EU Law to ban Airline Bonds!!
Guest
Posts: n/a
I've read a few of these posts on bonding before, and like this one, it is an issue that produces a passionate debate to say the least. Most people have very strong, and unmoving views, which are clearly held dear to them.
I will confess to not possesing the knowledge shown or experienced by my fellow Ppruner's on this subject, other then that which I have read here.
Tilii... I can understand your view point on the moral issue raised here. Why should a company legally bond an employee for fulfiling a duty which the employer has to by law anyway? However, I work for a small independant airline. The pilots we employ, and have done so for many years, whilst not at the bottom rung of the ladder, are young and are starting to make headway into their careers. When they accept a job within our company then generally they are progressing. No-one wants to see their appetite for ambition to be taken away from them. We still have a high(ish) turn over of flying staff, nearly always people who after three or four years are going on to bigger, better and (normally) faster things! There is always a sense of congratulations to these people, from us guys down here on the ground. No-one begrudges them bettering their cirumstances.
However we would have been out of business a long time ago had we found ourselves employing and training people who had gone to pastures 'greener' at the first oppotunity. Is that less or more immoral??
In reality would this situation actually have happened? With the majority of people I have met I suspect not. Probably only a few cases which would not have bought the airline to it's knees. (But thats a guess - who knows what the story would be without the bonds we in place).
So how do the airlines protect their investment. Personally I don't know the answer. Answers on the back of a postcard please ladies and gentlemen!
Regards
YS
I will confess to not possesing the knowledge shown or experienced by my fellow Ppruner's on this subject, other then that which I have read here.
Tilii... I can understand your view point on the moral issue raised here. Why should a company legally bond an employee for fulfiling a duty which the employer has to by law anyway? However, I work for a small independant airline. The pilots we employ, and have done so for many years, whilst not at the bottom rung of the ladder, are young and are starting to make headway into their careers. When they accept a job within our company then generally they are progressing. No-one wants to see their appetite for ambition to be taken away from them. We still have a high(ish) turn over of flying staff, nearly always people who after three or four years are going on to bigger, better and (normally) faster things! There is always a sense of congratulations to these people, from us guys down here on the ground. No-one begrudges them bettering their cirumstances.
However we would have been out of business a long time ago had we found ourselves employing and training people who had gone to pastures 'greener' at the first oppotunity. Is that less or more immoral??
In reality would this situation actually have happened? With the majority of people I have met I suspect not. Probably only a few cases which would not have bought the airline to it's knees. (But thats a guess - who knows what the story would be without the bonds we in place).
So how do the airlines protect their investment. Personally I don't know the answer. Answers on the back of a postcard please ladies and gentlemen!
Regards
YS
Guest
Posts: n/a
Contracts are normally drawn up to protect the vendor. If you are not happy with the terms do not enter into the contract.
If for what ever reason you do accept the terms then abide by them.
If you want further guidance seek professional help. See a lawyer.
It is rather immature to claim the contract is unfair because it no longer suits you.
Most if not all contracts contain terms to terminate the contract, usually by paying a financial penalty.
If you borrow money you will be expected to sign a contract.
If you procure a service you will normally be expected to sign a contract. When you consult that lawyer, see what you are asked to sign!
Whilst I do not neccessarily advocate the use of bonds or contracts to protect the employer from financial loss in the event of an employee deciding to move on to better pastures, I do understand how this situation has evolved.
There have been more than a few employees who accept the job offer then decide to leave the employer with the inconvenience and cost because they have found something better. Well there is not much you can do about that, people are free to go where they choose. However it is not fair to involve a party in cost and then renege on that agreement. In this case the party is entitled to recover there outlay. The contract ( or bond ) provides for that.
When a lawyer or a plumber or a builder is contracted by you to do a job, and then gives up half way through do you just shrug and say "Oh well", or do you demand that the terms of the contract ( if you were wise enough to have one) are fulfilled. After all the plumber or lawyer may have been needy of your business but found something more lucrative. Is that fair or dishonourable ? If they exercise that "right" should you be able to recover your loss ?
Before anybody says that employees do not behave in this manner, you are right most don't. However there are enough who do, to make this a problem that needs protecting against.
If you sign a mortgage contract and then later find a better deal, that is great. If you incur a penalty for having to break your original contract than so be it. That is your choice, you knew the terms when you signed it. If you sign an employment contract amd later find a better deal......same applies in my book !
Personally I not only feel legally bound to uphold those contracts I enter into, but also honour bound ! Having said that I do read the terms of the contracts, and only enter in to them if I am satisfied that I can live with the terms contained in them.
[This message has been edited by Jetdriver (edited 02 June 2001).]
[This message has been edited by Jetdriver (edited 02 June 2001).]
If for what ever reason you do accept the terms then abide by them.
If you want further guidance seek professional help. See a lawyer.
It is rather immature to claim the contract is unfair because it no longer suits you.
Most if not all contracts contain terms to terminate the contract, usually by paying a financial penalty.
If you borrow money you will be expected to sign a contract.
If you procure a service you will normally be expected to sign a contract. When you consult that lawyer, see what you are asked to sign!
Whilst I do not neccessarily advocate the use of bonds or contracts to protect the employer from financial loss in the event of an employee deciding to move on to better pastures, I do understand how this situation has evolved.
There have been more than a few employees who accept the job offer then decide to leave the employer with the inconvenience and cost because they have found something better. Well there is not much you can do about that, people are free to go where they choose. However it is not fair to involve a party in cost and then renege on that agreement. In this case the party is entitled to recover there outlay. The contract ( or bond ) provides for that.
When a lawyer or a plumber or a builder is contracted by you to do a job, and then gives up half way through do you just shrug and say "Oh well", or do you demand that the terms of the contract ( if you were wise enough to have one) are fulfilled. After all the plumber or lawyer may have been needy of your business but found something more lucrative. Is that fair or dishonourable ? If they exercise that "right" should you be able to recover your loss ?
Before anybody says that employees do not behave in this manner, you are right most don't. However there are enough who do, to make this a problem that needs protecting against.
