EU Law to ban Airline Bonds!!
Guest
Posts: n/a
My dear Jetdriver
With regard to your assertion as to “wrong assumptions”, take a good look at your own scribbling before pointing the finger at me. For example, you accused me of mounting a campaign. On what ground did you make that “wrong assumption”?
I am fully cognisant of the fact that there are differing opinions to my own out there, and have absolutely no problem with that. It's what makes the world go around.
I express my opinions to the best of my ability. Judging by your responses, it seems I make myself unambiguously understood where you, at least, are concerned. In responding to others’ statements, it is always necessary to draw conclusions from the words they use. I am not responsible, Jetdriver, for your inability to articulate your meaning, just as I am not responsible for your poor grammar or your typing mistakes.
If you speak of past employment, I think it is reasonable for me to assume that you have left and that you had ‘good cause’ to do so, whether personal or professional. What is wrong with that? Likewise, when you write something like ‘no rebellion in the ranks’, I cannot see that it is unreasonable to assume that you are speaking military vernacular from some specialised knowledge or experience of it.
Instead of being sarcastic and cynical, why don’t you respond to some of my points rather than going for the jugular all the time?
I'm beginning to think that you are not simply a pilot but an airline manager with a very personal axe to grind.
With regard to your assertion as to “wrong assumptions”, take a good look at your own scribbling before pointing the finger at me. For example, you accused me of mounting a campaign. On what ground did you make that “wrong assumption”?
I am fully cognisant of the fact that there are differing opinions to my own out there, and have absolutely no problem with that. It's what makes the world go around.
I express my opinions to the best of my ability. Judging by your responses, it seems I make myself unambiguously understood where you, at least, are concerned. In responding to others’ statements, it is always necessary to draw conclusions from the words they use. I am not responsible, Jetdriver, for your inability to articulate your meaning, just as I am not responsible for your poor grammar or your typing mistakes.
If you speak of past employment, I think it is reasonable for me to assume that you have left and that you had ‘good cause’ to do so, whether personal or professional. What is wrong with that? Likewise, when you write something like ‘no rebellion in the ranks’, I cannot see that it is unreasonable to assume that you are speaking military vernacular from some specialised knowledge or experience of it.
Instead of being sarcastic and cynical, why don’t you respond to some of my points rather than going for the jugular all the time?
I'm beginning to think that you are not simply a pilot but an airline manager with a very personal axe to grind.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Ahh tilii when you resort to critisism of grammar and spelling I know that your ability to maintain reasoned arguement is in its death throws.
I thought I had responded to your "points".
I am not an airline manager. I have no "axe to grind". Still at least your ability to make wrong assumptions is consistent.
I invite you to have the last word on the subject.
Good luck with your campaign.
[This message has been edited by Jetdriver (edited 05 June 2001).]
I thought I had responded to your "points".
I am not an airline manager. I have no "axe to grind". Still at least your ability to make wrong assumptions is consistent.
I invite you to have the last word on the subject.
Good luck with your campaign.
[This message has been edited by Jetdriver (edited 05 June 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Jetdriver
I accept your invitation, though I wonder who you think you are to offer me "the last word on the subject". Perhaps that title you use on this site has gone to your head my dear "Captain" Jetdriver. It seems to me that you merely wish to suppress my argument through personal attack. Feel free. It will not deflect me from my purpose here.
I can neither resort to "critisism [sic]" nor maintain reasoned "arguement [sic]" because there are no such nouns in the English language. When next you edit your own post, do a good job of it my son.
You most certainly have not responded to my "points". You choose to avoid them like the plague and engage instead in your personal version of sophistry.
In reflecting upon the whole of this thread, it appears to me that there are a handful of individuals who feel strongly on this issue and are able to articulate their feelings, and others who apparently could not care less (including your self).
It has been said before that we English pilots are our own worst enemies. I think it is more accurate to say that the English nation as a whole suffers from terminal apathy and a total lack of any realistic awareness of its collective, or our individual, worth.
As I pen this note, my family is watching a TV programme. It is called "The Weakest Link". A fair description of it is that it is a show that exploits the extraordinary willingness of we Brits to allow ourselves to be commercially exploited as well as personally, and publicly, abused for virtually no return (a mere ten “thousant” pounds) whereas the Yank version of the same programme shows that they at least have sufficient self esteem to demand a million bucks to be put up for grabs to suffer the same fate at the hands of the Superbitch.
Soooo … Jetdriver, you ARE the weakest link! Goodbye.
