EU Law to ban Airline Bonds!!
Guest
Posts: n/a
tilii, your reply shows, how far off any reality you are. Yes, the CAA will accept, actually this is practice all over the world, where and with whom you do your type rating. The endorsement however, this in the case of a type rating obtained abroad, will be limited to the airline you have chosen to train with. To make this a "clean" type rating, you will have to do the usual checkflights with a TRE in your country.
And with JAR being introduced more and more in Europe, also this will be waved soon....
The question mark behind this picture remains the same as it is since many years, how good will you be trained, how much conversion is required, are you able to cope with all the different procedures used by individual companies?
And please tell me one thing, you write an application, invest in preparing and attending an interview, you go through all the hassle to get the job, and immediately you start thinking of leaving this much desired position again? If not, than why should a bond put any burden on you? And if yes, well, than you are one of these nice colleagues who are responsible for the existance of bonds.
No, I am still not supporting bonds but, as previously explained, I understand the invoked policy of protecting investment.
And with JAR being introduced more and more in Europe, also this will be waved soon....
The question mark behind this picture remains the same as it is since many years, how good will you be trained, how much conversion is required, are you able to cope with all the different procedures used by individual companies?
And please tell me one thing, you write an application, invest in preparing and attending an interview, you go through all the hassle to get the job, and immediately you start thinking of leaving this much desired position again? If not, than why should a bond put any burden on you? And if yes, well, than you are one of these nice colleagues who are responsible for the existance of bonds.
No, I am still not supporting bonds but, as previously explained, I understand the invoked policy of protecting investment.
Glasgow's Gallus Gigolo .... PPRuNeing is like making love to a beautiful woman ... I take hours.
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: UK
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The practice I would like to see outlawed is the one where an airline requires employees to sign a bond when they convert to a new type. My employers ordered pilots (in mid-bond on one type) to convert to a new aircraft, with a new 3-year bond, and threatened them with the sack (and legal action for recovery of the existing bond) if they refused.
Ok, so legally they could (probably) have refused, but who wants to employ a pilot with an unresolved court case hanging over them, especially a bond-related one? Yes, months down the line they can prove they are not bond-jumpers., but that doesn't keep them current, or solvent...
Ok, so legally they could (probably) have refused, but who wants to employ a pilot with an unresolved court case hanging over them, especially a bond-related one? Yes, months down the line they can prove they are not bond-jumpers., but that doesn't keep them current, or solvent...
Guest
Posts: n/a
As someone who has gone 'management - flight crew - management' I empathise with the bad feeling with regard to bonds...however from the management side you must underside that the airline is investing 'real money' in the initial training of a flight crew member and as such needs some form of 'comfort' in that investment...in my opinion we would be negligent in our duty to the shareholders/investors/other staff members if we did not secure this (I do not agree with existing crew being 're-bonded' for a new type however)...
This situation is not unique to aviation and I see/hear of many similar situations in diverse industries, IT..electronics etc., whereby staff have key training/qualifications provided by the company and are contracted accordingly...in many cases far more tightly than with most airlines!
This situation is not unique to aviation and I see/hear of many similar situations in diverse industries, IT..electronics etc., whereby staff have key training/qualifications provided by the company and are contracted accordingly...in many cases far more tightly than with most airlines!
Guest
Posts: n/a
NIGHTRIDER
Ok, I take your point. However, it matters little where you actually obtained your rating. It is my experience that as you join an airline you will be required to undergo base and line training that will effectively test your skills far beyond those required merely to pass an 1179 flight test for type endorsement.
The simple fact is that the CAA require far more of a new inductee into an airline than they do an applicant for type endorsement. And it's my bet that they will never let an operator off the hook in this regard.
As to your question: a bond puts a burden on you whether or not you intend to leave the employer.
Surely both you and Boss Raptor can see that the use of bonding by SOME employers is abused and is used as a tool for blackmailing pilots into all kinds of things they might not be pressured into doing were they not threatened with immediate repayment of thousands of pounds or court action, can’t you?
And Boss, you are right, of course. This practice is spreading like the disease it is. A symptom, methinks, of the kind of greedy, bottom line, mentality that has prevailed since the eighties. The fact that it spreads does not render it right and proper. And though it has spread, I do not know of any other bonded employees who are put upon to sign agreements to repay from ten to twenty-five thousand pounds when on a salary level from just £25,000 to £50,000 per annum. Do you?
Anyway, let's get back to the topic here. Any more news on EU law bringing an end to bonding ... anyone?
Ok, I take your point. However, it matters little where you actually obtained your rating. It is my experience that as you join an airline you will be required to undergo base and line training that will effectively test your skills far beyond those required merely to pass an 1179 flight test for type endorsement.
The simple fact is that the CAA require far more of a new inductee into an airline than they do an applicant for type endorsement. And it's my bet that they will never let an operator off the hook in this regard.
As to your question: a bond puts a burden on you whether or not you intend to leave the employer.
Surely both you and Boss Raptor can see that the use of bonding by SOME employers is abused and is used as a tool for blackmailing pilots into all kinds of things they might not be pressured into doing were they not threatened with immediate repayment of thousands of pounds or court action, can’t you?
