Beating the Rex Bond
Sprucegoose
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hughes Point, where life is great! Was also resident on page 13, but now I'm lost in Cyberspace....
Age: 59
Posts: 3,485
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Seems ppl are all happy to break the bond and not pay it out, but then go and fork out 30K on a jet rating.
Seems that honour is only measured in $50 notes these days
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Over the Rainbow
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Horatio,
Read the court decision, the bond agreement was clearly NOT legally binding.
Morally binding is another thing altogether, personally I reckon if you sign on the dotted line then you have given your word.
In any case, the court decision makes it clear, if the bond agreement is not IN the award/awa/eba and if the award/awa/eba doesnt specificaly allow for it then the bond agreement isnt worth the paper it was printed on.
Looks like you all get off scott free.
Merry Christmas
Read the court decision, the bond agreement was clearly NOT legally binding.
Morally binding is another thing altogether, personally I reckon if you sign on the dotted line then you have given your word.
In any case, the court decision makes it clear, if the bond agreement is not IN the award/awa/eba and if the award/awa/eba doesnt specificaly allow for it then the bond agreement isnt worth the paper it was printed on.
Looks like you all get off scott free.
Merry Christmas
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Sydney
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agreed... Fair is fair, and your word is your bond. NO PROBLEMS WITH THAT WHATSOEVER!
HOWEVER..... it is a TWO WAY contract. and WHEN REX start breaking their end of the contract, does that mean that YOU have to take a moral high ground because you signed the same document that REX did?
Why is it that companies can get away with blue murder against a pilot/pilot body, but as soon as a pilot decides to play by the same rules, they are ridiculed or slammed by their peers?or even worse, SUED by former employer for using the same rules as the company uses?
WHEN a pilot signs on, they agree to pay a bond if they leave. THE COMPANY also agrees to all the other terms and conditions in the contract. it is a TWO WAY document.... why shouldn't Penny look for a loophole in it??? I am sure as sh!t the company would... and they WOULD rip you off to the letter of the agreement if they could.
And when you get to the next interview, and they ask why you refused to pay your bond... the simple answer is, "I lived up to MY end of the bargain. I don't know what YOU'VE heard, but I can hold my head up high and say 'I did everything I was ethically required to do' "
Of course, this probably will NOT be brought up in the interview, as you would have DONE the interview prior to leaving!
HOWEVER..... it is a TWO WAY contract. and WHEN REX start breaking their end of the contract, does that mean that YOU have to take a moral high ground because you signed the same document that REX did?
Why is it that companies can get away with blue murder against a pilot/pilot body, but as soon as a pilot decides to play by the same rules, they are ridiculed or slammed by their peers?or even worse, SUED by former employer for using the same rules as the company uses?
WHEN a pilot signs on, they agree to pay a bond if they leave. THE COMPANY also agrees to all the other terms and conditions in the contract. it is a TWO WAY document.... why shouldn't Penny look for a loophole in it??? I am sure as sh!t the company would... and they WOULD rip you off to the letter of the agreement if they could.
And when you get to the next interview, and they ask why you refused to pay your bond... the simple answer is, "I lived up to MY end of the bargain. I don't know what YOU'VE heard, but I can hold my head up high and say 'I did everything I was ethically required to do' "
Of course, this probably will NOT be brought up in the interview, as you would have DONE the interview prior to leaving!
Last edited by apache; 18th Dec 2008 at 05:15. Reason: typo's
What is it that Rex have done that has broken the 'contract'?
When will the majority of the pilot body, realise that all they're doing, is ****TING in the nest that everyone else has to follow in! They all whinge and whine about not enough pay, ****ty conditions. No wonder! Like I said, if everyone didn't f
k it up, then we wouldn't have questions like this being posed and the ****ty pay and conditions that we have.
Rant over
morno
When will the majority of the pilot body, realise that all they're doing, is ****TING in the nest that everyone else has to follow in! They all whinge and whine about not enough pay, ****ty conditions. No wonder! Like I said, if everyone didn't f
k it up, then we wouldn't have questions like this being posed and the ****ty pay and conditions that we have.Rant over
morno
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Over the Rainbow
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Morno,
If companies require certain skills off their employees they should be training their employees, bonding does nothing more than push that cost on to someone else, either another company by hiring only those who already have the skills or their own employee's by bonding. Its greedy and I believe unethical.
By pilots and engineers accepting bond agreements for training THAT THE COMPANY REQUIRES TO OPERATE they have caused the current situation, companies can have their cake and eat it too.
