EU Law to ban Airline Bonds!!
Guest
Posts: n/a
A couple of quick questions if I may.
1/ How can a pilot really know with any degree of certainty and accuracy that his bond is just for the training costs and not "padded"? The true cost must vary from airline to airline.
2/ How long is long enough for the term of a bond? When has the trapped pilot earnt his freedom,1 year, 2,3,5......? At the end of the day is this just what the company thinks it can get away with?
In passing who is really the greater offender? The occasional pilot who leaves inside of some arbitrary time period or the next airline that hires him knowing that.
It takes 2 to tango! Besides would you really want somebody working for you who doesn't want to for whatever reason? That could work out very costly in more ways than one.
Without bonds true market forces could be left to help determine fair jobs and salaries, and airlines would need to factor this into their equations.
Airlines would also have to be responsible enough to realize that if they "poach" then they may well have the odd "poaching" themselves!
[This message has been edited by aiming point (edited 13 June 2001).]
[This message has been edited by aiming point (edited 14 June 2001).]
1/ How can a pilot really know with any degree of certainty and accuracy that his bond is just for the training costs and not "padded"? The true cost must vary from airline to airline.
2/ How long is long enough for the term of a bond? When has the trapped pilot earnt his freedom,1 year, 2,3,5......? At the end of the day is this just what the company thinks it can get away with?
In passing who is really the greater offender? The occasional pilot who leaves inside of some arbitrary time period or the next airline that hires him knowing that.
It takes 2 to tango! Besides would you really want somebody working for you who doesn't want to for whatever reason? That could work out very costly in more ways than one.
Without bonds true market forces could be left to help determine fair jobs and salaries, and airlines would need to factor this into their equations.
Airlines would also have to be responsible enough to realize that if they "poach" then they may well have the odd "poaching" themselves!
[This message has been edited by aiming point (edited 13 June 2001).]
[This message has been edited by aiming point (edited 14 June 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Aiming Point
To answer your questions in the same order as posed:
1. The pilot cannot know for certain. As already posted elsewhere on this thread, it seems that some (perhaps unscrupulous) employers have in the past bonded pilots for training costs in circumstances where the training was in fact provided at the aircraft manufacturer’s expense. Of course, it needs to be said that there is still an argument that the employer paid in the cost of the aircraft in question. I agree that the true cost would vary. However, it is also true to say that most bonds (not all) are set at a level somewhat below the actual cost of the training. This is not due to employer generosity. It is because the UK courts would immediately throw out a claim by an employer where it can be shown that the bond amount represented a ‘penalty’ (as defined by legal precedent). Thus only a foolish employer would bond in an amount greater than can be shown to be the true cost;
2. The term of the bond is usually set at either two or three years. Again, this is influenced more by legal considerations than any other. Any longer term may be considered punitive. Likewise, a non-reducing bond (all bonds I know of reduce indebtedness over the term of the bond) would apparently not stand up in a court of law.
So, I think you might agree that bonds are quite obviously set up by the employer’s legal advisors to ensure the best chance of success if the pilot is pursued legally. Having said that, I have no idea how many bonds have actually been so pursued through the courts, nor do I know what results were achieved. I know of one extremely interesting case that progresses as we speak. I will post the details and the result once the matter is concluded.
I like your question as to who is the greater offender and what follows. It exemplifies the issue of airline collaboration on this subject.
Flanker
Thank you for your kind support. I have at times felt quite alone in arguing the issues on this subject as may be seen from the progress of the thread itself. It is heartening to know that others share my views.
To answer your questions in the same order as posed:
1. The pilot cannot know for certain. As already posted elsewhere on this thread, it seems that some (perhaps unscrupulous) employers have in the past bonded pilots for training costs in circumstances where the training was in fact provided at the aircraft manufacturer’s expense. Of course, it needs to be said that there is still an argument that the employer paid in the cost of the aircraft in question. I agree that the true cost would vary. However, it is also true to say that most bonds (not all) are set at a level somewhat below the actual cost of the training. This is not due to employer generosity. It is because the UK courts would immediately throw out a claim by an employer where it can be shown that the bond amount represented a ‘penalty’ (as defined by legal precedent). Thus only a foolish employer would bond in an amount greater than can be shown to be the true cost;
2. The term of the bond is usually set at either two or three years. Again, this is influenced more by legal considerations than any other. Any longer term may be considered punitive. Likewise, a non-reducing bond (all bonds I know of reduce indebtedness over the term of the bond) would apparently not stand up in a court of law.