And Boss, you are right, of course. This practice is spreading like the disease it is. A symptom, methinks, of the kind of greedy, bottom line, mentality that has prevailed since the eighties. The fact that it spreads does not render it right and proper. And though it has spread, I do not know of any other bonded employees who are put upon to sign agreements to repay from ten to twenty-five thousand pounds when on a salary level from just £25,000 to £50,000 per annum. Do you?
Anyway, let's get back to the topic here. Any more news on EU law bringing an end to bonding ... anyone?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Tilii - enough already with the scaremongering, mate! 
Do you really think that the CAA - or any other half-way normal aviation authority (especially one operating under JAA rules) is going to permit "anyone" to do training? Of course not!! You've obviously forgotten that anyone wanting to do training has to get TRTO certification - which entails vast amounts of work in itself and ensures the quality levels dictated by the JAA.
I suspect that there are numerically far more cases of people running off and leaving their employers in the lurch rather than employers screwing their employees. Bonding - in whatever form; whether it's a personal loan or a bank guarantee or a bond as we understand it today - should be there to protect the training investment of the airline. Nothing more and nothing less. Pilots expect huge salaries because they've spent just £50k or so getting to a frozen ATPL - what about airlines who spend several times that in the recruitment and training process?
I do agree though that once you're working for a company, you should not be required to enter into a bond if they ask you to move onto another type (if, as I said on a previous thread, it's obvious that you're a 'type rating collector' then that's a different scenario) - and nor should you be required to pay anything if the company goes bust.
The present system is - generally - fair, and if the EU (or the unions) start making life difficult for employees than unfortunately it will have an adverse affect on the employees. ADC is absolutely right - they will have to go off and get funding from a bank and cover all their associated costs themselves. Then, if that airline fires them or goes bust, they will have to continue paying off the loan - whereas under the present situation because the pilot didn't leave under his/her own steam or was fired for cause a bond should not be repayable.
At the end of the day, you have a choice: accept a contract and all that it entails or walk away.
Do you really think that the CAA - or any other half-way normal aviation authority (especially one operating under JAA rules) is going to permit "anyone" to do training? Of course not!! You've obviously forgotten that anyone wanting to do training has to get TRTO certification - which entails vast amounts of work in itself and ensures the quality levels dictated by the JAA.
I suspect that there are numerically far more cases of people running off and leaving their employers in the lurch rather than employers screwing their employees. Bonding - in whatever form; whether it's a personal loan or a bank guarantee or a bond as we understand it today - should be there to protect the training investment of the airline. Nothing more and nothing less. Pilots expect huge salaries because they've spent just £50k or so getting to a frozen ATPL - what about airlines who spend several times that in the recruitment and training process?
I do agree though that once you're working for a company, you should not be required to enter into a bond if they ask you to move onto another type (if, as I said on a previous thread, it's obvious that you're a 'type rating collector' then that's a different scenario) - and nor should you be required to pay anything if the company goes bust.
The present system is - generally - fair, and if the EU (or the unions) start making life difficult for employees than unfortunately it will have an adverse affect on the employees. ADC is absolutely right - they will have to go off and get funding from a bank and cover all their associated costs themselves. Then, if that airline fires them or goes bust, they will have to continue paying off the loan - whereas under the present situation because the pilot didn't leave under his/her own steam or was fired for cause a bond should not be repayable.
At the end of the day, you have a choice: accept a contract and all that it entails or walk away.
Guest
Posts: n/a
The level of bond is I believe related to the cost of the training (plus 'inconvenience' cost to replace the personnel within a time period) and has no real reference to the recipients' income...bonds of this size are quite common I understand particularly in the IT sector sometimes together with contracts prohibiting the individual from operating in the same field should he leave (which will probably become illegal under the new legislation)...
If you consider the position of a university graduate coming out with a Student Loan to pay off then this is no different to the paying for training/bonding scenario common in aviation...again I believe a Doctor could possibly have debts of £25K + except they are secured on the individual personally, unlike a bond where if your company fails you walk away...
In any scenario the system will be abused by both some of the operators and by some of the flight crew...I am frequently being told it is a 'pilots' market' at present and so it would seem sense that new entries should 'shop around' for the best deal/arrangement/operator combination that suits them!
If you consider the position of a university graduate coming out with a Student Loan to pay off then this is no different to the paying for training/bonding scenario common in aviation...again I believe a Doctor could possibly have debts of £25K + except they are secured on the individual personally, unlike a bond where if your company fails you walk away...
In any scenario the system will be abused by both some of the operators and by some of the flight crew...I am frequently being told it is a 'pilots' market' at present and so it would seem sense that new entries should 'shop around' for the best deal/arrangement/operator combination that suits them!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Guv and BR
Would you care to list the options available to pilots where bonding is not in place. In fact you have No Choicebut to be bonded.
I have said elsewhere I do not necessarily mind being bonded but it should not be the ball and chain it often is.
I was bonded quite recently after accepting the job in good faithand getting all the right answers to pertinent questions at interview.After getting on line I had such serious worries about some safety issues that I felt I had no choice but to resign.
I am a person whowill notpay lip service to safety matters.I am being pursued for the bond because '...you signed the contract.'