If you sign a mortgage contract and then later find a better deal, that is great. If you incur a penalty for having to break your original contract than so be it. That is your choice, you knew the terms when you signed it. If you sign an employment contract amd later find a better deal......same applies in my book !
Personally I not only feel legally bound to uphold those contracts I enter into, but also honour bound ! Having said that I do read the terms of the contracts, and only enter in to them if I am satisfied that I can live with the terms contained in them.
[This message has been edited by Jetdriver (edited 02 June 2001).]
[This message has been edited by Jetdriver (edited 02 June 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
You Splitter (YS) and Jetdriver make strong points in their above posts. I respond as follows:
If the attitude of the airline described by YS above was commonly held throughout the industry, I venture to suggest that the status quo that existed for many years before bonding began would still be with us today.
I am not quite sure what caused its introduction in the UK. The first instance of it that I recall was back in the early eighties when Air Bridge at EMA required bonding for type training on its Merchantman fleet. I was offered a job with them and fell about laughing when the bonding proposition was put to me. I considered it laughable and rather immoral. Further, because only they operated the Merchantman, the rating itself would have been totally valueless should a pilot wish to join another operator within the bonding period. It is important to remember that the justification put forward by most for bonding is that it is to protect the airline’s investment from the unscrupulous who might cut and run with the type rating within the bond period. Singapore Airlines was bonding (at high levels) at about that time but, to the best of my recollection, no other airline was asking pilots to sign bonds.
When I refused the Air Bridge offer, I really did not believe that the practice would ever become widespread. I was wrong. Perhaps I am too cynical, but I believe that it takes only one airline management talking about benefits it perceives it has achieved through any practice to lead others to emulate that practice. In a sense, an airline management that did not seek to do so might be fairly described as irresponsible, and negligent towards its shareholders. For whatever reason, then, the practice is now well established. I accept that an airline like BA would have no need to look for such protection: except from a handful of pilots whose mental capacity would have to be suspect. I know of no airline that has bonded and now does not. Therefore, I assume that there have indeed been corporate benefits gained from the bonding practice.
Now, if the benefits are no more than that training investment has been protected, then I see little wrong with that, always provided that the well-being of the employee has not suffered. The problem is not to do with genuine protection of investment. It is where the unscrupulous employer (and IMHO there are many) has gone further than that in using the bonding agreement for coercion of the employee once the bond is signed and the training either under way or completed. I know of instances where a pilot offers his resignation over a safety issue and is immediately asked to write a cheque for his outstanding bond balance without discussion of the safety issue ever taking place. I know of instances where an operations or crewing department has raised the issue of bond repayment in dealing with protests by aircrew over rostering practice in excess of the CAP 371 limits. I know of pilots working for airlines close to collapse who have had it put to them that they must take a reduction in pay and conditions or leave and face legal action for recovery of bonds. I know of one airline where the HR manager describes to new pilot employees the legal action her company is taking against former employees while asking them to sign the bonding agreement in her office at the beginning of their employment. I have read about other practices on these pages, including that of requiring pilots to be re-bonded all over again merely because the airline wishes to change its aircraft type.
I honestly believe that these practices have little to do with mere protection of training investment and are totally immoral. Some may be illegal. None can be justified by arguing that bonding is needed to stop a few unscrupulous pilots from jumping ship early without good reason. After all, there are other ways to handle such events, such as informally making the identity of such individuals known throughout the industry (a practice I am quite certain is already employed in any event). Let’s face it, chaps, we all know which operators are cowboy (or ‘fringe’ operators) and those that have high standards, do we not? We achieve that by communicating with each other.
I think that the answer to You Splitter’s question is that airlines might best protect their investment in training by looking at the way they handle their pilot personnel. It is not usually a question of pay. It is usually about conditions. For example, most might begin by looking at CAP371 and understanding that the provisions contained therein were never intended by its authors to promulgate standard flight crew rostering times. Those provisions were intended to set down the absolute maximum limits.
Jetdriver’s analogy with hiring lawyers or plumbers is a little off track. Consumer contracts are vastly different to employment contracts and are dealt with differently by our courts. And this is for good reason. And in the case of pilot contracts, there is the additional element of aviation safety to be considered. While I do not take issue with his remarks about signing a contract and honourably standing by its terms, I would take issue wherever that contract is shown to be so inequitable that it causes severe hardship or ill health, or where it poses a risk to airline safety.
It is now quite clear that there are some pilots who break bonds and some airlines that use bonding for coercive means. These facts alone are irrefutable evidence that the practice is unsatisfactory. I submit that it is time for the practice to be banned and for both employers and employees to again rely on good faith and integrity in their interaction. This was the case before bonding, and it will surely be the case long after it has gone.
[This message has been edited by tilii (edited 02 June 2001).]
If the attitude of the airline described by YS above was commonly held throughout the industry, I venture to suggest that the status quo that existed for many years before bonding began would still be with us today.
I am not quite sure what caused its introduction in the UK. The first instance of it that I recall was back in the early eighties when Air Bridge at EMA required bonding for type training on its Merchantman fleet. I was offered a job with them and fell about laughing when the bonding proposition was put to me. I considered it laughable and rather immoral. Further, because only they operated the Merchantman, the rating itself would have been totally valueless should a pilot wish to join another operator within the bonding period. It is important to remember that the justification put forward by most for bonding is that it is to protect the airline’s investment from the unscrupulous who might cut and run with the type rating within the bond period. Singapore Airlines was bonding (at high levels) at about that time but, to the best of my recollection, no other airline was asking pilots to sign bonds.
When I refused the Air Bridge offer, I really did not believe that the practice would ever become widespread. I was wrong. Perhaps I am too cynical, but I believe that it takes only one airline management talking about benefits it perceives it has achieved through any practice to lead others to emulate that practice. In a sense, an airline management that did not seek to do so might be fairly described as irresponsible, and negligent towards its shareholders. For whatever reason, then, the practice is now well established. I accept that an airline like BA would have no need to look for such protection: except from a handful of pilots whose mental capacity would have to be suspect. I know of no airline that has bonded and now does not. Therefore, I assume that there have indeed been corporate benefits gained from the bonding practice.