I accept your invitation, though I wonder who you think you are to offer me "the last word on the subject". Perhaps that title you use on this site has gone to your head my dear "Captain" Jetdriver. It seems to me that you merely wish to suppress my argument through personal attack. Feel free. It will not deflect me from my purpose here.
I can neither resort to "critisism [sic]" nor maintain reasoned "arguement [sic]" because there are no such nouns in the English language. When next you edit your own post, do a good job of it my son.
You most certainly have not responded to my "points". You choose to avoid them like the plague and engage instead in your personal version of sophistry.
In reflecting upon the whole of this thread, it appears to me that there are a handful of individuals who feel strongly on this issue and are able to articulate their feelings, and others who apparently could not care less (including your self).
It has been said before that we English pilots are our own worst enemies. I think it is more accurate to say that the English nation as a whole suffers from terminal apathy and a total lack of any realistic awareness of its collective, or our individual, worth.
As I pen this note, my family is watching a TV programme. It is called "The Weakest Link". A fair description of it is that it is a show that exploits the extraordinary willingness of we Brits to allow ourselves to be commercially exploited as well as personally, and publicly, abused for virtually no return (a mere ten “thousant” pounds) whereas the Yank version of the same programme shows that they at least have sufficient self esteem to demand a million bucks to be put up for grabs to suffer the same fate at the hands of the Superbitch.
Soooo … Jetdriver, you ARE the weakest link! Goodbye.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I for one would be pleased to enter a bond if someone would type rate me on an other aircraft at any time, pilots beware we thought we were here for a long time now we are scratching for too few jobs, it will come to you as well!!!! I have been bonded, made redundant and had to pay nothing of my bond back, I had don nearly three years others had done 3 months and nothing to pay.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Ah, our old friend RD, soothsayer extraordinaire with an opinion on just about everything. Been reading your contribution to the warbird debate, Kiwi dude. Got it in the neck there from Flying Lawyer, didn't you? But then he must have misunderstood you, as you so feebly suggest.
So, RD, you enter the fray on page 6, having contributed nothing up to that point, and tell others to go elsewhere. What's wrong? Fed up with being ignored? Just your style!
I'm getting more than a little tired of the company I've been keeping of late, what with having to deal with a "Captain" and now a "1400 poster" (no disrespect to other contributors intended).
I'm off to get my normal life back. Why don't you and Jetdriver get into it now? You have a great deal in common and deserve each other. TTFN
[This message has been edited by tilii (edited 05 June 2001).]
So, RD, you enter the fray on page 6, having contributed nothing up to that point, and tell others to go elsewhere. What's wrong? Fed up with being ignored? Just your style!
I'm getting more than a little tired of the company I've been keeping of late, what with having to deal with a "Captain" and now a "1400 poster" (no disrespect to other contributors intended).
I'm off to get my normal life back. Why don't you and Jetdriver get into it now? You have a great deal in common and deserve each other. TTFN
[This message has been edited by tilii (edited 05 June 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Oh dear, it seems tilii has thrown his teddy from the pram again. 
Even has to resort to edits to add an extra stab or two. Ah well, two can play at that game. Feel free to join the warbirds debate, if you are man enough.
I joined on page six, because I wanted to read the contributions of others, consider them, and THEN respond. All you want to do is engage in a petty squabble with Jetdriver. Oh, and I'd just like to point out that I'm a 1400-poster AND a Captain- sorry if that makes you feel inadequate. As if either of us had any control over those titles/numbers.
The only reason I am even bothering to respond is that I am quite sure everyone else has long since stopped reading this thread (if they are interested in bonding, that is).
Now off you go and resume that sad excuse for a life you treasure so much. Uh.. hang on...
This is more like it! Sod the sensible, reasoned discussions! Let's fight!
[edited to respond to edit- this is a good game]
[This message has been edited by Raw Data (edited 06 June 2001).]
Even has to resort to edits to add an extra stab or two. Ah well, two can play at that game. Feel free to join the warbirds debate, if you are man enough.
I joined on page six, because I wanted to read the contributions of others, consider them, and THEN respond. All you want to do is engage in a petty squabble with Jetdriver. Oh, and I'd just like to point out that I'm a 1400-poster AND a Captain- sorry if that makes you feel inadequate. As if either of us had any control over those titles/numbers.
The only reason I am even bothering to respond is that I am quite sure everyone else has long since stopped reading this thread (if they are interested in bonding, that is).
Now off you go and resume that sad excuse for a life you treasure so much. Uh.. hang on...
This is more like it! Sod the sensible, reasoned discussions! Let's fight!