No need to consider paying employees what their skills are worth if you whack a bloody great bond over their head, employee's cant leave because they cant afford to pay the bond because we pay them crap. If they dont sign a bond we wont give them the training that would qualify them to leave for a better position, and since we pay them bugger all they cant afford the training themselves.
That said, if you do sign that bond, ethically if not legally you should honour it.
Unions should have knocked this bond crap on the head right at the beginning.
I cant imagine anyone suggesting a prospective RAAF pilot or police officer should pay a bond for their training.
Ducks for cover.
If companies require certain skills off their employees they should be training their employees, bonding does nothing more than push that cost on to someone else, either another company by hiring only those who already have the skills or their own employee's by bonding. Its greedy and I believe unethical.
By pilots and engineers accepting bond agreements for training THAT THE COMPANY REQUIRES TO OPERATE they have caused the current situation, companies can have their cake and eat it too.
No need to consider paying employees what their skills are worth if you whack a bloody great bond over their head, employee's cant leave because they cant afford to pay the bond because we pay them crap. If they dont sign a bond we wont give them the training that would qualify them to leave for a better position, and since we pay them bugger all they cant afford the training themselves.
That said, if you do sign that bond, ethically if not legally you should honour it.
Unions should have knocked this bond crap on the head right at the beginning.
I cant imagine anyone suggesting a prospective RAAF pilot or police officer should pay a bond for their training.
Ducks for cover.
Sock-it.... WRONG.
RAAF pilots have a return of service obligation which is, as I recall, about 9-12 years. Mate of mine tells me the payout figure is in the order of $100,000. (he also noted that he didn't know anyone who had broken their ROSO and that the figure is only a hazy recollection)
As I said above, QANTAS bonds their pilots.
They are giving you some very valuable skills. They're not just throwing money at your logbook like your Mum and Dad did - in return for their investment they want you to use those skills for Rex, not intending that you can just be a prostitute and go work for the highest-bidding competition.
As I said above, QANTAS bonds their pilots.
They are giving you some very valuable skills. They're not just throwing money at your logbook like your Mum and Dad did - in return for their investment they want you to use those skills for Rex, not intending that you can just be a prostitute and go work for the highest-bidding competition.
Last edited by Horatio Leafblower; 18th Dec 2008 at 04:54.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: A one horse town...
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
apache,
No it means you take it to the Rex PC and/or the AFAP. Trying to sort out collective problems with an 'army of one' mentality usually achieves very little for the group as a whole.
Socket,
Have a bit more of a think about that. The company covers the cost of training in return for a commitment from the trainee that they will stay long enough to provide a return on the investment. If you stay to the end of your bond period (2 years at Rex) you can walk away without ever handing over a cent.
If enough people leave without honouring this agreement then the company will eventually decide that the only way to stop the financial drain in training is to charge people up front. i.e. jetstar, virgin, Q link. No matter how long you stay that money is gone forever. All you have done is bugger it up for those following you.
You can’t be serious? As Horatio mentioned above, the ‘bond’ runs around 9 years depending on where you end up in the defence force and has been in place for a very long time. Makes the civilian equivalents look tame in comparison.
WHEN REX start breaking their end of the contratc, does that mean that YOU have to take a moral high ground because you signed the samle document that REX did?
Socket,
bonding does nothing more than push that cost on to someone else
If enough people leave without honouring this agreement then the company will eventually decide that the only way to stop the financial drain in training is to charge people up front. i.e. jetstar, virgin, Q link. No matter how long you stay that money is gone forever. All you have done is bugger it up for those following you.
I cant imagine anyone suggesting a prospective RAAF pilot or police officer should pay a bond for their training.
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Sydney
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No it means you take it to the Rex PC and/or the AFAP
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: victoria
Age: 37
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dave Incognito,
"OFFER OF EMPLOYMENT [REX]
I am pleased to offer you employment with [REX] on the terms set out in this letter.
I could have sworn that this says "Location: Sydney"
Of course you don't have to live there but surely it would make life easier if you lived in the same city that you worked in.
"OFFER OF EMPLOYMENT [REX]
I am pleased to offer you employment with [REX] on the terms set out in this letter.
Commencement
12 January 2004
Position
SAAB (SF340) First Officer
Department
Flight Operations
Location
Sydney
Reporting to
Chief Pilot
Employment Status
Full time
Annual Salary
$27,000 per annum plus Superannuation
I could have sworn that this says "Location: Sydney"
Of course you don't have to live there but surely it would make life easier if you lived in the same city that you worked in.