Now, if the benefits are no more than that training investment has been protected, then I see little wrong with that, always provided that the well-being of the employee has not suffered. The problem is not to do with genuine protection of investment. It is where the unscrupulous employer (and IMHO there are many) has gone further than that in using the bonding agreement for coercion of the employee once the bond is signed and the training either under way or completed. I know of instances where a pilot offers his resignation over a safety issue and is immediately asked to write a cheque for his outstanding bond balance without discussion of the safety issue ever taking place. I know of instances where an operations or crewing department has raised the issue of bond repayment in dealing with protests by aircrew over rostering practice in excess of the CAP 371 limits. I know of pilots working for airlines close to collapse who have had it put to them that they must take a reduction in pay and conditions or leave and face legal action for recovery of bonds. I know of one airline where the HR manager describes to new pilot employees the legal action her company is taking against former employees while asking them to sign the bonding agreement in her office at the beginning of their employment. I have read about other practices on these pages, including that of requiring pilots to be re-bonded all over again merely because the airline wishes to change its aircraft type.
I honestly believe that these practices have little to do with mere protection of training investment and are totally immoral. Some may be illegal. None can be justified by arguing that bonding is needed to stop a few unscrupulous pilots from jumping ship early without good reason. After all, there are other ways to handle such events, such as informally making the identity of such individuals known throughout the industry (a practice I am quite certain is already employed in any event). Let’s face it, chaps, we all know which operators are cowboy (or ‘fringe’ operators) and those that have high standards, do we not? We achieve that by communicating with each other.
I think that the answer to You Splitter’s question is that airlines might best protect their investment in training by looking at the way they handle their pilot personnel. It is not usually a question of pay. It is usually about conditions. For example, most might begin by looking at CAP371 and understanding that the provisions contained therein were never intended by its authors to promulgate standard flight crew rostering times. Those provisions were intended to set down the absolute maximum limits.
Jetdriver’s analogy with hiring lawyers or plumbers is a little off track. Consumer contracts are vastly different to employment contracts and are dealt with differently by our courts. And this is for good reason. And in the case of pilot contracts, there is the additional element of aviation safety to be considered. While I do not take issue with his remarks about signing a contract and honourably standing by its terms, I would take issue wherever that contract is shown to be so inequitable that it causes severe hardship or ill health, or where it poses a risk to airline safety.
It is now quite clear that there are some pilots who break bonds and some airlines that use bonding for coercive means. These facts alone are irrefutable evidence that the practice is unsatisfactory. I submit that it is time for the practice to be banned and for both employers and employees to again rely on good faith and integrity in their interaction. This was the case before bonding, and it will surely be the case long after it has gone.
[This message has been edited by tilii (edited 02 June 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Some good points Tilii.
Personaly I would love to see the Gentlemans agreement become normal working practice. However the days of shaking hands and being honour bound are long gone. Even if the law still recognises 'verbal' contracts. These days if it isn't in writing then it's not worth the paper it written on!
(Once a man ending an engagement could be sued by the young vixen for breaking a contract).
Anyway back to the point. I agree that bonding may possibly be used for the other purposes you mention in your post. I sincerly hope that isn't the case, but in all honesty I suspect there are just as many cases, of which you describe, as there are of pilots leaving their company in the lurch, clutching the training bills.
Also one has to question the applicability of some of these bondings. For example the airline I work for (probably) has more need of using bondings to protect itself, as opposed to say BA. I agree with your point regarding an airline retaining it's staff by paying good wages and maintaining good working conditions and practices. However, no matter how good the pay and conditions here, we will never 'compete' with the large jet operaters. No-one is going to turn down the RHS on a A330 or B757 to continue flying little regionals because they "like the company".
The question this raises of course is, do the BA's of the world really need to bond a person in the later stages of their career who are about to be type rated on the 747. Is he/she really likely to sod off after a year or so?
Whilst for reasons I have explained I don't totaly agree with scraping bonds, I do believe that the industry need to look at a more responsible, honest and regulated use of these things, to ensure that neither the employer or employee is getting 'screwed over'
YS
Personaly I would love to see the Gentlemans agreement become normal working practice. However the days of shaking hands and being honour bound are long gone. Even if the law still recognises 'verbal' contracts. These days if it isn't in writing then it's not worth the paper it written on!
(Once a man ending an engagement could be sued by the young vixen for breaking a contract).
Anyway back to the point. I agree that bonding may possibly be used for the other purposes you mention in your post. I sincerly hope that isn't the case, but in all honesty I suspect there are just as many cases, of which you describe, as there are of pilots leaving their company in the lurch, clutching the training bills.
Also one has to question the applicability of some of these bondings. For example the airline I work for (probably) has more need of using bondings to protect itself, as opposed to say BA. I agree with your point regarding an airline retaining it's staff by paying good wages and maintaining good working conditions and practices. However, no matter how good the pay and conditions here, we will never 'compete' with the large jet operaters. No-one is going to turn down the RHS on a A330 or B757 to continue flying little regionals because they "like the company".
The question this raises of course is, do the BA's of the world really need to bond a person in the later stages of their career who are about to be type rated on the 747. Is he/she really likely to sod off after a year or so?
Whilst for reasons I have explained I don't totaly agree with scraping bonds, I do believe that the industry need to look at a more responsible, honest and regulated use of these things, to ensure that neither the employer or employee is getting 'screwed over'
YS
Guest
Posts: n/a
Yes, You Splitter
I agree with most of what you say.
With regard to the issue of pilots inevitably wanting to go off and fly the 'big shiny jet' I submit that this is more a matter for the collective co-operation of airline operators than it is one for pilots.
You see, there was a time when the bigger operators would not even consider taking a pilot unless and until he/she had served the necessary time in smaller aircraft types. Indeed, some of the world's biggest and best (for example Qantas and BA) assisted their cadets by arranging with a selected small operator for these employees to serve their apprenticeship (for want of a better phrase) with that operator for a period of time.
This system had many benefits, not least of which was the building up of considerable experience in a single pilot role requiring effective decision-making processes - building good airmanship in other words.
Thus it is partly due to the present day willingness of the larger operators to forego this basic sounding process and take the very inexperienced pilot on with as few as just 250 hours that exacerbates the problem (I can almost hear the keyboards being pounded by all the wannabes as I write these words).
