Are they doing this on purpose?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Sydney
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Horatio....
agreed. but that is not the point of the thread.
These guys DID agree to a bond.
they AGREED that they had broken the bond, and AGREED to pay the money owing.
So far, I think that these pilots HAVE acted like gentlemen,and professionals. it is the COMPANY who is acting like a spoilt brat here.
I realise that times have changed, and that pilots now have more choice. Still the argument stands though... "why don't companies address the real issue of why their pilots are leaving in droves!"
it still irks me that some companies are making record profits, paying their managers HUGE bonusses, skiting about how they have LOWERED airfares, then use the tired old lines like yours...
to deny any real salary increases.
agreed. but that is not the point of the thread.
These guys DID agree to a bond.
they AGREED that they had broken the bond, and AGREED to pay the money owing.
So far, I think that these pilots HAVE acted like gentlemen,and professionals. it is the COMPANY who is acting like a spoilt brat here.
I realise that times have changed, and that pilots now have more choice. Still the argument stands though... "why don't companies address the real issue of why their pilots are leaving in droves!"
it still irks me that some companies are making record profits, paying their managers HUGE bonusses, skiting about how they have LOWERED airfares, then use the tired old lines like yours...
The regionals are facing massive (and growing) regulatory costs, massive demand growth (and wages pressure) for LAMEs, and simultaneously a drop in (a) rural and regional economies and (b) customer pricing expectations.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My now dim legal memory is that bonds are illegal. IIRC it was a WA case concerning a FO who left a company (believe it was Cobhams but may be wrong) and they tried to recover the bond. The court found that a bond was a restraint on freedom of choice in the workplace and was akin to a form of slavery.
That is why the modern version, in the absence of the prospective employee having to pay for the endorsement, is in the nature of a personal loan from the company to the person. It comes under the law of contract and is enforceable.
However, if you are in a situation where you think you are bonded and want to walk, DO NOT rely on my ancient memory. GET legal advice. You may detest lawyers but in such a situation they can save a lot of nastiness.
That is why the modern version, in the absence of the prospective employee having to pay for the endorsement, is in the nature of a personal loan from the company to the person. It comes under the law of contract and is enforceable.
However, if you are in a situation where you think you are bonded and want to walk, DO NOT rely on my ancient memory. GET legal advice. You may detest lawyers but in such a situation they can save a lot of nastiness.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bonds may be a contract but just leave when you want to, in general your going to go overseas anyway so tell them to shove it!
I would certainly like to know who you are to ensure that I never hire you by mistake (and it WOULD be a mistake, people who are dishonest in small things tend to be the same way in bigger things as well).
Sadly, this sort of thing is indeed the reason we now have bonds. Better watch out, being overseas doesn't necessarily protect you from collection action.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sydney
Age: 60
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Go into any job or bond with open eyes!
I was bonded for two years by my current employer for an endorsement, no problem as I have been there 23 years! [and received another 4 jet ratings]
A previous employer had paid for an endorsement only 2 months before and I left with short notice so I paid him back some of that endorsement [maybe 50% of his cost] - I thought that was the honourable thing to do.
I was bonded for two years by my current employer for an endorsement, no problem as I have been there 23 years! [and received another 4 jet ratings]
A previous employer had paid for an endorsement only 2 months before and I left with short notice so I paid him back some of that endorsement [maybe 50% of his cost] - I thought that was the honourable thing to do.
Green Goblin:
The Goblins opinion is, to put it mildly, quaint, archaic, fanciful and totally technically wrong.
By definition Gobbo, a "gentlemans agreement" is unwritten. It relies on the spoken word alone. That is where the phrase "My word is my bond" comes from. That is where the highest bank credit rating term: "undoubted" comes from. It is a relic of the days when a persons word was his bond and it was commercial suicide to break your word.
In certain circles, where you obviously don't operate, there are still such agreements made every day, for example parking money overnight on the strength of a phone call, or obtaining credit in the Melbourne fruit and vegetable market. However employment law is not a realm for anyone to talk at all about "gentlemen" let alone when making an agreement for Two reasons.