I cant imagine anyone suggesting a prospective RAAF pilot or police officer should pay a bond for their training.
NSW Police make you pay for some of the training to be a policeman. I don't believe there are ROSO requirements there though.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: A one horse town...
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
apache,
I wasn’t referring to the specific case you mentioned in an earlier post. However, now that I have read the link, as I see it, the case is based on an:
Fair enough, legally there is a flaw in that EBA ’03 doesn’t mention a bond letter and it states “matter arising under this Act”. It doesn’t change the fact that the bloke signed a document agreeing to receive training and an endorsement at the expense of the company in return for a period of service.
After all as you said:
Would it have been different if it was simply a handshake that they agreed the return of service upon?
I’ll say it again, if you have a problem with the company not meeting it’s obligations in the EBA, you should help sort it out for everyone, not just use it as some self justification to skip your bond.
I’m not arguing this on behalf of the benefit of the company, in fact quite the opposite . My gripe is that a lot of people sign the bond and then try to side step it on technicalities. This will eventually lead to the company believing there is too much contempt for the bond and an inability to trust new employees word. Enter the pay up front scenario which benefits nobody but the company.
I wouldn’t have ended up working for Rex had I been required to front up with a cheque for 15k on day one. I simply don’t want this to happen to young guys following in our footsteps because of people’s inability to stay true to their word.
povopilot,
I notice that you have just cut and paste that letter from the link on page one. Everyone’s letter is different depending on where Rex needs them. My location stated ‘Base - to be confirmed’. Rex has numerous bases (covering several states) which get allocated on seniority just prior to date of joining. You get asked in the interview for your preferences, then if successful you get to choose from the remaining options after they have called everyone on course (again in order of seniority).
Following that, on day one, you get a base transfer request form to submit if you are not happy with where you ended up. Certainly when I joined, if you didn’t want to live in Sydney, it was easily avoided.
Edit: typo
I wasn’t referring to the specific case you mentioned in an earlier post. However, now that I have read the link, as I see it, the case is based on an:
inconsistency or conflict was said to arise because the Training Bond and the Certified Agreement provided differently for the same ‘matters’
After all as you said:
Agreed... Fair is fair, and your word is your bond. NO PROBLEMS WITH THAT WHATSOEVER!
I would bet a penny to a pound, that you could find SOME WAY in which they have broken their end of the bargain.
I’m not arguing this on behalf of the benefit of the company, in fact quite the opposite . My gripe is that a lot of people sign the bond and then try to side step it on technicalities. This will eventually lead to the company believing there is too much contempt for the bond and an inability to trust new employees word. Enter the pay up front scenario which benefits nobody but the company.
I wouldn’t have ended up working for Rex had I been required to front up with a cheque for 15k on day one. I simply don’t want this to happen to young guys following in our footsteps because of people’s inability to stay true to their word.
povopilot,
I notice that you have just cut and paste that letter from the link on page one. Everyone’s letter is different depending on where Rex needs them. My location stated ‘Base - to be confirmed’. Rex has numerous bases (covering several states) which get allocated on seniority just prior to date of joining. You get asked in the interview for your preferences, then if successful you get to choose from the remaining options after they have called everyone on course (again in order of seniority).
Following that, on day one, you get a base transfer request form to submit if you are not happy with where you ended up. Certainly when I joined, if you didn’t want to live in Sydney, it was easily avoided.
Edit: typo
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Hell...where angels ride harleys
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dave,
I have heard before that sometimes people get a letter saying "base to be confirmed". The base is sometimes NOT confirmed until after the ground school in which case the pilot has had to pay his or her own accommodation for the 4-5 weeks, then told he/she has to move, all the while also having to be in ml for sim training.
is this true?
I have heard before that sometimes people get a letter saying "base to be confirmed". The base is sometimes NOT confirmed until after the ground school in which case the pilot has had to pay his or her own accommodation for the 4-5 weeks, then told he/she has to move, all the while also having to be in ml for sim training.
is this true?
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: A one horse town...
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have heard that at least one group were given a ‘temporary’ Sydney base for the duration of their ground/sim training. The idea behind this was that the company didn’t have to provide them accommodation in Sydney during ground school as per the EBA. Once they were ready for line training they were then awarded a permanent base either somewhere else in the network, or in Sydney if they so desired. As far as I’m aware they were still entitled to flights between Sydney/Melbourne and accommodation whilst in Melbourne (as anyone permanently based in Sydney is).