I repeat, then, that I believe that each and every problem associated with the reasons given for the existence of bonding can in fact be mitigated in some relatively simple way, usually by going back to what was in the past good practice.
I agree with most of what you say.
With regard to the issue of pilots inevitably wanting to go off and fly the 'big shiny jet' I submit that this is more a matter for the collective co-operation of airline operators than it is one for pilots.
You see, there was a time when the bigger operators would not even consider taking a pilot unless and until he/she had served the necessary time in smaller aircraft types. Indeed, some of the world's biggest and best (for example Qantas and BA) assisted their cadets by arranging with a selected small operator for these employees to serve their apprenticeship (for want of a better phrase) with that operator for a period of time.
This system had many benefits, not least of which was the building up of considerable experience in a single pilot role requiring effective decision-making processes - building good airmanship in other words.
Thus it is partly due to the present day willingness of the larger operators to forego this basic sounding process and take the very inexperienced pilot on with as few as just 250 hours that exacerbates the problem (I can almost hear the keyboards being pounded by all the wannabes as I write these words).
I repeat, then, that I believe that each and every problem associated with the reasons given for the existence of bonding can in fact be mitigated in some relatively simple way, usually by going back to what was in the past good practice.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Jetdriver,
I thought your analogy with mortgage bonding was a good one. I understand the FSA are trying to stamp out that kind of sharp practice too. Quite rightly so in my opinion!
You Splitter,
The problem you describe is very real but the smaller carriers have always been seen as a stepping stone. If some of the larger airlines such as Britannia and BA played the game fairly the problem wouldn't even exist.
Take Airtours cadets for example, their pilots are sent to smaller carriers first so that they can learn their trade properly, most of them have thoroughly enjoyed the experience and from what I have seen it has boosted their confidence and ability no end.
I wonder if the same is true for those low houred pilots climbing a seemingly vertical learning curve in the jet transport world. Perhaps the CAA and airline insurers should examine the problem!
No matter which side of the fence you sit on, the problems are not solely pilot induced. Flight deck crew have received an extremely raw deal by employers for decades and hopefully the pilot shortage will bring about some much needed changes.
I thought your analogy with mortgage bonding was a good one. I understand the FSA are trying to stamp out that kind of sharp practice too. Quite rightly so in my opinion!
You Splitter,
The problem you describe is very real but the smaller carriers have always been seen as a stepping stone. If some of the larger airlines such as Britannia and BA played the game fairly the problem wouldn't even exist.
Take Airtours cadets for example, their pilots are sent to smaller carriers first so that they can learn their trade properly, most of them have thoroughly enjoyed the experience and from what I have seen it has boosted their confidence and ability no end.
I wonder if the same is true for those low houred pilots climbing a seemingly vertical learning curve in the jet transport world. Perhaps the CAA and airline insurers should examine the problem!
No matter which side of the fence you sit on, the problems are not solely pilot induced. Flight deck crew have received an extremely raw deal by employers for decades and hopefully the pilot shortage will bring about some much needed changes.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I get the impression that some people who aspire to fly airliners are too naive or stupid to read and understand a contract !
Personally I find that difficult to believe. Perhaps it is more a case of wanting to re-write the contract once the benefits have been taken. If only the world was really like that !
I don't know if the rules are likely to change so as to prevent these contracts, however if they are I am sure the employers ( or mortgage lenders) will modify their own terms and conditions.
If banks could be legislated against, in such a way that stops them from using the abhorhent practice of securing large loans ,I imagine they would stop offering them to all but the most credit worthy of their customers. Airlines may well require the applicants to start funding their own type ratings, who knows ?
I doubt that utopia is getting any closer with each passing day.But there again maybe it is ?
Personally I find that difficult to believe. Perhaps it is more a case of wanting to re-write the contract once the benefits have been taken. If only the world was really like that !
I don't know if the rules are likely to change so as to prevent these contracts, however if they are I am sure the employers ( or mortgage lenders) will modify their own terms and conditions.
If banks could be legislated against, in such a way that stops them from using the abhorhent practice of securing large loans ,I imagine they would stop offering them to all but the most credit worthy of their customers. Airlines may well require the applicants to start funding their own type ratings, who knows ?
I doubt that utopia is getting any closer with each passing day.But there again maybe it is ?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Tilii and sapco2,
You both make reference to Cadet Schemes and 'serving' of apprenticeship with the smaller regional operators. It's a pity this system is not more widely practiced. It seems (at first glance) an ideal system from which all three parties could and should benefit. However as you both correctly point out the big boys are no longer worried about pilots arriving well trained, experienced, confident and having "learnt their trade". This being a direct result of the pilot shortage. That in itself is a reflection on training. Come on it can't be that bad a job being a pilot. Ok you guys may have complaints and views on pay now, but compared to the average earnings in the country, any prospective school leaver could do a lot worse than looking to the skies for a career! Having said that, I believe most wanabees are in it for the passion and love of flying. With less and less pilots coming through, you have to ask yourself if the love of flying is dying or if it's just too damn hard and expensive to PPL, CPL, ATPL etc etc etc.? It seems to me this whole training issue is one big vicious circle, with bonding being just one point on the compass, so to speak.
One quick thought. Sabco mentions insurance. Got me thinking, is there no way that airlines could take out some sort of'insurance' against the cost of training if the employee leaves within a certain period. I havn't thought that out in any depth it just suddenly occured. Im sure there are hundreds of reasons why it's not feasible, of which I will now allow you gentleman to explain............
YS.
You both make reference to Cadet Schemes and 'serving' of apprenticeship with the smaller regional operators. It's a pity this system is not more widely practiced. It seems (at first glance) an ideal system from which all three parties could and should benefit. However as you both correctly point out the big boys are no longer worried about pilots arriving well trained, experienced, confident and having "learnt their trade". This being a direct result of the pilot shortage. That in itself is a reflection on training. Come on it can't be that bad a job being a pilot. Ok you guys may have complaints and views on pay now, but compared to the average earnings in the country, any prospective school leaver could do a lot worse than looking to the skies for a career! Having said that, I believe most wanabees are in it for the passion and love of flying. With less and less pilots coming through, you have to ask yourself if the love of flying is dying or if it's just too damn hard and expensive to PPL, CPL, ATPL etc etc etc.? It seems to me this whole training issue is one big vicious circle, with bonding being just one point on the compass, so to speak.