If it goes to court I run the risk of losing a lot of money I don't have. The money aspect is peanuts to the company involved and my strength would be the negative publicity involved.I wish I was wealthy because then I would be suing them regardless of costs and looking forward to seeing them attempt to defend their operation!
The above is reality for the employee.I have said it before but I look forward to seeing a little more integrity from both sides.
Would you care to list the options available to pilots where bonding is not in place. In fact you have No Choicebut to be bonded.
I have said elsewhere I do not necessarily mind being bonded but it should not be the ball and chain it often is.
I was bonded quite recently after accepting the job in good faithand getting all the right answers to pertinent questions at interview.After getting on line I had such serious worries about some safety issues that I felt I had no choice but to resign.
I am a person whowill notpay lip service to safety matters.I am being pursued for the bond because '...you signed the contract.'
If it goes to court I run the risk of losing a lot of money I don't have. The money aspect is peanuts to the company involved and my strength would be the negative publicity involved.I wish I was wealthy because then I would be suing them regardless of costs and looking forward to seeing them attempt to defend their operation!
The above is reality for the employee.I have said it before but I look forward to seeing a little more integrity from both sides.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Well here we go again. In dives The Guvnor, the wannabe airline owner (failed) and wannabe pilot (failed), with his severely convoluted version of the facts. And he has the temerity to accuse me of scaremongering. I direct your attention to the post above from our friend Flanker, to which I return in a moment. Though I am now firmly of the view that The Guvnor is unworthy of our responses, perhaps even unworthy of being permitted to post on this website, I feel he must not be allowed to get away with his blinkered and one-sided perspective on the issue of bonding. So … deep breath … and:
Guv, your argument about the CAA is, strangely, in support of what I have already said. Not anyone will be permitted to do training. Only TRTO certified operators will be so permitted. These are AIRLINES. Thus, as I have already said, were pilots to refuse bonding and payment of their own type rating, these airlines will be forced to train their own pilots at their own expense. Shock horror! This is, of course, what they did before the greedy eighties and the era of penpusher corporate domination.
You said, quote, “I suspect that there are numerically far more cases of people running off and leaving their employers in the lurch rather than employers screwing their employees”. I suspect that you are quite right. Of course it needs to be said that, numerically, there are infinitely more employees to so run off than there are employers to do the said 'screwing'. Thus your statement is mere absurdity, is it not?
Would it not be far more germane to this discussion to consider the question of why pilot employees feel the need to run off and leave their employers? And we all know why SOME employers wish to ‘screw’ their employees – it’s profitable, isn’t it? Naturally, if employers are ‘screwing’ their employees then little wonder that many will seek to run off. The evidence is there from many sources before friend Flanker posted his story above that SOME employers do use bonding as a lever or a threat for their own ends rather than for the lofty ideals you describe of protecting their “training investment”. And we have heard from others on similar threads that SOME airlines have bonded pilots in circumstances where the said training was actually provided by the aircraft manufacturer without charge to the said airline.
Ignoring these areas of reprehensible, possibly unlawful, conduct by employers, we should ask what it is that motivates pilots to move between employers in circumstances other than where they feel compromised with respect to safety. Pilots, like any other employees worth their salt, naturally seek progression. But I can think of few who would feel that two or three years is too long to wait for such progression in normal circumstances.
What is it, then, that causes a pilot to jump ship sooner than this reasonable period of time? I have myself left an employer as quickly as, in one case at least, just three months. Why? Because the employer had lied to me, had misrepresented the company and its operation, had put me to enormous time, trouble and expense only to be rewarded with the awful realisation that I had been conned by experts in the art. Others I know have left for reasons such as being bludgeoned into doing things their consciences would not allow them to do indefinitely. One pilot of my acquaintance left his employer because the requirements placed upon him (and, I hasten to add, not others) by his employer were so intensely arduous that he had become ill and ultimately had his pilot medical certificate suspended. So, in these circumstances what do you have to say about such pilots ‘bond-jumping’, for want of a more equitable description?
As to your remarks about pilots’ “huge salaries” and what you say they have spent on obtaining their licence, we have gone over this area ad nauseam without you ever having shown any comprehension of the realities involved. Frankly, you begin to sound as if you are more than a little envious of pilots simply because you were unable to become one. I wonder if you’ll ever feel the same way about airline employers. But then, of course, it is probable that, in starting up dubious failed operations in darkest Africa, you have found it much easier to become an employer (not yet successful) than a pilot.
Your predictions as to the likely occurrences should the EU ban bonding of pilots will, in the fullness of time, be shown to be utter poppycock. Do keep dreaming on about the day when you will be able to tell pilots to go off and pay for their own heavy jet rating. I’m sure it gives you many a pleasant night with yourself.
Flanker, if you are in the position you describe then you have many courses of action that you might wish to follow. If it does go to court, don’t get stressed out. You are not alone. Put up a posting on this site if you need help and it shall arrive sooner than you might imagine.
Boss Raptor, I think your nom de plume says it all, doesn’t it?
Guv, your argument about the CAA is, strangely, in support of what I have already said. Not anyone will be permitted to do training. Only TRTO certified operators will be so permitted. These are AIRLINES. Thus, as I have already said, were pilots to refuse bonding and payment of their own type rating, these airlines will be forced to train their own pilots at their own expense. Shock horror! This is, of course, what they did before the greedy eighties and the era of penpusher corporate domination.
