I was a GV Captain. But I never got anywhere close to earning 300k a year! A complete resignation to no life outside of work and horrible abuse by employer bought me about 100k a year! Then upon renewal with no job 100k required for a 5 day sim course to be paid by me in the hope of finding a job? I don't think so!
Gulfstream world is utterly vile with egomaniacs stabbing everyone in sight so be careful what you wish for?
100k for ANY bond is appalling of course. But what is the situation if they fire you before the bond expiry?
I have refused jobs over bonds. Most recently with a "non decreasing bond." That is simply unfair and needs to be binned by everyone. But people accept it.
Unfortunately there are always Ar@e lickers everywhere in aviation that will agree to anything to get one over the next guy. Thereby destroying everyone's future.

Wages of Trainee… $28K for 14 weeks… so $2K/week = $100k per annum. Which is reasonable.

Thats a far cry from the $55K which had been quoted earlier which wasn’t.

Is a new-hire Effo for Pelican really on $100K during training? I don't think so. Or people wouldn't be considering leaving before their two years are up. I'd be more inclined to believe the $55K or thereabouts is their normal salary

Granted, Keg's post is a few years old and unconfirmed, but the rates listed in 2018 were ~$71K for 0A and ~$51 for the FO, which tends to align with Rex as well, from what I understand. The Pelican 2011 EBA has $47,859 listed as the starting salary, though I can't find a newer one.

100k bond for a 55k salary is a terrible deal. There are better jobs going at the moment where you can get paid twice as much and bonded 20% this amount. Why would anyone sign up?

The business geniuses running these companies are forever scratching their heads wondering why people leave. Meanwhile the only idea they ever have is “Let’s try screwing them harder see if that works”.

55k salary? Sorry kids no toys this Christmas. Also I turned that jet job down even though it would triple my income. But look how loyal I am!

In my experience employers that bang on about ‘return of service’ are often the ones you want to avoid for a lot of reasons anyway.

Has anyone else noticed that since the award was changed to allow bonding only for 50% of the cost of a type rating, that training costs have magically inflated by 100%?

Where previously operators would bond (without backing of the award if they ever tried to enforce) for 100% the genuine costs of a type rating (aircraft, sim, ground school etc.), they now add every single conceivable cost in at full commercial markup to get the 50% cost to the same figure as they used to.

Seems like the award needs to more clearly spell out what costs are bondable and which costs are just costs of running an aviation business borne by the employer.

How enforceable are they these days?

(no I'm not bonded :} )

That depends on how aggressive the employer is in chasing it. Then, who has the better lawyers.
The problem with sniveling on a bond is that in Oz this industry is too small for a pilot to risk reputational damage.
OTOH some operators don’t give a rat’s arse about a reputation for being hard-nose. It tends to keep their pilots in line.

I think this employer trying to defend or justify the amount of $97k as the cost of training a new FO would be very entertaining in court.
A very clear case of exploitation and fraud.

Operators like these are a disgrace and have been for the last 50 years that I know of, they have no business in the industry.

How is it reasonable for someone to pay their own wage when the company is operating that flight as a revenue flight? For a trainee to cover the cost of their training captains?

It's crazy to see people defending this garbage. Meanwhile US regionals are giving sign-on bonuses paid out over time, longevity matches and and structured flow programs to keep their employees.

Ooof. Sounds like a gem of a flight department you worked for.

If they are bonding against the wages of an FO under line training and the training captain sitting next to them on a revenue raising flight that would have been operated with line FOs and Capts regardless, I'd say it's illegal and unethical. And where does this stop, are crews paying for their accommodation on overnight trips or sleeping in the aircraft, are they washing planes on days off, are they being forced to fudge flight and duty times?

And let's be real, the only people that would be defending this type of arrangement would be individuals who have a vested interest in the company. Everyone else can see how ridiculous this is in 2023.

It doesn't matter what the bond is or how it's calculated! If you repay some loyalty to your employer, when the time comes, you won't owe anything.

Yikes! You misunderstood me.

I was saying the 100K salary was a reasonable, while the 55K was not. I said nothing about the reasonableness or otherwise of the bonding agreement.

The $100K number, I had gleaned from the bonding agreement which someone had attached. (14 weeks being $28K in salary). Mind you if someone needed 14 weeks to go from ab initio to F/O checked to line, Either the scheduling of training was mismanaged by the employer or the candidate was a moron.

My earlier post indicated how shocked I was at the $55K number, which if compared to a menial 40 hour a week job was equivalent to $26 an hour. That is not a living wage.

All the arseholes that went to Air North on the Jetstream? The bigger arseholes are those that employed them in the first place. I can't think of anyone so stupid as to believe a redundant jet pilot telling them 'yes, I'm done with big airline flying, I'm happy here.' Whomever is responsible for employing them got everything they deserved.

Anyone who couldn't see that covid would end and things would return to 'normal' is a cretin, kind of like the type of cretin who would invest in uber eats thinking that that **** would last forever.

They could have employed and typed pilots that would have stayed with them for a few years, but they were obviously dazzled by the big boys coming back to GA to grace them with their presence.

It appears that the operator mentioned here looking after their pilots with a 100K bond and a bunnings wage have teamed up with Inbound Aviation to offer the same identical "cadetship" Sharp Airlines offers.

Get your 200k+ ready to buy a right seat in a jet stream.

https://www.australianflying.com.au/...ilot-cadetship

The only time a $100k+ bond would be reasonable is if they trained you from scratch, and paid for it all. Anything else is attaching a leash to you for no reason other than they can't be bothered to offer competitive salaries and want to trap pilots into servitude. Stay far away, there are so many better options out there. Remember that fixing yourself in one job for years might mean you miss the better seats while the music is playing, don't play their game while its in your favor...

If you are an instructor tell your students to avoid these people and so on. The end result is that they offer proper remuneration. Look at the mining industry, they cry so much that they need cheap international labor, when they cant get it they pay big bucks and offer FiFO and still make millions...

Anyone got any factual information to add?

Some factual information would be great. There must be at least one or two disgruntled current or ex employees out there somewhere.

Update: I had a friend of a friend reach out to me. They are currently flying for the company. I was told everyone there has been told not to comment on this forum or face the consequences. I was also advised the details here are accurate in terms of pay and bond with approximately 90% pilot turn over in the past 12 months. Players choice but I believe I've dodged a huge bullet here. Thanks again to everyone who provided me with solid advice 👏

Right. They got called out for potential illegal work conditions, exploitation and fraud. And they want everyone to keep the mouth shut.

Okaaaaaaay.