One quick thought. Sabco mentions insurance. Got me thinking, is there no way that airlines could take out some sort of'insurance' against the cost of training if the employee leaves within a certain period. I havn't thought that out in any depth it just suddenly occured. Im sure there are hundreds of reasons why it's not feasible, of which I will now allow you gentleman to explain............
YS.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Jetdriver,
Once again I just have to agree with you, some people are very naive. I suppose you are saying it is a question of bond or no bond, job or no job? My suggestion would be read the bond contract, understand its implications then politely hand it back to the author and walk away. There are plenty of pilot jobs out there, the ball is on your foot, don't undersell yourself. You deserve better!
You Splitter,
Sorry if I implied otherwise, yes it is a great job. Guys and girls put a lot of effort into their careers. Friends will be envious and in truth most newly qualifieds feel like lottery winners. Remember though, for most, the single minded effort to get there was high. Don't put these people down, they worked hard, they deserve excellent terms and conditions.
I like your idea about insurance cover for employers to cater for the more unscrupulous among us!
[This message has been edited by sapco2 (edited 04 June 2001).]
Once again I just have to agree with you, some people are very naive. I suppose you are saying it is a question of bond or no bond, job or no job? My suggestion would be read the bond contract, understand its implications then politely hand it back to the author and walk away. There are plenty of pilot jobs out there, the ball is on your foot, don't undersell yourself. You deserve better!
You Splitter,
Sorry if I implied otherwise, yes it is a great job. Guys and girls put a lot of effort into their careers. Friends will be envious and in truth most newly qualifieds feel like lottery winners. Remember though, for most, the single minded effort to get there was high. Don't put these people down, they worked hard, they deserve excellent terms and conditions.
I like your idea about insurance cover for employers to cater for the more unscrupulous among us!
[This message has been edited by sapco2 (edited 04 June 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
You splitter
The insurance idea is not as silly as it sounds if for no other reason than that the courts of this fine land have traditionally looked to precisely that kind of solution to controversial issues involving risk. An excellent suggestion IMHO.
You have also put your finger, if inadvertently, on yet another reason behind bonding. You have recognised, quite rightly, that "most wanabees are in it for the passion and love of flying". This fact is widely recognised by airline managers and, since domination of that class is today primarily by the penpusher type, is pounced upon as a means to exploit that same "passion and love".
Jetdriver
Airlines are not banks, and type ratings are not loans. Let's focus on the fact that type rating of crews is a LEGAL requirement, not a voluntary one. It is incumbent upon the airline to ensure that crews are type rated, and it is most peculiar that this responsibility is now off-loaded onto the pilot by way of bonding. Perhaps your monica ought to be "pilotdriver" for you rarely post as if you are in fact a pilot.
The insurance idea is not as silly as it sounds if for no other reason than that the courts of this fine land have traditionally looked to precisely that kind of solution to controversial issues involving risk. An excellent suggestion IMHO.
You have also put your finger, if inadvertently, on yet another reason behind bonding. You have recognised, quite rightly, that "most wanabees are in it for the passion and love of flying". This fact is widely recognised by airline managers and, since domination of that class is today primarily by the penpusher type, is pounced upon as a means to exploit that same "passion and love".
Jetdriver
Airlines are not banks, and type ratings are not loans. Let's focus on the fact that type rating of crews is a LEGAL requirement, not a voluntary one. It is incumbent upon the airline to ensure that crews are type rated, and it is most peculiar that this responsibility is now off-loaded onto the pilot by way of bonding. Perhaps your monica ought to be "pilotdriver" for you rarely post as if you are in fact a pilot.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Thank you for that information tilli and although you do state the obvious I am obliged to agree with your first sentence.
If Eddie Stobart wants me to drive one of his big green lorries it is also a LEGAL requirement that I posess a Heavy Goods Licence. It is not a LEGAL requirement that Mr Stobart pays for it. Now before you you tell me that a Licence is something different I already know. A type rating is an addition to that licence. The employer can insist that the potential employee already has it on his/her licence or may agree to pay for that addition if they so choose. They may of course require some form of guarantee that the investment will be protected or they may not. I cannot see what is illegal or immoral about that.
As I have said before this situation is the result of lessons learned.
As for my "monica" I am sorry if you feel it ought to be something else because I disagree with your arguement. I am not sure how a pilot should "in fact" post ?
If you are successful in turning the clock back, I will be the first to applaud you ...tilii ?
If Eddie Stobart wants me to drive one of his big green lorries it is also a LEGAL requirement that I posess a Heavy Goods Licence. It is not a LEGAL requirement that Mr Stobart pays for it. Now before you you tell me that a Licence is something different I already know. A type rating is an addition to that licence. The employer can insist that the potential employee already has it on his/her licence or may agree to pay for that addition if they so choose. They may of course require some form of guarantee that the investment will be protected or they may not. I cannot see what is illegal or immoral about that.
As I have said before this situation is the result of lessons learned.
As for my "monica" I am sorry if you feel it ought to be something else because I disagree with your arguement. I am not sure how a pilot should "in fact" post ?
If you are successful in turning the clock back, I will be the first to applaud you ...tilii ?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Jetdriver
Your accusing me of stating the obvious is, I think, a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
If Eddie Stobart wants you to drive one of his big green lorries, he may very well require that you come to him with some experience in driving that size of lorry. There is no LEGAL requirement on him to specifically train you on his particular type of vehicle. That, in my view, is the difference. If he was legally bound to do so, he might seek to bond you for training on his type of lorry -- and, because many others might not place such a restriction on you, you may choose to tell him what to do with his bond. That, in my view, is another difference.
And that is what I find so offensive about pilot bonding. To my knowledge, only BA now do not bond. We have no choice. There is now little FREEDOM of contract involved. Given that freedom of contract is a fundamental tenet of the British law of contract, I submit that it is this aspect of bonding that is certainly immoral and probably illegal.