You said, quote, “I suspect that there are numerically far more cases of people running off and leaving their employers in the lurch rather than employers screwing their employees”. I suspect that you are quite right. Of course it needs to be said that, numerically, there are infinitely more employees to so run off than there are employers to do the said 'screwing'. Thus your statement is mere absurdity, is it not?
Would it not be far more germane to this discussion to consider the question of why pilot employees feel the need to run off and leave their employers? And we all know why SOME employers wish to ‘screw’ their employees – it’s profitable, isn’t it? Naturally, if employers are ‘screwing’ their employees then little wonder that many will seek to run off. The evidence is there from many sources before friend Flanker posted his story above that SOME employers do use bonding as a lever or a threat for their own ends rather than for the lofty ideals you describe of protecting their “training investment”. And we have heard from others on similar threads that SOME airlines have bonded pilots in circumstances where the said training was actually provided by the aircraft manufacturer without charge to the said airline.
Ignoring these areas of reprehensible, possibly unlawful, conduct by employers, we should ask what it is that motivates pilots to move between employers in circumstances other than where they feel compromised with respect to safety. Pilots, like any other employees worth their salt, naturally seek progression. But I can think of few who would feel that two or three years is too long to wait for such progression in normal circumstances.
What is it, then, that causes a pilot to jump ship sooner than this reasonable period of time? I have myself left an employer as quickly as, in one case at least, just three months. Why? Because the employer had lied to me, had misrepresented the company and its operation, had put me to enormous time, trouble and expense only to be rewarded with the awful realisation that I had been conned by experts in the art. Others I know have left for reasons such as being bludgeoned into doing things their consciences would not allow them to do indefinitely. One pilot of my acquaintance left his employer because the requirements placed upon him (and, I hasten to add, not others) by his employer were so intensely arduous that he had become ill and ultimately had his pilot medical certificate suspended. So, in these circumstances what do you have to say about such pilots ‘bond-jumping’, for want of a more equitable description?
As to your remarks about pilots’ “huge salaries” and what you say they have spent on obtaining their licence, we have gone over this area ad nauseam without you ever having shown any comprehension of the realities involved. Frankly, you begin to sound as if you are more than a little envious of pilots simply because you were unable to become one. I wonder if you’ll ever feel the same way about airline employers. But then, of course, it is probable that, in starting up dubious failed operations in darkest Africa, you have found it much easier to become an employer (not yet successful) than a pilot.
Your predictions as to the likely occurrences should the EU ban bonding of pilots will, in the fullness of time, be shown to be utter poppycock. Do keep dreaming on about the day when you will be able to tell pilots to go off and pay for their own heavy jet rating. I’m sure it gives you many a pleasant night with yourself.
Flanker, if you are in the position you describe then you have many courses of action that you might wish to follow. If it does go to court, don’t get stressed out. You are not alone. Put up a posting on this site if you need help and it shall arrive sooner than you might imagine.
Boss Raptor, I think your nom de plume says it all, doesn’t it?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Tilii - I think Boss Raptor knows considerably more about running an airline than you do. As for your nom de plume - what does it mean, anyway?
Moving on, there appear - as usual - to be a number of errors in your latest missive.
Training organisations (eg GECAT) also have TRTOs. They aren't airlines! That aside, there are rather a lot of people from JAA countries - such as the Czech Republic - who would be more than happy to pop over here and work for XYZ Airways. Sure, right now they need work permits - but in a couple of years when the Czech Republic becomes part of the extended EU then they will have full working and residence rights anywhere in Europe. Think it won't happen? Take a look at Ryanair. So, if people follow your sterling example and say "we aren't going to be bonded; and we aren't going to pay for our rating" then the airlines will simply say "fine - no problem; we're going to employ (much cheaper) Czechs!"
Then who looks stupid? The airlines - which have reduced their salary costs as well as covering a bonding issue; or the prospective pilot, who is now standing there without a job?
Next, if you'll bear with me, a little spot of refresher in English Comprehension. I indeed said, quote: “I suspect that there are numerically far more cases of people running off and leaving their employers in the lurch rather than employers screwing their employees”. What this refers to is the overall number of incidents. In other words, the number of times that pilots have jumped ship is greater than the number of times pilots have been screwed by employers. You appear not to have understood this.
You enquired as to the reasons why employees leave airlines. Simple. Money. The grass always tends to look greener on the othe side of the fence; but as a friend of mine once said, that's because there's so much **** there. Take the Ryanair crews for example - they're probably the highest paid shorthaul people in Europe at the moment, yet they gripe because they are flying max hours. EZY is offering serious money as a sign on 'golden hello' but there's a catch - you have to (a) pay tax on it; and (b) repay it if you leave within an agreed period. Bonding, in other words - oh, and you can't claim back the tax, either!
You also seem to be labouring under the wholly inaccurate impression that it costs an airline nothing to recruit, select and train crews over and above the actual simulator costs. Sure, a manufacturer may provide free training - but what about all the other costs? Advertising, selection, recruitment, HR, accommodation, transportation, line checks etc etc? It all adds up.