[edited to respond to edit- this is a good game]
[This message has been edited by Raw Data (edited 06 June 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
I'm curious - Tilii seems to be a fairly well educated chap and whilst he has a very large - and obvious - chip on his shoulder about the issue of bonding, I have to wonder why it is that he has to abuse anyone that disagrees with him?
Surely such bully-boy tactics are precisely what he's accusing management of?
Surely such bully-boy tactics are precisely what he's accusing management of?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Ladies and Gentlemen
I give you The Guvnor, author of more than 2100 posts since July 1999 (an average of about three a day, every day, for the last two years) and Raw Data, the power behind the pen producing some 1400 posts since March 1999 (an average of about two a day, every day).
Now, The Guvnor claims to be an airline manager, so it is reasonable to assume that he has a good deal more spare time available than does Raw Data, especially since his airline, Caledonian Wings, does not yet exist. Raw Data, of course, is a Bae 146 pilot with a well-known Exeter based airline (as well as a self-proclaimed expert on almost any topic including display flying, motorcycle racing, and the law), thus it is perhaps surprising that he has more spare time available than do I.
I work as a Boeing pilot, tend to my wife and six children and study part-time at university. I find myself hard pushed to spare the time to scribble more than the 160 posts I have addressed since May 2000 (an average of less than 0.5 posts per day). And bear in mind that many of these posts have been on just one primary topic: bonding.
I have always enjoyed hopping onto this wonderful site. I have found it informative and, until now, an excellent forum, by and large, for intelligent debate on aviation issues.
However, I am getting heartily fed up with the way in which certain individuals seem to feel they have a right to hijack this site on any and all issues and to herein endlessly babble moronic and spiteful drivel. It seems that these same individuals, when faced with articulate discourse, seek to do nothing more than chop down the authors. That they do so with monotonous regularity is, I submit, evidenced by their post count.
It is clear that there is no fair way to prevent this hijacking of the site by sad anoraks whose lives revolve around their PC screens. But just as I cannot stop it, I see no reason why I must sit silently without comment.
To be fair, I confess to at times having some difficulty in restraining myself. I do not, it seems, suffer fools gladly. For that, I am prepared to, indeed I do, apologise. I will in future make every effort to refrain from comment off subject, no matter how viciously I am provoked.
It would be nice to see a similar commitment from the likes of The Guvnor and Raw Data. Perhaps this is expecting too much, but one can live in hope.
I give you The Guvnor, author of more than 2100 posts since July 1999 (an average of about three a day, every day, for the last two years) and Raw Data, the power behind the pen producing some 1400 posts since March 1999 (an average of about two a day, every day).
Now, The Guvnor claims to be an airline manager, so it is reasonable to assume that he has a good deal more spare time available than does Raw Data, especially since his airline, Caledonian Wings, does not yet exist. Raw Data, of course, is a Bae 146 pilot with a well-known Exeter based airline (as well as a self-proclaimed expert on almost any topic including display flying, motorcycle racing, and the law), thus it is perhaps surprising that he has more spare time available than do I.
I work as a Boeing pilot, tend to my wife and six children and study part-time at university. I find myself hard pushed to spare the time to scribble more than the 160 posts I have addressed since May 2000 (an average of less than 0.5 posts per day). And bear in mind that many of these posts have been on just one primary topic: bonding.
I have always enjoyed hopping onto this wonderful site. I have found it informative and, until now, an excellent forum, by and large, for intelligent debate on aviation issues.
However, I am getting heartily fed up with the way in which certain individuals seem to feel they have a right to hijack this site on any and all issues and to herein endlessly babble moronic and spiteful drivel. It seems that these same individuals, when faced with articulate discourse, seek to do nothing more than chop down the authors. That they do so with monotonous regularity is, I submit, evidenced by their post count.
It is clear that there is no fair way to prevent this hijacking of the site by sad anoraks whose lives revolve around their PC screens. But just as I cannot stop it, I see no reason why I must sit silently without comment.
To be fair, I confess to at times having some difficulty in restraining myself. I do not, it seems, suffer fools gladly. For that, I am prepared to, indeed I do, apologise. I will in future make every effort to refrain from comment off subject, no matter how viciously I am provoked.