Sometimes the best way forward can be found in looking to the past. The wise do not always view this as "turning the clock back". I look forward to listening to your applause ... er, Jetdriver?
Your accusing me of stating the obvious is, I think, a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
If Eddie Stobart wants you to drive one of his big green lorries, he may very well require that you come to him with some experience in driving that size of lorry. There is no LEGAL requirement on him to specifically train you on his particular type of vehicle. That, in my view, is the difference. If he was legally bound to do so, he might seek to bond you for training on his type of lorry -- and, because many others might not place such a restriction on you, you may choose to tell him what to do with his bond. That, in my view, is another difference.
And that is what I find so offensive about pilot bonding. To my knowledge, only BA now do not bond. We have no choice. There is now little FREEDOM of contract involved. Given that freedom of contract is a fundamental tenet of the British law of contract, I submit that it is this aspect of bonding that is certainly immoral and probably illegal.
Sometimes the best way forward can be found in looking to the past. The wise do not always view this as "turning the clock back". I look forward to listening to your applause ... er, Jetdriver?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Pot calling the kettle.....
Well perhaps.
However, you state that " freedom of contract is a fundamental tenet of the British law of contract".
I am not sure which part of the law you are referring to since the law of England and wales is often quite different to the Law of Scotland, however allowing for a little (forgive me) licence on your part. It most certainly does say that, the "Law of contract" (in England) is that.. "The parties to an agreement can agree between themselves anything which is legal".
I cannot see anything in your arguement that proves such a contract is illegal. perhaps you could site a case.
I submit to you that there is nothing inherently illegal in a contract that requires a fiscal penalty for failure to fulfil. If there is any immorality in such a contract ( and you might be right) it is equally immoral for a party to renege on an agreement (contract) that they entered into.
I don't believe anybody is in any doubt about how passionately you feel about "bonding", and I would also agree that it is indeed wise to learn the lessons from history. One of the lessons most of these companies seem to have learned is that when you get your fingers burnt you don't stick your hand back in the fire.
I remember when one company I worked for introduced "bonding". It was as a result of one selfish individual who was something of a type rating collector. That individual deprived somebody else of a job at that time. He got the rating and left ! He was free to do so, the company lost money and wasted a great deal of time. There was no recourse as the contract didn't allow for it. Obviously that was a situation they did not want to repeat and so an employment bond was introduced for those joining without a type rating. The bond then was for a period of 2 years. After the introduction of that contract change there was no rebellion in the ranks. A few people did leave within the bond period and satisfied their contract. The vast majority stayed throughout the bonding period and indeed stayed long beyond.
If you are sucessful in your campaign I will indeed applaud you, however you would be wise not to hold your breath waiting.
Well perhaps.
However, you state that " freedom of contract is a fundamental tenet of the British law of contract".
I am not sure which part of the law you are referring to since the law of England and wales is often quite different to the Law of Scotland, however allowing for a little (forgive me) licence on your part. It most certainly does say that, the "Law of contract" (in England) is that.. "The parties to an agreement can agree between themselves anything which is legal".
I cannot see anything in your arguement that proves such a contract is illegal. perhaps you could site a case.
I submit to you that there is nothing inherently illegal in a contract that requires a fiscal penalty for failure to fulfil. If there is any immorality in such a contract ( and you might be right) it is equally immoral for a party to renege on an agreement (contract) that they entered into.
I don't believe anybody is in any doubt about how passionately you feel about "bonding", and I would also agree that it is indeed wise to learn the lessons from history. One of the lessons most of these companies seem to have learned is that when you get your fingers burnt you don't stick your hand back in the fire.
I remember when one company I worked for introduced "bonding". It was as a result of one selfish individual who was something of a type rating collector. That individual deprived somebody else of a job at that time. He got the rating and left ! He was free to do so, the company lost money and wasted a great deal of time. There was no recourse as the contract didn't allow for it. Obviously that was a situation they did not want to repeat and so an employment bond was introduced for those joining without a type rating. The bond then was for a period of 2 years. After the introduction of that contract change there was no rebellion in the ranks. A few people did leave within the bond period and satisfied their contract. The vast majority stayed throughout the bonding period and indeed stayed long beyond.
If you are sucessful in your campaign I will indeed applaud you, however you would be wise not to hold your breath waiting.
Guest
Posts: n/a
If a bond is a legal contract, then, the "Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977" et seq may well apply to any agreement which is considered to have clause[s] which are unfair.e.g. failure to have a straight line reduction over a reasonable period of time.
Should this be upheld in Court, some employers would have to think again about no reduction whatsoever in year one of a three year bond.
Should this be upheld in Court, some employers would have to think again about no reduction whatsoever in year one of a three year bond.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Jetdriver
Quote: “It most certainly does say that, the "Law of contract" (in England) is that.. ‘The parties to an agreement can agree between themselves anything which is legal’ ”. Unquote.
Forgive me, dear chap, but you confuse me here. What is it that says the above? Are you quoting from some unspecified source? Do you refer to English contract law here, or do you instead refer to rights and obligations?
I know nought of the law of Scotland other than that, with respect to the law of contract, there is no need there for what we call ‘consideration’. And it is true that English and Welsh citizens have the right to do anything that is not legal. Such rights are what are known as ‘residual rights’, that is they apply across the whole spectrum of law in the absence of positive rights embodied within, for example, a written Constitution or a Bill of Rights. A residual right, then, is a right to do anything that the law does not proscibe. In that sense, I suppose that your statement above holds true. But what I described as freedom of contract is a somewhat different concept.
I do not cite a case, but do please indulge me while I quote from an eminent source on the subject:
“The ‘classical’ view of contract was that the parties freely enter into an agreement or bargain as equals and therefore there should be as little state regulation or intervention as possible. …[I]t was consistent with the idea that contracts should be made by the parties (with freedom of choice) and not imposed on them by the state. It was thought to be consonant with a free market economy and the spirit of competition.”
And:
“It [the idea of freedom of contract] fails to take account of groups who are particularly susceptible to exploitation, such as consumers, tenants, and employees.” Koffman L, in “The Law of Contract”.