Yet again, I return to what should be a basic concept - contractual commitments. A contract is between two (or more) parties - it's therefore down to you to make sure that you're covered as much as the party on the other side tries to cover themselves. If someone makes promises, then you should ensure that they are included in the contract - or at the very least, a side letter. That way, if they don't happen, you have recourse - in exactly the same way the other party has if you breach your covenants. If they are not prepared to do that, then walk away. Simple!!
Flanker - hindsight is 20:20 vision, mate, and it'e easy for me to sit here and say "you should have done this; you should have done that". Hopefully, you'll have catalogued your safety concerns to the company's Chief Pilot, DFO, Responsible Manager and ultimately their Flight Operations Inspector. You whould also, hopefully, have given them reasonable time to act on the issues; and if they continued, you would have again documented them. Only in extremis and with much reluctance, would you have been forced to resign your position as you did not wish to put yourself at risk any further; nor be associated with the possible consequences of the company's actions (or lack of them, as the case might be).
Assuming you had done all of the above, I'd say that you'd have a good chance of winning any action they might bring against you.
I agree 100% that integrity from both sides is an absolute prerequisite. Document every undertaking in the contract!
Moving on, there appear - as usual - to be a number of errors in your latest missive.
Training organisations (eg GECAT) also have TRTOs. They aren't airlines! That aside, there are rather a lot of people from JAA countries - such as the Czech Republic - who would be more than happy to pop over here and work for XYZ Airways. Sure, right now they need work permits - but in a couple of years when the Czech Republic becomes part of the extended EU then they will have full working and residence rights anywhere in Europe. Think it won't happen? Take a look at Ryanair. So, if people follow your sterling example and say "we aren't going to be bonded; and we aren't going to pay for our rating" then the airlines will simply say "fine - no problem; we're going to employ (much cheaper) Czechs!"
Then who looks stupid? The airlines - which have reduced their salary costs as well as covering a bonding issue; or the prospective pilot, who is now standing there without a job?
Next, if you'll bear with me, a little spot of refresher in English Comprehension. I indeed said, quote: “I suspect that there are numerically far more cases of people running off and leaving their employers in the lurch rather than employers screwing their employees”. What this refers to is the overall number of incidents. In other words, the number of times that pilots have jumped ship is greater than the number of times pilots have been screwed by employers. You appear not to have understood this.
You enquired as to the reasons why employees leave airlines. Simple. Money. The grass always tends to look greener on the othe side of the fence; but as a friend of mine once said, that's because there's so much **** there. Take the Ryanair crews for example - they're probably the highest paid shorthaul people in Europe at the moment, yet they gripe because they are flying max hours. EZY is offering serious money as a sign on 'golden hello' but there's a catch - you have to (a) pay tax on it; and (b) repay it if you leave within an agreed period. Bonding, in other words - oh, and you can't claim back the tax, either!
You also seem to be labouring under the wholly inaccurate impression that it costs an airline nothing to recruit, select and train crews over and above the actual simulator costs. Sure, a manufacturer may provide free training - but what about all the other costs? Advertising, selection, recruitment, HR, accommodation, transportation, line checks etc etc? It all adds up.
Yet again, I return to what should be a basic concept - contractual commitments. A contract is between two (or more) parties - it's therefore down to you to make sure that you're covered as much as the party on the other side tries to cover themselves. If someone makes promises, then you should ensure that they are included in the contract - or at the very least, a side letter. That way, if they don't happen, you have recourse - in exactly the same way the other party has if you breach your covenants. If they are not prepared to do that, then walk away. Simple!!
Flanker - hindsight is 20:20 vision, mate, and it'e easy for me to sit here and say "you should have done this; you should have done that". Hopefully, you'll have catalogued your safety concerns to the company's Chief Pilot, DFO, Responsible Manager and ultimately their Flight Operations Inspector. You whould also, hopefully, have given them reasonable time to act on the issues; and if they continued, you would have again documented them. Only in extremis and with much reluctance, would you have been forced to resign your position as you did not wish to put yourself at risk any further; nor be associated with the possible consequences of the company's actions (or lack of them, as the case might be).
Assuming you had done all of the above, I'd say that you'd have a good chance of winning any action they might bring against you.
I agree 100% that integrity from both sides is an absolute prerequisite. Document every undertaking in the contract!
Guest
Posts: n/a
My dear Guvnor
First my nom de plume. Simple really, though perhaps not so for those missing a large portion of ‘leetle grey cells’. For the intellectually challenged, Guvnor, a little assistance: ‘To Advise Others on The Basis of Reality’. Get it?
Unlike certain others, I have never made any claims, here or elsewhere, as to my knowledge with respect to running an airline. In fact, I would put my hand up to knowing sweet F.A. on the subject. I fly the metal tubes and have never had a yen to own, or lease, one. I think it is important that one is aware of one’s limitations. Don’t you agree, Guv?
Ignoring your tasteless remark as to English comprehension, I do confess that I have a great deal of difficulty in comprehending your scribblings on this subject. I guess you will just have to be patient with me Guv. Would you please be kind enough to tell us your source with regard to the “number of incidents” and your bold assertion that “the number of times that pilots have jumped ship is greater than the number of times pilots have been screwed by employers”? Incidentally, is there some explanation for the fact that in your prior post you said that you "suspect" this was so whereas you now hold it to be unquestionably true? Quite a leap -- of imagination, methinks.