It would be nice to see a similar commitment from the likes of The Guvnor and Raw Data. Perhaps this is expecting too much, but one can live in hope.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Dear ADC, you better do some research about airlines in de USA signing bonds. American Airlines (the company) doesn't charge a thing (except $100,- to send an application), but there are several companies that will send you a bill for training cost if you leave within a certain time limit or charge for training if you are lowtime. What was common practice a few years back of people paying for training is mostly gone (in contrast to Europe), however alot of places still don't pay a dime while in training, leaving you with the bill for food and lodging, which doesn't give these companies any incentive to make training a fast process, often interrupting it for recurrent/ upgrade training, leaving you with even higher bills.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Just a very, very brief response to tilii before hopefully returning to the topic of bonds, as he is factually innaccurate.
I have been a PRuNe user since it was just rumours and news, about 1995 I think. I, and many others, had their registrations lost or cancelled in 1999, hence the relatively recent date next to my nom de plume. Therefore my message count is actually of the order of 0.6 per day.
Secondly, I never claimed expertise in any of the subjects you mention, merely that I had some experience in them (which I have). You clearly like to exaggerate wildly.
The Guvnor is right- you seem incapable of arguing any subject without stooping to personal insult. This is a feature of most threads you contribute to, and is a sign of a weak and unfocused intellect. Your last several contributions here have been off-topic and personal, neither of which is what this forum is about.
Now, can we get back to the topic. I won't be responding to you any more, tilii. I don't have the time to waste on you.
[edited for typo]
[This message has been edited by Raw Data (edited 06 June 2001).]
I have been a PRuNe user since it was just rumours and news, about 1995 I think. I, and many others, had their registrations lost or cancelled in 1999, hence the relatively recent date next to my nom de plume. Therefore my message count is actually of the order of 0.6 per day.
Secondly, I never claimed expertise in any of the subjects you mention, merely that I had some experience in them (which I have). You clearly like to exaggerate wildly.
The Guvnor is right- you seem incapable of arguing any subject without stooping to personal insult. This is a feature of most threads you contribute to, and is a sign of a weak and unfocused intellect. Your last several contributions here have been off-topic and personal, neither of which is what this forum is about.
Now, can we get back to the topic. I won't be responding to you any more, tilii. I don't have the time to waste on you.
[edited for typo]
[This message has been edited by Raw Data (edited 06 June 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Having spent some time in discussion today with a now-retired colleague who has considerable flying time with a major carrier and a good deal of experience in airline management, I have learned that the first UK carrier to bond pilots was apparently British Midland (BM). It seems that this was done at a time when BM was desperately short of money and truly struggling to survive. Thus it was not financially able to pay its pilots competitive salaries and was bleeding aircrew to competitors at times faster than it could recruit. Hence, a decision to introduce bonding. It was not long, then, before other airlines jumped on the bandwagon, having seen it as a factor in the subsequent success of BM.
I have nothing but the greatest respect for this colleague, who argues like others on this site that bonding is justifiable only on the grounds of protection of training investment. He does acknowledge that its current use by the unscrupulous (of which there are many) for purposes of coercion is utterly immoral and must be stopped.
It may come as a surprise to some that I am prepared to shift position on this matter to the extent that I concede that its use solely for the protection of training investment is justifiable. However, to prevent the unscrupulous from abusing pilots through coercive use of the legal force of a bonding agreement, I make the following proposal.
It is my suggestion that pilot signature should be withheld unless and until the bonding agreement in question contains a specific clause with respect to ‘dispute resolution’. Such clause ought to bind the parties to dispute resolution through an independent arbitrator. The bonding agreement should include a statement that a decision with regard to the dispute must be obtained from the arbitrator before either party may begin legal proceedings with respect to the bond against the other. The term ‘dispute’ should be defined in the agreement to include any circumstances in which the bonded employee seeks to resile from the terms of the agreement upon his/her dismissal or resignation from employment with the bonding airline.
I propose that the independent arbitrator be made up of a panel of three, to include an IPA or BALPA representative (preferably the IPA, since BALPA appears to many to have sold us out already on this issue), an airline executive from a third party airline not linked with the airline in dispute, and an officer of the CAA’s Flight Safety (Operations) Department. I make this last proposal on the ground that specific aviation expertise can be brought to bear upon resolution. An alternative might be to have the parties agree to dispute resolution by ACAS.
Intelligent input and constructive comment welcomed, please.
[This message has been edited by tilii (edited 07 June 2001).]
I have nothing but the greatest respect for this colleague, who argues like others on this site that bonding is justifiable only on the grounds of protection of training investment. He does acknowledge that its current use by the unscrupulous (of which there are many) for purposes of coercion is utterly immoral and must be stopped.
