Updated Air Pilots Award 2020
 

Kids,

In case anyone missed it the air pilots award was updated and now in effect.

The main change I noticed is that training bonds are now included under the award.

This annoys me because all the operators who were bonding their employees outside the provisions of the award or an EBA (DOING SOMETHING THAT IS ILLEGAL) have now had their behaviour legitimised.

On the flip side at least the conditions of training bonds are now spelled out.

For example the bond cannot exceed 50% of the training cost. So before signing a bond I recommend asking to see a breakdown of your employers costs.

There are only 2 conditions under which your employer can make you pay what you owe from your bond.

1 - if you resign
2 - if you are terminated due ‘Serious Misconduct’

Link
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/doc...f/ma000046.pdf

“Their behaviour” was probably brought about by the “behaviour” of many a pilot saying they are true to their word or will honour a handshake agreement and will return a service period for a type rating paid for by the employer. Only to bail not long after being given the costly training without being true to their word or honouring their handshake.

Yes yes I know the “but if they want me to fly it they can pay for it” argument.

chicken/egg situation maybe.

i wish employees and employers could both be trusted.

There are plenty of different types of businesses to get into. Aviation employers chose to start business in aviation. Nobody forced them to, they chose to.

There are high training costs associated with running an aviation business. If they don’t like that idea, maybe try another business.

Im a pilot. I drive a ****box car. My employers drive nice cars.

You poor thing - my heart bleeds for you and I bet you’re loyal too (not).

you sound exactly like the sort of person who would get a rating then bail, leaving people out of pocket. Believing you are entitled to the rewards without having to put in any sort of effort.

kind of like the “dodgy tradies” you see on a current affair.


who forced you to be a pilot, anyone?
after all, it’s an expensive industry that you are in...

One local gained a job with a local operator and was sent overseas to company training school to gain an ATPL and instructors rating. Upon return walked out the door to another operator. Result, no locals were ever again given the opportunity to attend the overseas company training school, all local senior positions hence forth were filled by home country personnel.

Megan

Local? Home country? I am a little confused

Local - here, home country - overseas head office, sorry.

Thank you for your valuable contribution to this discussion. What a great forum this is.

Ok, here's a valuable contribution. You are a self entitled little pr!ck and are exactly the reason bonds are put in place. The industry isnt here to find
arseholes.

Been bonded for 1 X Turbo Prop and 4 X Jet endorsements over the years, never had a problem with signing as I always had intended to full-fill the commitment and return of service to the company that funded the endorsement. And it's not like you are bonded for ever.

Never "annoyed" me either.

Just to cut through the emotion here, my reading of the amendments to the Award, regarding the imposition of Training bonds, is that they only apply to Class or Type Rating training and do not apply to other training received such as Instructor upgrades. Also, for those of you who may be tempted to leave your employ without giving a "reasonable" return of service to your employer you would be well advised to seek legal advice as to your common law contractual and equitable obligations to an employer and to avoid accusations of "unjust enrichment". There are legal mechanisms available to employers to sue an employee should that employee receive a significant financial benefit (say in the form of an instructor rating paid for by the employer) without giving a reasonable return of service and the award will not automatically offer protection against a law suit brought under common law or equitable principles. To date these mechanisms have not generally been used by employers but they are available should the employer feel suitably aggrieved by an employee's behaviour.

The only problem with that Lex is that it will cost far more in court and legal costs to retrieve that money. 'Justice' in this country is widely available to those who can pay for it.

Bonds, in my opinion, a necessary part of aviation employment.

Another thoughtful and constructive contribution, thank you.

All the personal attacks here are why this forum isn’t worth it any more. I was hoping for a professional discussion.

I’ve never left a job without a good return of service of at least a couple of years. In part because I appreciate the training I receive comes at a cost.

Nor have I ever been bonded, so I appreciate the perspective of people like Black Maria.

The benefits of bonds to employers aside; I can see bonds being misused to tie an employee into poor working conditions. Not all employers act with such honesty and goodwill as those who've posted here would have you believe.

I don't see what all the mud slinging is about here? This seems to be an excellent addition to the Award. Bonds have always been a bit of a wild west with everyone just doing what they want, we had employers taking advantage and employees taking advantage, the sword cut both ways, I've seen both sides of it and in the end no one really wins when either side does something ****ty but have had very little recourse in the past.

Here we have an addition that seems to balance things out, an employer can only bond them up to 50% of the training cost which is an acknowledgement that training costs are a cost of doing business but that they also expect a suitable return on this "investment" in their employees. There is also an implied requirement that the Employer has a proper costing of these training expenses and could easily be taken to task by any lawyer or judge to simply present these to prove why they charged what they charged.

Hamley, no operators who were doing the wrong thing have had anything legitimised by this, they have been brought to task and will now be required to show what these expenses are and can't just hide them anymore.

Ixixly I very much agree. It’s good to have a clear guide as to what is and isn’t ok.

Friends of mine have described being presented with bonding arrangements in the past, often with zero paperwork spelling out the terms, and wondering ‘is this even legal?’.

Employers in every industry often bemoan the ‘poor loyalty’ of staff when they leave. However places where staff are jumping out the door as soon as they can are usually unpleasant places to work!

i wonder how a certain WA operator will justify their 5 figure bonds for a caravan now

Depending on the type of operation 5 figures is pretty close. For an ASETPA operator to get someone endorsed and OPC’d costs about 16k. Which as I write this I realise that half of that is still only 8k.

I have heard some crazy figures coming from that certain operator out west. Given it is a rumour network I heard $35 k and 3 years for a B200.

Hamley, I think you raised the bar when you opened fire with this.

If that is how you look upon an employer, particularly in aviation then YOU might like to try another industry.
Without that employer sticking his financial neck out most of us would not have jobs let alone careers.

Do your next employer a favour and carry a copy of your post to your next interview to ensure your application is given full consideration.

If your benchmark for fairness in life is the type of car you or your employer drives then you need a reality check.
You might be better served listening to those "valuable and constructive comments" rather than complaining about them.
I drive a nice car!