If and when the Czech Republic becomes part of the EU, I guess we’ll certainly see more of their nationals flying throughout the EU. And while we are crystal gazing, I guess it is within the realms of possibility that the EU might well be without the UK. One never knows, does one? Whatever happens, I feel confident that ‘the universe is unfolding as it should’ (Desiderata). That is not to say, of course, that right-minded individuals should ignore the practitioners of trickery, or any issue of importance. And this issue is not one I wish to see go along the route of deciding who does, or does not look more “stupid”. Seems a tad childish, really.
Yes, I did enquire as to the reasons that pilots leave their airline employers. Are you, then, qualified to answer? Did you, at last, obtain your professional licence? Have you worked as a pilot in UK airlines? Were you bonded? Did you leave? If not, I would be obliged if you would be quiet and have the largesse to permit those so qualified to answer.
Since you are a wannabe employer, and make some rather large claims as to experience in that field, I guess it would be fine if you told us all why employers like to ‘screw’ (your word) their pilots. I wonder if your answer will be along the same lines as the reasons you attribute to we pilots - greed. Or will you instead find some simplistic justification for it?
With respect to your words to Flanker – I really think you go beyond yourself in offering legal advice. But the most significant oversight on your part appears to be on your understanding of the meaning of integrity. The way I see it, Guv, if the integrity of which Flanker writes was genuinely a part of today’s airline employer/employee relationship, then there would be no need for either side to take the paranoid stance over contractual terms that you advocate.
TTFN.
[This message has been edited by tilii (edited 30 May 2001).]
First my nom de plume. Simple really, though perhaps not so for those missing a large portion of ‘leetle grey cells’. For the intellectually challenged, Guvnor, a little assistance: ‘To Advise Others on The Basis of Reality’. Get it?
Unlike certain others, I have never made any claims, here or elsewhere, as to my knowledge with respect to running an airline. In fact, I would put my hand up to knowing sweet F.A. on the subject. I fly the metal tubes and have never had a yen to own, or lease, one. I think it is important that one is aware of one’s limitations. Don’t you agree, Guv?
Ignoring your tasteless remark as to English comprehension, I do confess that I have a great deal of difficulty in comprehending your scribblings on this subject. I guess you will just have to be patient with me Guv. Would you please be kind enough to tell us your source with regard to the “number of incidents” and your bold assertion that “the number of times that pilots have jumped ship is greater than the number of times pilots have been screwed by employers”? Incidentally, is there some explanation for the fact that in your prior post you said that you "suspect" this was so whereas you now hold it to be unquestionably true? Quite a leap -- of imagination, methinks.
If and when the Czech Republic becomes part of the EU, I guess we’ll certainly see more of their nationals flying throughout the EU. And while we are crystal gazing, I guess it is within the realms of possibility that the EU might well be without the UK. One never knows, does one? Whatever happens, I feel confident that ‘the universe is unfolding as it should’ (Desiderata). That is not to say, of course, that right-minded individuals should ignore the practitioners of trickery, or any issue of importance. And this issue is not one I wish to see go along the route of deciding who does, or does not look more “stupid”. Seems a tad childish, really.
Yes, I did enquire as to the reasons that pilots leave their airline employers. Are you, then, qualified to answer? Did you, at last, obtain your professional licence? Have you worked as a pilot in UK airlines? Were you bonded? Did you leave? If not, I would be obliged if you would be quiet and have the largesse to permit those so qualified to answer.
Since you are a wannabe employer, and make some rather large claims as to experience in that field, I guess it would be fine if you told us all why employers like to ‘screw’ (your word) their pilots. I wonder if your answer will be along the same lines as the reasons you attribute to we pilots - greed. Or will you instead find some simplistic justification for it?
With respect to your words to Flanker – I really think you go beyond yourself in offering legal advice. But the most significant oversight on your part appears to be on your understanding of the meaning of integrity. The way I see it, Guv, if the integrity of which Flanker writes was genuinely a part of today’s airline employer/employee relationship, then there would be no need for either side to take the paranoid stance over contractual terms that you advocate.
TTFN.
[This message has been edited by tilii (edited 30 May 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Good old Minogue strikes again! Waits to page 3 of the thread, then makes a single post with no input with respect to the thread's content, and tells people to grow up and bog off.
Nobody forces you to read these things, minogue. If you don't like what you read, then tackle it objectively or take your own advice and go elsewhere.
Nobody forces you to read these things, minogue. If you don't like what you read, then tackle it objectively or take your own advice and go elsewhere.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Actually, Tilii, minogue is quite right. We're both being excessively pedantic over this issue and are equally guilty of letting it degenerate to fisticuffs between ourselves.
It's unquestionably a rather emotive issue and you've selected to take an extreme stance on one side of the issue. I'm trying to show the other side - that's my Libran personality coming out, I guess!
Let's just agree to disagree on this issue, shall we?