It may come as a surprise to some that I am prepared to shift position on this matter to the extent that I concede that its use solely for the protection of training investment is justifiable. However, to prevent the unscrupulous from abusing pilots through coercive use of the legal force of a bonding agreement, I make the following proposal.
It is my suggestion that pilot signature should be withheld unless and until the bonding agreement in question contains a specific clause with respect to ‘dispute resolution’. Such clause ought to bind the parties to dispute resolution through an independent arbitrator. The bonding agreement should include a statement that a decision with regard to the dispute must be obtained from the arbitrator before either party may begin legal proceedings with respect to the bond against the other. The term ‘dispute’ should be defined in the agreement to include any circumstances in which the bonded employee seeks to resile from the terms of the agreement upon his/her dismissal or resignation from employment with the bonding airline.
I propose that the independent arbitrator be made up of a panel of three, to include an IPA or BALPA representative (preferably the IPA, since BALPA appears to many to have sold us out already on this issue), an airline executive from a third party airline not linked with the airline in dispute, and an officer of the CAA’s Flight Safety (Operations) Department. I make this last proposal on the ground that specific aviation expertise can be brought to bear upon resolution. An alternative might be to have the parties agree to dispute resolution by ACAS.
Intelligent input and constructive comment welcomed, please.
[This message has been edited by tilii (edited 07 June 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
It does indeed come as some surprise to learn that you are willing to shift your position.
I haven't seen anybody arguing that bonding agreements should not also protect the other the party. The problem with most contracts ( as I mentioned previously ) is that they are normally drawn up by the vendor to protect the vendor.
As you may be aware the courts these days are very keen that disputes are resolved by the use of "Alternative Dispute Resolution" (ADR), so the legal pursuit of a remedy may already permit this direction.
Arbitration in such a case should naturally be provided by a panel of independant representatives with experience in this field. I do not believe that such an arbitration panel necessarily needs to be composed of only those with an aviation background.
I haven't seen anybody arguing that bonding agreements should not also protect the other the party. The problem with most contracts ( as I mentioned previously ) is that they are normally drawn up by the vendor to protect the vendor.
As you may be aware the courts these days are very keen that disputes are resolved by the use of "Alternative Dispute Resolution" (ADR), so the legal pursuit of a remedy may already permit this direction.
Arbitration in such a case should naturally be provided by a panel of independant representatives with experience in this field. I do not believe that such an arbitration panel necessarily needs to be composed of only those with an aviation background.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Hi everyone!
This bond business is a very interesting issue:
I have been in the aviation business for just under 10 years and heard all sorts of stories about airlines bonding pilots. I have come to one conclusion that in order to improve the industry creating a win-win solution for both the airlines and pilots, bonds should be banned. Airlines should put the effort into improving rostering and packages for pilots in order to motivate them to stay. On the other side selection process should focus a bit more on the human side of the pilot to see what kind of enviroment surrounds him/her. It is important to see what a pilots priorities are. For example if someone is married with 4 kids it's quite likely he will be looking for something quite stable so if your company are offering him to fly freight at night he will probably move on as soon as he has a chance.So if the company do their research and offer a good deal the pilots will stay. There will always be someone that will come in collect the Type rating and move on to put another rating onto his/her licence.
So if the EU community to decide to ban bonds this will no doubt be a win for the whole industry.
This bond business is a very interesting issue:
I have been in the aviation business for just under 10 years and heard all sorts of stories about airlines bonding pilots. I have come to one conclusion that in order to improve the industry creating a win-win solution for both the airlines and pilots, bonds should be banned. Airlines should put the effort into improving rostering and packages for pilots in order to motivate them to stay. On the other side selection process should focus a bit more on the human side of the pilot to see what kind of enviroment surrounds him/her. It is important to see what a pilots priorities are. For example if someone is married with 4 kids it's quite likely he will be looking for something quite stable so if your company are offering him to fly freight at night he will probably move on as soon as he has a chance.So if the company do their research and offer a good deal the pilots will stay. There will always be someone that will come in collect the Type rating and move on to put another rating onto his/her licence.
So if the EU community to decide to ban bonds this will no doubt be a win for the whole industry.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Somewhat to my surprise I find myself largely in agreement with Tilii.
I do not see a major problem with arbitration to resolve bonding or other contractural disputes as long as for the benefit of all sides the process is quick and cheap. Would suggest that loser (company or pilot) should pay all costs to avoid malicious claims on either side.