1) By definition, if it is a writing, it ain't a Gentlemans agreement.
2) But more importantly it takes Two Gentlemen, acting and then behaving like Gentleman, to make a Gentlemen's agreement. If your employer turns out to be a vindictive untrustworthy piece of manure, then your fanciful belief that you have some how to behave like a "Gentleman" in the face of deceit and dishonesty is both farcical and misguided.
Furthermore, the idea that to be "professional" you some how need to be a "gentleman" is archaic. Your current employers would love you to believe that. It gives them an advantage in negotiations to see you shackled like that, they have absolutely no such scruples.
Bonded Pilots should strictly apply the letter of the law. Your employer has no "gentlemens agreement" with you, and will not behave like a "gentleman" towards you when it doesn't suit them.
You are appealing to archaic concepts of professional standards of behaviour that no longer exist. I have first hand experience of the behaviour of "Gentlemen" who hold themselves to be of a far higher standard than Airline management, and who lie, cheat, and swindle every day of the week.
To put it another way; any time someone appeals to you as a "Gentleman", grab your wallet and hang on to it tightly.
A bond is a gentleman's agreement. As professional aviators, it is up to us to act like professionals in everything we do.
By definition Gobbo, a "gentlemans agreement" is unwritten. It relies on the spoken word alone. That is where the phrase "My word is my bond" comes from. That is where the highest bank credit rating term: "undoubted" comes from. It is a relic of the days when a persons word was his bond and it was commercial suicide to break your word.
In certain circles, where you obviously don't operate, there are still such agreements made every day, for example parking money overnight on the strength of a phone call, or obtaining credit in the Melbourne fruit and vegetable market. However employment law is not a realm for anyone to talk at all about "gentlemen" let alone when making an agreement for Two reasons.
1) By definition, if it is a writing, it ain't a Gentlemans agreement.
2) But more importantly it takes Two Gentlemen, acting and then behaving like Gentleman, to make a Gentlemen's agreement. If your employer turns out to be a vindictive untrustworthy piece of manure, then your fanciful belief that you have some how to behave like a "Gentleman" in the face of deceit and dishonesty is both farcical and misguided.
Furthermore, the idea that to be "professional" you some how need to be a "gentleman" is archaic. Your current employers would love you to believe that. It gives them an advantage in negotiations to see you shackled like that, they have absolutely no such scruples.
Bonded Pilots should strictly apply the letter of the law. Your employer has no "gentlemens agreement" with you, and will not behave like a "gentleman" towards you when it doesn't suit them.
You are appealing to archaic concepts of professional standards of behaviour that no longer exist. I have first hand experience of the behaviour of "Gentlemen" who hold themselves to be of a far higher standard than Airline management, and who lie, cheat, and swindle every day of the week.
To put it another way; any time someone appeals to you as a "Gentleman", grab your wallet and hang on to it tightly.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Sydney
Age: 43
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sunfish - if you see what GG reacted to it was the idea of just grabbing the hours and running, screw the operator regardless of the agreement (written or not).
Sure, cover your ass from the outset and fight fire with fire if someone is trying to screw you over. But to have no intention of honouring the agreement for your own gain from the outset is unprofessional and a poor show of character and just harms the next guy to come along.
Sure, cover your ass from the outset and fight fire with fire if someone is trying to screw you over. But to have no intention of honouring the agreement for your own gain from the outset is unprofessional and a poor show of character and just harms the next guy to come along.
To put it another way Sunfish, you're not a professional aviator, so why do you continue to have an opinion on this subject? I doubt you have ever been subject to a bond in your life for anything (I highly doubt anyone would have wanted to spend the money on you).
When I shake the MDs hand in a small company and say I will stay for 12 months for your endorsement, I consider this a gentleman's agreement.
If you don't, kiss my arse.
When I shake the MDs hand in a small company and say I will stay for 12 months for your endorsement, I consider this a gentleman's agreement.