It's unquestionably a rather emotive issue and you've selected to take an extreme stance on one side of the issue. I'm trying to show the other side - that's my Libran personality coming out, I guess!
Let's just agree to disagree on this issue, shall we?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Guv, you are entitled to hold your opinion, as am I. I think Captain PPRuNe would agree that, as contributors to PPRuNe, we are entitled to express our views within the constraints of reasonable and restrained debate.
I confess to feeling strongly on this issue and to tending toward the verbose. Nowhere in the PPRuNe rules can I find that these shortcomings are banned. If the moderators feel a thread has become inappropriate, they do a very good job in moving, or removing, it.
Minogue, thankfully is not a moderator. And, according to his post in another thread on 18 December 2000, he claims to be "that dreaded species a manager of an airline ... not ... [a] chief exec or even close to it, but at least I am a real life flesh and blood manager of a real life airline actually flying people around." In the same post, he wrote "I enjoy debating with the flight crew community ... . My opinions are not better than yours nor more informed than yours. I simply offer views from a different angle than most. I believe that this can enrich the forum."
So much for that, then, Guv. He's one of yours as well as an empty kettle.
I agree that we disagree on this issue, and I would appreciate answers to some of the questions put to you.
Better be quick. I suspect that minogue's post was intended to seek closure by the moderators.
[This message has been edited by tilii (edited 30 May 2001).]
I confess to feeling strongly on this issue and to tending toward the verbose. Nowhere in the PPRuNe rules can I find that these shortcomings are banned. If the moderators feel a thread has become inappropriate, they do a very good job in moving, or removing, it.
Minogue, thankfully is not a moderator. And, according to his post in another thread on 18 December 2000, he claims to be "that dreaded species a manager of an airline ... not ... [a] chief exec or even close to it, but at least I am a real life flesh and blood manager of a real life airline actually flying people around." In the same post, he wrote "I enjoy debating with the flight crew community ... . My opinions are not better than yours nor more informed than yours. I simply offer views from a different angle than most. I believe that this can enrich the forum."
So much for that, then, Guv. He's one of yours as well as an empty kettle.
I agree that we disagree on this issue, and I would appreciate answers to some of the questions put to you.
Better be quick. I suspect that minogue's post was intended to seek closure by the moderators.
[This message has been edited by tilii (edited 30 May 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Let me throw this into the mix then...
I paid for my first type-rating. I rather feel that I sold out, but that's another story. I then found that two guys who joined the company at about the same time had their training paid for (with a commensurate bond). I asked the company if they would consider some sort of guarantee of employment to me because I had shelled out for my training, which they were benefitting from, a kind of bond arerangement, but in the other direction.
Their reaction wasn't so surprising. They laughed in my face. But being as the two guys who had their trainig paid for were nationals of the compnay that I was working for, and I wasn't makes one wonder what it was all about.
I finish by saying that I knowingly took the job, knowing that I was expected to pay my own way in. But to find one rule for me and another for the others, I felt that if I didn't ask I would never get. I did ask, and as I expected, I still didn't get.
But was it so unreasonable to ask? Maybe the Guvnor will have an answer for that one.
I paid for my first type-rating. I rather feel that I sold out, but that's another story. I then found that two guys who joined the company at about the same time had their training paid for (with a commensurate bond). I asked the company if they would consider some sort of guarantee of employment to me because I had shelled out for my training, which they were benefitting from, a kind of bond arerangement, but in the other direction.
Their reaction wasn't so surprising. They laughed in my face. But being as the two guys who had their trainig paid for were nationals of the compnay that I was working for, and I wasn't makes one wonder what it was all about.
I finish by saying that I knowingly took the job, knowing that I was expected to pay my own way in. But to find one rule for me and another for the others, I felt that if I didn't ask I would never get. I did ask, and as I expected, I still didn't get.
But was it so unreasonable to ask? Maybe the Guvnor will have an answer for that one.
Guest
Posts: n/a
One of the latest schemes I have heard about is a company that bonds its pilots for a type rating, reducing monthly over two years... but it doesn't start reducing until after the first year of employment! A method of making it difficult to afford to leave for a better job for three years instead of two.
Anyone know how that would stand up in court if it were challenged?
Personally, I don'th think there is anything wrong with a fair, reducing bond for an initial type rating with a company but to try and use it to actually prevent someone from considering a move to a better paying job by delaying the start of the reduction sounds like an indenture to servitude.
As someone has mentioned earlier, at least with a bond that reduces over a reasonable period of say two years there is no problem and the company get some return on their investment and the individual gets valuable experience on type. If the EU do change the law and outlaw bonding then the airlines that are not top tier will resort to making pilots take out bank loans or fund their own type ratings which takes the pressure of the companies and puts it on the pilots. Not a good move I think.
A review and possibly some reasonable guidelines on how companies can bond pilots would be welcome, even outlawing the method of forcing pilots to sign guarantees to bank loans. Anyone with more information?
Anyone know how that would stand up in court if it were challenged?
Personally, I don'th think there is anything wrong with a fair, reducing bond for an initial type rating with a company but to try and use it to actually prevent someone from considering a move to a better paying job by delaying the start of the reduction sounds like an indenture to servitude.