Without entering into a pseudo-legal debate, I hope I make it clear here what I meant by ‘freedom of contract’ as well as how I am led to hold that, despite such illusory freedom, employees (in this case bonded pilots) are susceptible to exploitation and indeed are exploited.
In English law, there are circumstances whereby it is unlawful for a pecuniary penalty to be unilaterally imposed, and there are also circumstances where a failure to fulfil obligations imposed under contract will be held to be neither illegal nor immoral.
I am saddened that you miss my points as to the fact that it is not always the employer whose ‘fingers are burnt’. I thought I had above provided many instances where it was clear that employees had been subject to immoral, perhaps unlawful, conduct.
It is disappointing to read your sorry tale of just one errant employee causing the company for whom you worked to introduce a bonding system and impose it upon all the good souls who had done nought to deserve it. Perhaps this says a great deal more about the employer than the employee in question. I note that this employer is in your past, so it is clear you found good cause to leave it too.
I note also your remark as to “no rebellion in the ranks”. This is a military term. Are you ex-military, then? Was your licence paid for at the taxpayer’s expense, Jetdriver? Did you retire with a pension sufficient to give you some degree of financial autonomy, or at least sufficient to make you somewhat indifferent as to the financial penalty that bonding might impose? If so, it might be fairer if you stood back for a moment and considered others whose position might be somewhat less privileged than your own.
Finally, I would have you understand that I am not engaged in a “campaign”. What I am doing is no more than taking an opportunity to speak out against what I hold to be a totally immoral and inequitable practice: the bonding of pilots.
Quote: “It most certainly does say that, the "Law of contract" (in England) is that.. ‘The parties to an agreement can agree between themselves anything which is legal’ ”. Unquote.
Forgive me, dear chap, but you confuse me here. What is it that says the above? Are you quoting from some unspecified source? Do you refer to English contract law here, or do you instead refer to rights and obligations?
I know nought of the law of Scotland other than that, with respect to the law of contract, there is no need there for what we call ‘consideration’. And it is true that English and Welsh citizens have the right to do anything that is not legal. Such rights are what are known as ‘residual rights’, that is they apply across the whole spectrum of law in the absence of positive rights embodied within, for example, a written Constitution or a Bill of Rights. A residual right, then, is a right to do anything that the law does not proscibe. In that sense, I suppose that your statement above holds true. But what I described as freedom of contract is a somewhat different concept.
I do not cite a case, but do please indulge me while I quote from an eminent source on the subject:
“The ‘classical’ view of contract was that the parties freely enter into an agreement or bargain as equals and therefore there should be as little state regulation or intervention as possible. …[I]t was consistent with the idea that contracts should be made by the parties (with freedom of choice) and not imposed on them by the state. It was thought to be consonant with a free market economy and the spirit of competition.”
And:
“It [the idea of freedom of contract] fails to take account of groups who are particularly susceptible to exploitation, such as consumers, tenants, and employees.” Koffman L, in “The Law of Contract”.
Without entering into a pseudo-legal debate, I hope I make it clear here what I meant by ‘freedom of contract’ as well as how I am led to hold that, despite such illusory freedom, employees (in this case bonded pilots) are susceptible to exploitation and indeed are exploited.
In English law, there are circumstances whereby it is unlawful for a pecuniary penalty to be unilaterally imposed, and there are also circumstances where a failure to fulfil obligations imposed under contract will be held to be neither illegal nor immoral.
I am saddened that you miss my points as to the fact that it is not always the employer whose ‘fingers are burnt’. I thought I had above provided many instances where it was clear that employees had been subject to immoral, perhaps unlawful, conduct.
It is disappointing to read your sorry tale of just one errant employee causing the company for whom you worked to introduce a bonding system and impose it upon all the good souls who had done nought to deserve it. Perhaps this says a great deal more about the employer than the employee in question. I note that this employer is in your past, so it is clear you found good cause to leave it too.
I note also your remark as to “no rebellion in the ranks”. This is a military term. Are you ex-military, then? Was your licence paid for at the taxpayer’s expense, Jetdriver? Did you retire with a pension sufficient to give you some degree of financial autonomy, or at least sufficient to make you somewhat indifferent as to the financial penalty that bonding might impose? If so, it might be fairer if you stood back for a moment and considered others whose position might be somewhat less privileged than your own.
Finally, I would have you understand that I am not engaged in a “campaign”. What I am doing is no more than taking an opportunity to speak out against what I hold to be a totally immoral and inequitable practice: the bonding of pilots.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Ah well, managed to restrain myself until now!
Whilst I disagree with bonding, I reckon the issue is actually very simple.
1) Bonds (or some variation thereof) are here to stay, no matter what EU law might decide. That is because there are many ways open to an employer to ensure that they don't lose out. My personal feeling is that airlines will offer to sell a prospective employee a type rating, with an offer of employment on successful completion of the course.
2) There is absolutely no doubt that that there are quite a few unscrupulous pilots out there, collecting type ratings.
3) There is absolutely no doubt that some airlines abuse the power of a bond over an employee. Similarly, there is no doubt that some bonds are inflated estimates of actual training costs, and that the financial hit taken by some companies when an employee leaves before his bond period has elapsed can be very minor indeed- for example another employer I worked for had employed too many new pilots and was losing a fortune in unneccessary salaries. Having one leave saved them money, rather than costing them.
4) Under current law, you sign it, you pay. As most bonds now seem to be styled as a bank loan undertaken by an employee, that the company pays for as long as he or she is employed, I can see little legal recourse to recover bond monies from the airline. That is the problem: the pilot has to chase the company, with little or no legal clout behind him or her. Who do you think will win that one?
5) The "pilot shortage" highlighted by sapco and others is a myth. There will ALWAYS be someone willing to take the bond, to get the job, just as there will always be someone willing to pay for a type rating to get a job.
6) Anyone with an ounce of self-respect and integrity will honour a bond commitment.
7) In the case of abuse by a company- whether it be coercion to do something dodgy, or failure to deliver what was promised, there are remedies available to the pilot (especially if you are a union member). Think Breach of Contract.
8) If you don't like it, don't sign it. No-one is forcing you.
Two final observations.