Last I heard was that the Rex PC were disputing the legality/ethics of this. Still not sure what the outcome was or how many people it affected (I’m no longer at Rex). I would have certainly preferred that the resources of the union were directed towards matters like this rather than individuals arguing the legality of bailing early on signed bond agreements.
Last I heard was that the Rex PC were disputing the legality/ethics of this. Still not sure what the outcome was or how many people it affected (I’m no longer at Rex). I would have certainly preferred that the resources of the union were directed towards matters like this rather than individuals arguing the legality of bailing early on signed bond agreements.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Hell...where angels ride harleys
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
so what you are agreeing is that the company has done stuff which is ethically wrong, and in contradiction to the EBA, which ends up costing some pilots much $$$$ they can ill afford, but disagree that the pilots should not use the same rules to save themselves $$$ when they can?
Basically the company found a loophole in the EBA to save a few bucks... exploited it to THEIR advantage whilst disadcantaging the poor pilot.
Regards regional airlines trying to get pilots to pay up front for their training.... just look at what happened at QFLink when they tried that!
Basically the company found a loophole in the EBA to save a few bucks... exploited it to THEIR advantage whilst disadcantaging the poor pilot.
Regards regional airlines trying to get pilots to pay up front for their training.... just look at what happened at QFLink when they tried that!
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: A one horse town...
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Like I said I’m not going into bat for the company. I think the pilots should use the appropriate channels to make sure the company is held to the EBA. A bunch of people saying, “Oh look what they did to those guys, dodging my bond will teach them” doesn’t fix a thing. Like I said, I’m not there anymore, but everyone I know who tried to side step the bond were provided with accom etc as per the EBA during their training. Where do you draw the line? Should the guys who got temporary placements in Sydney take sickies to make up the financial loss? How does that help future employees? If it was such a huge sticking point they shouldn't have accepted the offer in the first place. (Just to clear things up as well, you are only entitled to accom if you are not based there, so if these people ended up staying on in sydney they were never entitled to it in the first place. Again this happened around when I was leaving so din't know the full story)
Surely, we should strive for both parties to be acting in accordance to what they agreed to by using a united front. Tit for tat solves nothing. Reading some of the posts here, I honestly believe that often pilots are their own worst enemy.
Regardless of all of the above, bonds, wages, basings etc., are all disclosed before you are required to sign your letter of employment. If any of that is a surprise then you either didn’t read the contract or didn’t ask enough questions. In my entire time at Rex, my terms and conditions were exactly as advertised as per the contract I was sent with my offer of employment. I read it until I knew it backwards and even carried it in my nav bag after I was employed. If you don’t want to be bound by the bond, have the balls to tell them that in the interview.
As for Qlink, I wouldn’t have a clue what their current arrangement is. I stopped caring when I got into Rex. All I know for sure is that when I was doing ground school we often used to bump into Eastern guys down on Botany Rd in the evenings. We had – a wage (albeit a training wage) going into our account from day one, a hotel room, lunch provided every day, flights to and from our interstate bases every weekend, all without a single dollar of our own handed over. The Qlink guys were paying for their own accom, their endorsements, and weren’t even guaranteed a job at the end of it. So when you are saying look what happened, I would say I saw a heap of pilots who where prepared to accept the offer on the table.
Surely, we should strive for both parties to be acting in accordance to what they agreed to by using a united front. Tit for tat solves nothing. Reading some of the posts here, I honestly believe that often pilots are their own worst enemy.
Regardless of all of the above, bonds, wages, basings etc., are all disclosed before you are required to sign your letter of employment. If any of that is a surprise then you either didn’t read the contract or didn’t ask enough questions. In my entire time at Rex, my terms and conditions were exactly as advertised as per the contract I was sent with my offer of employment. I read it until I knew it backwards and even carried it in my nav bag after I was employed. If you don’t want to be bound by the bond, have the balls to tell them that in the interview.
As for Qlink, I wouldn’t have a clue what their current arrangement is. I stopped caring when I got into Rex. All I know for sure is that when I was doing ground school we often used to bump into Eastern guys down on Botany Rd in the evenings. We had – a wage (albeit a training wage) going into our account from day one, a hotel room, lunch provided every day, flights to and from our interstate bases every weekend, all without a single dollar of our own handed over. The Qlink guys were paying for their own accom, their endorsements, and weren’t even guaranteed a job at the end of it. So when you are saying look what happened, I would say I saw a heap of pilots who where prepared to accept the offer on the table.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Hell...where angels ride harleys
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All I am saying is that when there is an agreement between two parties, BOTH SIDES need to honour that agreement.