As someone has mentioned earlier, at least with a bond that reduces over a reasonable period of say two years there is no problem and the company get some return on their investment and the individual gets valuable experience on type. If the EU do change the law and outlaw bonding then the airlines that are not top tier will resort to making pilots take out bank loans or fund their own type ratings which takes the pressure of the companies and puts it on the pilots. Not a good move I think.
A review and possibly some reasonable guidelines on how companies can bond pilots would be welcome, even outlawing the method of forcing pilots to sign guarantees to bank loans. Anyone with more information?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Firestorm - I agree that you did the right thing; and as you say, it's almost certainly because of vested political interests that locals get free (bonded) training whilst expats have to pay for it. On the other hand, though, did expats get better pay than locals?
Sir Algernon Scruggs - my personal view on that its that it is unethical. It's either a two year bond or it's a three year one - but not both!!
Sir Algernon Scruggs - my personal view on that its that it is unethical. It's either a two year bond or it's a three year one - but not both!!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Sorry chaps, I thought this thread had died a natural death after Ozdude's rather base (though wordless) contribution. Thus I started a new one with content as follows hereunder. I have now closed that thread (apologies to those who replied to it) in the hope that this one will continue. Be advised that the advice comes straight from a barrister who is representing a pilot in court against an airline suing for a bond in quite bizarre circumstances.
Most court actions with respect to the issue of pilot bonding have been argued on the ground that bonds represent a restraint of trade. This argument has so far not found favour with the courts. A better approach might be as follows:
A bonding agreement takes the form of a contract. A legally enforceable contract requires offer, acceptance and consideration. There must also be intention to be legally bound. Superficially, each of these requirements appears to be met in any bonding agreement that I’ve read (and I’ve now read quite a few). However, on closer examination it now seems likely that one vital element of the law of contract can be argued to be missing. That is the element of consideration.
In UK law, the test of enforceability is the requirement that consideration must be given in exchange for a promise. Consideration is said to be “the symbol of bargain and reciprocal obligations” and “[t]he law requires that the promisor [in this case the pilot] asks for and receives something in return for his promise” (Koffman L and MacDonald E, The Law of Contract, Tolley, Bath, 1995 at p.55). At first glance, it might seem that the pilot receives a type endorsement and this might be argued to be good consideration.
However, a promise to perform a public duty imposed by law may not be held to be sufficient consideration (for case precedent see Ward v. Byham and Collins v. Godefroy).
In bonding cases, the training that confers a type rating is required by various statutes (Air Navigation, Health and Safety at Work, etc.). Thus it is a public duty imposed by law. The duty is imposed upon the employer. Thus it may be argued that in offering to train a pilot to fly his aircraft type, the employer is doing nothing more than offering to perform an act which he is already legally obliged to perform, that this is not good and/or sufficient consideration, and that the contract is thereby unenforceable.
It was suggested that the pilot, in having the type endorsed upon his/her licence, obtains a benefit in that he/she may use that endorsement to fly that same type for another operator in the future. The answer appears to be that whatever might be done with the endorsement at some future date and in circumstances beyond the agreement in question is not relevant to the issue at hand. The only relevant issue is whether or not the bonding agreement is held to have been a legally enforceable contract at the time of its execution.
Comments, please?
[This message has been edited by tilii (edited 31 May 2001).]
Most court actions with respect to the issue of pilot bonding have been argued on the ground that bonds represent a restraint of trade. This argument has so far not found favour with the courts. A better approach might be as follows:
A bonding agreement takes the form of a contract. A legally enforceable contract requires offer, acceptance and consideration. There must also be intention to be legally bound. Superficially, each of these requirements appears to be met in any bonding agreement that I’ve read (and I’ve now read quite a few). However, on closer examination it now seems likely that one vital element of the law of contract can be argued to be missing. That is the element of consideration.
In UK law, the test of enforceability is the requirement that consideration must be given in exchange for a promise. Consideration is said to be “the symbol of bargain and reciprocal obligations” and “[t]he law requires that the promisor [in this case the pilot] asks for and receives something in return for his promise” (Koffman L and MacDonald E, The Law of Contract, Tolley, Bath, 1995 at p.55). At first glance, it might seem that the pilot receives a type endorsement and this might be argued to be good consideration.
However, a promise to perform a public duty imposed by law may not be held to be sufficient consideration (for case precedent see Ward v. Byham and Collins v. Godefroy).
In bonding cases, the training that confers a type rating is required by various statutes (Air Navigation, Health and Safety at Work, etc.). Thus it is a public duty imposed by law. The duty is imposed upon the employer. Thus it may be argued that in offering to train a pilot to fly his aircraft type, the employer is doing nothing more than offering to perform an act which he is already legally obliged to perform, that this is not good and/or sufficient consideration, and that the contract is thereby unenforceable.
It was suggested that the pilot, in having the type endorsed upon his/her licence, obtains a benefit in that he/she may use that endorsement to fly that same type for another operator in the future. The answer appears to be that whatever might be done with the endorsement at some future date and in circumstances beyond the agreement in question is not relevant to the issue at hand. The only relevant issue is whether or not the bonding agreement is held to have been a legally enforceable contract at the time of its execution.
Comments, please?
[This message has been edited by tilii (edited 31 May 2001).]