If you don't, kiss my arse.
Goblin:
The term "professional" and "Gentleman" are much over used these days, everybody knows it.
That is why it especially entertaining to read the comments of someone who thinks these terms still have much value.
What is unfortunately sad is anyone purporting to attempt to judge anothers conduct by reference to these terms outside their strict meaning and connect them in a way that implies "Professional" = "Gentleman".
I have stated that anyone who applies the term "professional" outside its strict meaning is either stupid or evil.
For example, I am not a professional pilot, I'm an unprofessional amateur, I admit it. That is correct usage.
The evil that I am trying to point out is the appeals by those who wish to take advantage of you to for you to "be Professional" or "be Gentlemanly" about some matter outside your professional field of expertise.
Examples of this exhortation can be seen, from memory, in postings regarding the previous QF LAME EBA, QANTAS was always exhorting the engineers along these lines.
Let me make it quite clear; the fact that you may be "Professional" does not mean that you cannot fight like a rabid hyena for what you want. You don't have to flop around like a wet lettuce just because you think you are required to be "gentlemanly" in negotiation.
Furthemore, anyone who has had serious commercial negotiations involving lawyers - "professionals" - knows perfectly well that their behaviour is not only gentlemanly, but is often totally and completely unprofessional.
As I said, if anyone invokes professionalism outside a technical discussion of your immediate competence, or invites you to be Gentlemanly, hang onto your wallet!
And Gobbo, as for having a "Gentleman's agreement" with a "Managing DIrector" that you just met, how do you know you are dealing with a Gentleman? Do you think all people who call themselves "Managing Director" are automatically Gentlemen? Especially in the Aviation industry?
If I were you in that situation, I'd follow up with a letter or email that confirms the arrangement in writing.
Furthermore, and getting back to the original subject. A lawyer I once employed taught me that the fatal flaw in most agreements is that they do not spell out the process of terminating the agreement and most importantly the rights and responsibilities of each party after this happens.
To put that another way; Saying "This offer expires on such and such a date" doesn't cut it. After that, what?
And a P.S. Giving a pilots details, unannounced, to a debt collector is most certainly ungentlemanly, but what do you expect from modern management?
To put it another way Sunfish, you're not a professional aviator, so why do you continue to have an opinion on this subject? I doubt you have ever been subject to a bond in your life for anything (I highly doubt anyone would have wanted to spend the money on you).
When I shake the MDs hand in a small company and say I will stay for 12 months for your endorsement, I consider this a gentleman's agreement.
If you don't, kiss my arse.
When I shake the MDs hand in a small company and say I will stay for 12 months for your endorsement, I consider this a gentleman's agreement.
If you don't, kiss my arse.
The term "professional" and "Gentleman" are much over used these days, everybody knows it.
That is why it especially entertaining to read the comments of someone who thinks these terms still have much value.
What is unfortunately sad is anyone purporting to attempt to judge anothers conduct by reference to these terms outside their strict meaning and connect them in a way that implies "Professional" = "Gentleman".
I have stated that anyone who applies the term "professional" outside its strict meaning is either stupid or evil.
For example, I am not a professional pilot, I'm an unprofessional amateur, I admit it. That is correct usage.
The evil that I am trying to point out is the appeals by those who wish to take advantage of you to for you to "be Professional" or "be Gentlemanly" about some matter outside your professional field of expertise.
Examples of this exhortation can be seen, from memory, in postings regarding the previous QF LAME EBA, QANTAS was always exhorting the engineers along these lines.
Let me make it quite clear; the fact that you may be "Professional" does not mean that you cannot fight like a rabid hyena for what you want. You don't have to flop around like a wet lettuce just because you think you are required to be "gentlemanly" in negotiation.
Furthemore, anyone who has had serious commercial negotiations involving lawyers - "professionals" - knows perfectly well that their behaviour is not only gentlemanly, but is often totally and completely unprofessional.
As I said, if anyone invokes professionalism outside a technical discussion of your immediate competence, or invites you to be Gentlemanly, hang onto your wallet!