A good employer will already forgive bonds where good mitigating circumstances exist, so has nothing to lose, a bad employer deserves what he gets.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Jetdriver (JD) makes a valid point: that contracts should reflect the wishes of both parties. For this reason, I see no ground for a good employer to resile from inclusion of a ‘dispute resolution clause’ within a bonding agreement.
Perhaps the problem in the past has been founded in the inequality of bargaining power between employer and employee, thus making the contract too one-sided.
Again, JD is right about ADR, though this, I think, is a court instigated process and thus means that legal action must commence before it is available. The reason I propose a panel to include experts in the aviation field is that I perceive that many bond disputes appear to contain elements of employer conduct that might be described as technically unlawful (such as breach of CAP371 or other such provisions). It is of course possible that ACAS would call upon expert advice; I don’t know.
With regard to minogue’s concerns as to costs, I think that ACAS is a free service, and I feel confident that a panel as proposed by me above could easily be made up of good souls willing to arbitrate without commercial motive. And I totally agree with minogue’s last remark, so much so that it bears repeating if I may:
“A good employer will already forgive bonds where good mitigating circumstances exist, so has nothing to lose, a bad employer deserves what he gets.”
I am heartened by these well reasoned responses. Thank you all.
Perhaps the problem in the past has been founded in the inequality of bargaining power between employer and employee, thus making the contract too one-sided.
Again, JD is right about ADR, though this, I think, is a court instigated process and thus means that legal action must commence before it is available. The reason I propose a panel to include experts in the aviation field is that I perceive that many bond disputes appear to contain elements of employer conduct that might be described as technically unlawful (such as breach of CAP371 or other such provisions). It is of course possible that ACAS would call upon expert advice; I don’t know.
With regard to minogue’s concerns as to costs, I think that ACAS is a free service, and I feel confident that a panel as proposed by me above could easily be made up of good souls willing to arbitrate without commercial motive. And I totally agree with minogue’s last remark, so much so that it bears repeating if I may:
“A good employer will already forgive bonds where good mitigating circumstances exist, so has nothing to lose, a bad employer deserves what he gets.”
I am heartened by these well reasoned responses. Thank you all.
Guest
Posts: n/a
The above proposal, together with input from other contributors, was placed before a legal eagle.
We are advised that there is nothing to prevent pilots from requesting that a 'dispute resolution' clause be inserted into any bonding agreement, and that such a clause (properly worded) would certainly be operative in the eyes of the law. However, the employer is always free to refuse such inclusion.
Therefore, it seems that the best way forward is that pilots should ask for insertion of such a clause, and should preferably make that request in writing and in quite specific terms as to the reason for the request. If the employer then refuses, it should be taken as indicative of the fact that the employer does NOT truly seek to simply protect the training investment, but instead seeks to take a position of total power and control over the pilot through the punitive threat that the one-sided agreement represents.
Interestingly, should the pilot proceed with the bonding agreement after a written request and a demonstrable refusal by the employer to include such a clause, it may well place the pilot in a stronger legal position should litigation subsequently flow for whatever reason.
Naturally, if the employer agrees to include the clause, it may be taken to indicate that the employer is eminently reasonable and seeks to do no more than protect the training investment. Who would not wish to be employed by such an employer?
A final word of cautionary advice. All such agreements should in any case be put past your lawyer. If the 'dispute resolution' clause is to be included, it would be wise to have the lawyer cast his/her beady eye over the entire agreement AFTER it has been suitably amended.
We are advised that there is nothing to prevent pilots from requesting that a 'dispute resolution' clause be inserted into any bonding agreement, and that such a clause (properly worded) would certainly be operative in the eyes of the law. However, the employer is always free to refuse such inclusion.
Therefore, it seems that the best way forward is that pilots should ask for insertion of such a clause, and should preferably make that request in writing and in quite specific terms as to the reason for the request. If the employer then refuses, it should be taken as indicative of the fact that the employer does NOT truly seek to simply protect the training investment, but instead seeks to take a position of total power and control over the pilot through the punitive threat that the one-sided agreement represents.
Interestingly, should the pilot proceed with the bonding agreement after a written request and a demonstrable refusal by the employer to include such a clause, it may well place the pilot in a stronger legal position should litigation subsequently flow for whatever reason.
Naturally, if the employer agrees to include the clause, it may be taken to indicate that the employer is eminently reasonable and seeks to do no more than protect the training investment. Who would not wish to be employed by such an employer?
A final word of cautionary advice. All such agreements should in any case be put past your lawyer. If the 'dispute resolution' clause is to be included, it would be wise to have the lawyer cast his/her beady eye over the entire agreement AFTER it has been suitably amended.