being tedious, presumably HR confirmed that number of applicants exceeded positions available?
I agree that Ryanair is a hornet's nest - but as they claim to be the most successful short hauler in Europe, they are (IMHO
) regrettably on-topic.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: here
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tightslot, a pile of CV means nothing. I have worked in recruitement some years ago. We started with 3000 CV, to take out 120 to get 100 for 1 single recruitment day. We had to be quite lose on the criteria after 80 to get up to 120. This for recruiting 20 people. We got 18. This to say that it depends what you are looking for. If you want just anyone you'll be a happy man. The hard part is to find the right people who meet your requirements. And of course the prime will go to the company that have the best working conditions.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Where?
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with "Tight Slot"
"There are more applicants then jobs available. "
Initiially if you join an airline on a fixed term contract, you would expect them to honour that agreement and be compensated if they did not .
Is it unreasonable for the company to expect the same from you?
Cheers,
"There are more applicants then jobs available. "
Initiially if you join an airline on a fixed term contract, you would expect them to honour that agreement and be compensated if they did not .
Is it unreasonable for the company to expect the same from you?
Cheers,
