QANTAS now asking for A $30,000 Bond
 

Is there any truth in the rumor that Qantas are now asking for a $30,000 Bond, non pro-rated over three years? Would be interested to hear eveybody's comment on this.

Yes I believe it is true, you are liable for a $30,000 bond. Think it has been like this for some time. But I would have thought that after getting in to the big Q, leaving within three or so years would have been the last thing on anyones mind!!!

If you are not planning going else where after the conversion, then it is not a problem. If you are then it is a lot cheaper than SQ!!!
Having said that, it would be pretty hard to try and get a job because of your qualification of being rated on an aircraft type as a SO.

Apparently you now have to sign a contract in blood aswell.

Does anyone find it just a little surprising that the issue of a $30,000 bond with QF has not surfaced as a topic in this forum before ?

Can anyone from QF confirm that the bond is indeed "fact".

Is ANYONE really surprised that companies now require a bond, especially as many from "dunnunda" ran away from (for example) SQ?

IF you are NOT prepared to stay...very simple, don't apply.:rolleyes:

I bet AN wish they had done the same when they put on their first batch of S/Os on the 744 before they went under and I think 2-3 in the initial course as soon as they had checked out jumped ship over to QF...good move in hindsight tho!

I can understand the reasoning behind bonding...but if it applies to pilots then why stop there.

Bond all Cabin Crew for the amount that it costs to train them. They can just as easily 'jump' to other carriers if they wish. Or what about engineers - highly trained - must have cost the company alot to get them to that stage, why arent they bonded also. Then you've got office assistants who attend seminars, surely they must be bonded for the amount those 'professional' seminars cost the company. :rolleyes:

If you look after you're employees, treat them as part of the company, not just as a number in a list, perhaps offer a share package as part of the employment, other benefits that could be offered on a salary sacrafice scheme then the employees best interest would also be that of the companies. Its not too hard to contemplate, but unfortunately there are companies out there that choose to threaten and demand loyalty by doing this, rather than providing a working environment that the employee does NOT want to leave.

Twin

Any legal minds care to comment. I believe that bonds are illegal in AUS . I may be wrong.

Also, I believe that Ansett did have a bond. I believe I heard 25000 pro-rata over 5 years. Not sure whether they ever chased anyone for it.

Yes they have a bond... I found it rather amusing after reading all the cr*p about Impulse and others in the past, when nothing was mentioned about Q! :D

It's only payable if you leave within the 3 years, to recover some of the cost of training you. Sounds reasonable to me!

Lancer

Have also heard from the regional recruitment side of things, that they will also be slapping a $20000 bond on new Dash 8 drivers in the near future, as quite a few have done the training then left for greener pastures over the last 6-12 months.

Qantas Bond
 

This is straight from a Letter of Appointment, back in 2000:

"By signing this Letter of Appointment, you will be bonded for a minimum payment of $A20,000 or full training cost recovery, where the full training cost recovery amount exceeds the minimum payment of $A20,000. These bond provisions remain in force for a three year period which commences on the date of appointment as pilot under initial training."

So bonding is nothing new at Q. Incidentally, I was told that the bond was enacted due to a few 400 S/Os leaving to work for Cathay a few years back. Can't confirm any truth in that, but it sounded reasonable at the time!! :( :(

WG:)

Talking to a QF recuiting gent recently.He sounded very concerned about QF pilots leaving,especially exAN guys.

They seem to take it so personally,almost insulted that someone would leave QF.I believe the Australian lifestyle keeps more from leaving.

One senior F/O recently departed for EK.Many AN pilots taken on by QF have knocked back interviews and jobs with foreign carriers.

With Sydney median house prices over $400,000,good schools not getting cheaper and inflation creeping back,the lucrative foreign jobs may see a few more QF pilots leave to fund retirement.

Maybe a bond a good idea.

Youll find the rattyer the Company the higher the Bond. In my experience a high Bond = "Youll soon discover youll hate workin here!" The common Company excuse for $100,000+ Bonds OS include "lost productivity related to Contract period". Even the idiotic beancounters who invented that one cant even support nor justify it using business logic when you confront them in the car-park.

Most Bonds with reputable airlines are quite low and are of nuisance value only. They know you wont be in a hurry to leave. Pre-war AN had a AUD$ 3000 bond and I think our mob (TN) had none.

If the White Rat is going for Bonds for even simple pukey SO ratings, Id be worried about the (planned?) future events with that crowd. Knowing a few Ratters myself its not just Australias high cost of living and socialist taxes thats causing departures.

PS actualy 30,000 Oz bucks isnt all that bad if you look at it from the global perspective. Does the amount decrease linearly with time served or is it a full 30 grand right up to the last day?

Good topic this.

Yes it is true about the bond. However the enforceability of this element of the employment contract is questionable and I know of at least one instance where a 'bonded' pilot left for another airline immediately after endorsement and he paid AUD $5000 instead of the bonded amount.

In this case the bond was $50,000 (he was an ex-cadet).

In the early '90's QF tried to enforce the bond clause against a Level 1 cadet who was failed under very dubious circumstances in Adl. The case went to court and QF lost.

So the moral of the story is don't sweat the bond.

rgs

FS

If people are leaving for greener pastures, perhaps Qf should try watering their own patch before putting up a tall fence. Their paddock is indeed quite brown by world standards. Of course it is never regarded as such by those ingrained with Qf's 'culture'.

Karunch......I'm not sure what you are inferring by "ingrained with QF culture", most of us just go to work, get the job done and then go home.
I do agree to some extent about "brown paddocks", however there are loads of outsiders here that think we have it too good!

Slasher said:

"If the White Rat is going for Bonds for even simple pukey SO ratings, Id be worried about the (planned?) future events with that crowd. Knowing a few Ratters myself its not just Australias high cost of living and socialist taxes thats causing departures"

Several points for you to think about:

1) Bonds at QF are not new - they have been around for a long time.

2) Is it unreasonable for a company which is about to spend a large amount of money on a trainee to look for some sort of commitment by the trainee (i.e. by agreeing to a bond cause in the contract)?

3) "Id (sic) be worried about the (planned?) future events with that crowd." Surely you must be joking. Is this statement based on your extensive knowledge of corporate business strategy and airline management or is it based on your desire to make your future a bit more appealing?

4) I know many S/O 's as Qantas and I do not believe that maintaining a S/O rating is either simple or pukey despite all the uninformed comment that abounds on this subject.

LH

Something new??.........you're kidding!!

Just pulled out the "Letter of Appointment - Pilot" dated 26th March, 1968.

"7. You are reminded that you are bonded to the Company in the sum of $2,000 to remain in the service of the Company for a period of five years..................."

A mathematician among us may care to look at a 1968 $2,000 vs. a 2002 $30,000. I reckon it'll go close.

Nobody gave it a second thought in 1968; we were just very happy to have the job. Coincidentally, despite the excretia slung on this forum, most are STILL happy!

So, what's the grumbling about?

G'day:rolleyes:

In my experience, most of us seem to decide on the operator of our choice and then bust our pooper to get hired. We go in there with somewhat rosy coloured glasses and full of hope that all of our aspirations will be fulfilled.

Then after the rose tint has worn off, we realise that this operator is not neccessarily better or worse than the other one. Our aspirations, whilst admirable were somewhat unrealistic and not all of them can be met.

So, we start looking for greener pastures, we talk to mates who give us glowing reports of their super employer and we decide, this is the one for us. And the cycle starts all over again.

The reality is that it's only the depth of the do-doos that varies, not whether it exists.