Me sidestepping the bond because I didn't believe that the company had held up their side of the agreement, is akin to me entering into an agreement to buy a fridge for $2000 with repayments over a two year period. When said fridge arrives something goes wrong with the fridge inside the two year warranty period.... and the person I bought the fridge from will not fix it. WHY should I keep paying in that instance?
Regards Qlink.... once they started making people PAY ten grand for a dash endorsement, the pool of available candidates dried up RAPIDLY. They are now back in the situation where QL pays for the endorsement, and, I believe, pilots are bonded.
Rex already have crewing issues... they do NOT need to exacerbate the situation by scaring off GA drivers who can't afford to fork out $$$$ up front.
Me sidestepping the bond because I didn't believe that the company had held up their side of the agreement, is akin to me entering into an agreement to buy a fridge for $2000 with repayments over a two year period. When said fridge arrives something goes wrong with the fridge inside the two year warranty period.... and the person I bought the fridge from will not fix it. WHY should I keep paying in that instance?
Regards Qlink.... once they started making people PAY ten grand for a dash endorsement, the pool of available candidates dried up RAPIDLY. They are now back in the situation where QL pays for the endorsement, and, I believe, pilots are bonded.
Rex already have crewing issues... they do NOT need to exacerbate the situation by scaring off GA drivers who can't afford to fork out $$$$ up front.
Last edited by chief wiggum; 19th Dec 2008 at 04:14. Reason: thought of something else
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: A one horse town...
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fair enough, I think we’ll have to agree to disagree on that one. I still think if you feel that you have been let down in regards to your agreement it is best to try and remedy that issue rather than taking things into your own hands. If my fridge was busted and they wouldn’t replace it I’d go to the consumer commission. Only then will things improve.
As I said, I’ve never had an issue with the company holding up their end of the deal when I was there. Occasionally I had scheduling try and pull a swifty, but a quick mention of the EBA and that was always sorted. The temporary basing was the only apparent reduction of conditions during my stint and even though it didn’t effect me, several of us contacted the appropriate Rex PC members to have it raised with management.
I am genuinely interested to know what has happened to people outside of the EBA that left such a bitter taste in the mouth as to renege on their training agreement.
If the Qlink guys are now on similar entry to conditions as Rex (i.e. getting paid during training), that’s great. I still worry though that the contempt many seem to show the signed bond will one day come around to disadvantage new starts.
Cheers.
As I said, I’ve never had an issue with the company holding up their end of the deal when I was there. Occasionally I had scheduling try and pull a swifty, but a quick mention of the EBA and that was always sorted. The temporary basing was the only apparent reduction of conditions during my stint and even though it didn’t effect me, several of us contacted the appropriate Rex PC members to have it raised with management.
I am genuinely interested to know what has happened to people outside of the EBA that left such a bitter taste in the mouth as to renege on their training agreement.
If the Qlink guys are now on similar entry to conditions as Rex (i.e. getting paid during training), that’s great. I still worry though that the contempt many seem to show the signed bond will one day come around to disadvantage new starts.
Cheers.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Papua New Guinea
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doesn't matter if REX fails to uphold their end of the contract, that is a stand-alone issue and it does not void the obligations of the other party.
As for QLink bonding, it says on their website "full cost of the Type Rating"
How much is that? I've asked them, but I never received an actual figure??
FSI charge about $34k for a DHC-8 type rating, if QLink is anything like that, I think it's a bit steep.
As for QLink bonding, it says on their website "full cost of the Type Rating"
How much is that? I've asked them, but I never received an actual figure??
FSI charge about $34k for a DHC-8 type rating, if QLink is anything like that, I think it's a bit steep.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: terra australis
Age: 49
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
povopilot,
Excuse my ignorance as I am not in the airline loop, but is that $27,000 a training wage? and if so what would you be on after checked to line?
stunned....I was earning this as a station pilot flying around the bush 12 years ago...
Excuse my ignorance as I am not in the airline loop, but is that $27,000 a training wage? and if so what would you be on after checked to line?
stunned....I was earning this as a station pilot flying around the bush 12 years ago...
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Australia
Age: 44
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It used to be. Now it's around the 30k mark. Once checked to line or served 3 months, whichever comes first you go up to something like 42k. Although the new EBA still hasn't arrived yet so this could change.