And Gobbo, as for having a "Gentleman's agreement" with a "Managing DIrector" that you just met, how do you know you are dealing with a Gentleman? Do you think all people who call themselves "Managing Director" are automatically Gentlemen? Especially in the Aviation industry?
If I were you in that situation, I'd follow up with a letter or email that confirms the arrangement in writing.
Furthermore, and getting back to the original subject. A lawyer I once employed taught me that the fatal flaw in most agreements is that they do not spell out the process of terminating the agreement and most importantly the rights and responsibilities of each party after this happens.
To put that another way; Saying "This offer expires on such and such a date" doesn't cut it. After that, what?
And a P.S. Giving a pilots details, unannounced, to a debt collector is most certainly ungentlemanly, but what do you expect from modern management?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 1,744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is an important thread. People are (mostly) logically discussing an important subject, and there is useful information being presented.
Training is expensive, and is a valuable asset if you have done it. It is also a cost to companies and they like to retain the services of those they train. If there is lots of mobility, there is much greater of training cost.
There was a time when endorsements were, or appeared to be free, as a reasonable return of service was common without any pressure.
Today that is not always the case, and GA is flooded with lots who have no intention of staying any longer than they have to. This is now spreading to the scheduled operators, and regional airlines seem to have the same thing happening. Scheduled airlines are not immune from this "attitude creep"
Money is the major motivator for both the operator and the pilot, so money is the solution.
So prepaid cadetships financed by the employer is a a way to reduce some of this mobility and give pilots a reasonable chance of the job they want. Some means of ensuring a return of that training cost seems reasonable. Maybe the cost can be refundeded after a reasonable period. And the employer also has a manageable, planned, predictable supply of new pilots.
This way, pilot wannabies can also get finance for training, and reasonable expectation of a job. This should help develope a positive attitude.
The present system relies on self funded pilots who trained themselves for non existent jobs and waited for years in an unwanted GA job. When the expansion time comes they may not be available as other airlines may also be expanding.
Training is expensive, and is a valuable asset if you have done it. It is also a cost to companies and they like to retain the services of those they train. If there is lots of mobility, there is much greater of training cost.
There was a time when endorsements were, or appeared to be free, as a reasonable return of service was common without any pressure.
Today that is not always the case, and GA is flooded with lots who have no intention of staying any longer than they have to. This is now spreading to the scheduled operators, and regional airlines seem to have the same thing happening. Scheduled airlines are not immune from this "attitude creep"
Money is the major motivator for both the operator and the pilot, so money is the solution.
So prepaid cadetships financed by the employer is a a way to reduce some of this mobility and give pilots a reasonable chance of the job they want. Some means of ensuring a return of that training cost seems reasonable. Maybe the cost can be refundeded after a reasonable period. And the employer also has a manageable, planned, predictable supply of new pilots.
This way, pilot wannabies can also get finance for training, and reasonable expectation of a job. This should help develope a positive attitude.
The present system relies on self funded pilots who trained themselves for non existent jobs and waited for years in an unwanted GA job. When the expansion time comes they may not be available as other airlines may also be expanding.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Sydney
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
gentlemens agreement, or legal obligation aside, the point I was trying to make, is that the company involved had, either deliberately or accidentally, given wrong details to a collection agency which had implications down the line for the pilots who WERE repaying their bond.
the wrong details were given EVEN though the pilots HAD updated their contact details with the company prior to leaving, and HAD tried to contact the company throughout the repayment process... all to no avail. Is it arrogance from the company involved? mismanagement? a clerical stuff up? or a deliberate message to current employees thinking about leaving?
i am guessing a combination.
the wrong details were given EVEN though the pilots HAD updated their contact details with the company prior to leaving, and HAD tried to contact the company throughout the repayment process... all to no avail. Is it arrogance from the company involved? mismanagement? a clerical stuff up? or a deliberate message to current employees thinking about leaving?
i am guessing a combination.