I once worked for a company that wanted me to convert to a new type. We later found out that the courses we attended had been paid for by the aircraft manufacturer, and the flying training likewise. As I attended from my home, there were no HOTAC/transport costs to the company. I was, however, bonded for £12K and two years. Go figure.
I once worked for a company that fired me and withheld pay, when they found out I was looking for another job. As I had been paid irregularly (sometimes not at all), I chased them in an Industrial Tribunal for missing dosh. I was backed by BALPA in this. The company counter-claimed for the cost of my training, and that of my replacement. Their argument was thrown out (as was their appeal) and I got my money.
Bonds are a fact of life. Deal with it.
Whilst I disagree with bonding, I reckon the issue is actually very simple.
1) Bonds (or some variation thereof) are here to stay, no matter what EU law might decide. That is because there are many ways open to an employer to ensure that they don't lose out. My personal feeling is that airlines will offer to sell a prospective employee a type rating, with an offer of employment on successful completion of the course.
2) There is absolutely no doubt that that there are quite a few unscrupulous pilots out there, collecting type ratings.
3) There is absolutely no doubt that some airlines abuse the power of a bond over an employee. Similarly, there is no doubt that some bonds are inflated estimates of actual training costs, and that the financial hit taken by some companies when an employee leaves before his bond period has elapsed can be very minor indeed- for example another employer I worked for had employed too many new pilots and was losing a fortune in unneccessary salaries. Having one leave saved them money, rather than costing them.
4) Under current law, you sign it, you pay. As most bonds now seem to be styled as a bank loan undertaken by an employee, that the company pays for as long as he or she is employed, I can see little legal recourse to recover bond monies from the airline. That is the problem: the pilot has to chase the company, with little or no legal clout behind him or her. Who do you think will win that one?
5) The "pilot shortage" highlighted by sapco and others is a myth. There will ALWAYS be someone willing to take the bond, to get the job, just as there will always be someone willing to pay for a type rating to get a job.
6) Anyone with an ounce of self-respect and integrity will honour a bond commitment.
7) In the case of abuse by a company- whether it be coercion to do something dodgy, or failure to deliver what was promised, there are remedies available to the pilot (especially if you are a union member). Think Breach of Contract.
8) If you don't like it, don't sign it. No-one is forcing you.
Two final observations.
I once worked for a company that wanted me to convert to a new type. We later found out that the courses we attended had been paid for by the aircraft manufacturer, and the flying training likewise. As I attended from my home, there were no HOTAC/transport costs to the company. I was, however, bonded for £12K and two years. Go figure.
I once worked for a company that fired me and withheld pay, when they found out I was looking for another job. As I had been paid irregularly (sometimes not at all), I chased them in an Industrial Tribunal for missing dosh. I was backed by BALPA in this. The company counter-claimed for the cost of my training, and that of my replacement. Their argument was thrown out (as was their appeal) and I got my money.
Bonds are a fact of life. Deal with it.
Guest
Posts: n/a
You are correct tilii I did quote from some unspecified source. However to ease your concern the quote was from his honour Judge Richard Seymour para 18 of the Court of Appeals recent Judgement in the matter of Scottish and Newcastle v GD construction ltd.
in case you thought I had made it up.
As you say without entering into a pseudo legal debate which would interest no one, you argue a case ,that is fair. However you use terms that suggest absolute servitude. All very emotive and I have no doubt you feel very strongly about this,however yours is not the only opinion that holds.
You make a number of wrong assumptions about me because you latch on to one word and make a whole story around it. For example.....
" You found good cause to leave "
No I didn't!
"no rebellion in the ranks.This is a military term. Are you ex military then ?"
No I am not !
"Was your licence paid for at the taxpayers expense"
No I paid for it all myself. I also am a taxpayer !
"Did you retire with a pension sufficient to...."
No I haven't retired and won't for quite some time !
"If so it might be fairer if you stood back.."
Premiss doesn't apply !
If it helps to assume a number of wholly inaccurate statements to advance your position then so be it. However what you so eloquently offer by way of diatribe does not mean that the reality of the situation is any different, or that there will not be opinions that differ from yours.
in case you thought I had made it up.
As you say without entering into a pseudo legal debate which would interest no one, you argue a case ,that is fair. However you use terms that suggest absolute servitude. All very emotive and I have no doubt you feel very strongly about this,however yours is not the only opinion that holds.
You make a number of wrong assumptions about me because you latch on to one word and make a whole story around it. For example.....
" You found good cause to leave "
No I didn't!
"no rebellion in the ranks.This is a military term. Are you ex military then ?"
No I am not !
"Was your licence paid for at the taxpayers expense"
No I paid for it all myself. I also am a taxpayer !
"Did you retire with a pension sufficient to...."
No I haven't retired and won't for quite some time !
"If so it might be fairer if you stood back.."
Premiss doesn't apply !
If it helps to assume a number of wholly inaccurate statements to advance your position then so be it. However what you so eloquently offer by way of diatribe does not mean that the reality of the situation is any different, or that there will not be opinions that differ from yours.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Although I realise this thread intially referred to employers within the EU, to provide maybe some food for thought 'outside of the box' there are still plenty of good employers that do not see any need to bond their employees.
I have worked for airlines in 3 continents and over my short career of about 11 years, from the start of my first GA instructing job my choices were already determined, I had so much debt from paying for training and licensing costs that running the risk of accumulating possibly more debt through unforseen circumstances and accepting bonds was out of the question.
I did achieve my goals although it may have taken longer by having to move around alot. In fact I recently started working for a widebody airbus operator who did not see any need to bond me although this was my first jet job and instead will pay me a large gratuity after staying with them for 3 years! A term of employment I fully intend completing with many years beyond.
Take care all.
I have worked for airlines in 3 continents and over my short career of about 11 years, from the start of my first GA instructing job my choices were already determined, I had so much debt from paying for training and licensing costs that running the risk of accumulating possibly more debt through unforseen circumstances and accepting bonds was out of the question.
I did achieve my goals although it may have taken longer by having to move around alot. In fact I recently started working for a widebody airbus operator who did not see any need to bond me although this was my first jet job and instead will pay me a large gratuity after staying with them for 3 years! A term of employment I fully intend completing with many years beyond.
Take care all.