So, I think you might agree that bonds are quite obviously set up by the employer’s legal advisors to ensure the best chance of success if the pilot is pursued legally. Having said that, I have no idea how many bonds have actually been so pursued through the courts, nor do I know what results were achieved. I know of one extremely interesting case that progresses as we speak. I will post the details and the result once the matter is concluded.
I like your question as to who is the greater offender and what follows. It exemplifies the issue of airline collaboration on this subject.
Flanker
Thank you for your kind support. I have at times felt quite alone in arguing the issues on this subject as may be seen from the progress of the thread itself. It is heartening to know that others share my views.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I've been away for a few days, so excuse me if I hark back to page 8, and tiliis' "alternative" view on bonding.
>> Since it is inescapably true that an airline is required by law to ensure that its pilots are trained on the aircraft type it is intended to operate, the cost of such training is foreseeable, easily estimated, and is a true cost that MUST be taken into account. <<
Two points here. First, you are right that the pilot must legally have the type rating to operate. However, the law does not say how or where he must obtain this training- the airline could simply make having the rating a condition of employment. "You don't have the rating? Well, we can sell you one..." Goodbye bonds (and all risks for the airline, as they will now not have to worry about losses from training failures).
Secondly, and unfortunately, such costs are often extremely difficult to predict. That was a feature of the pilot shortage of 1987-89. I well remember a week in 1989 when we had 19 pilots resign in one week from our company (about ten percent of the pilot workforce). We couldn't train them as fast as they were leaving, the training budget was busted by over 300%, and the end result was a move from a "gentlemans agreement" to a legal bond.
The point is that there is no reliable predictor of hiring patterns.
>> A workforce should not be required to become a SOURCE of revenue. <<
It isn't. In the normal course of events, an employee will honour his or her commitment, and no money will change hands.
>> Notwithstanding the fact that there is a proportion (arguably small) of a pilot workforce that will leave the employer before the cost of type training was planned to be amortised, it remains true that this is a factor that can be accurately estimated and included in the initial cost assessment. If it is true that such pilots exist, then it is true that they can, and should, be taken into account in cost assessment. <<
No it isn't, for the same reasons mentioned earlier. There is simply no reliable predictor, as pilot recruitment is subject to market forces, geographic factors, and the rising and falling fortunes of airlines. Similarly, it is not possible to reliably account for the moral qualities of a pilot workforce.
>> And there is the rub, boys, for we have let them do this. <<
"We" have essentially had no choice.
>> We have lost the status of paid professional. <<
Leaving aside for a moment the debate over the term "professional", and the emotive nature of the argument, your statement is a logical absurdity. All pilots I know of are salaried, so therefore cannot be thought of as having "lost" status of "paid" anything.
>> It is my experience that one will find it virtually impossible to have a beancounter voluntarily factor in a human condition <<
Don't know who you work for, but in my company (and many others), these factors are allowed for- for example, allowing extra (unbonded) training for those who have difficulty with the conversion course, keeping on pilots who are long-term sick (not a legal requirement, but many companies do it anyway), allowing compassionate days off (again, not a legal requirement), providing cheap or free loans for staff members who find themselves in difficulties, etc etc.
Your case sounds impressive, but it is essentially emotive in nature, and ignores a lot of the good things companies do for their employees in what is most definitely a partnership for the benefit of BOTH parties. You paint all airlines as ruthless and conniving, and that is a decidedly one-sided and innaccurate viewpoint.
Yes, there will be airlines that abuse the bonding process. In those cases, there are other remedies (ie courts, Industrial tribunals, CAA, BALPA, etc). In any morally correct airline (and most are), the process is painless for the employee and the employer. Only those who choose to renege on their commitments have anything to be concerned about.
Finally, the argument is essentially pointless. Airlines are never going to stop attempting to protect their investment. All that will happen (as I already mentioned in another thread) is that airlines will simply start to sell type ratings to pilots, then offer them jobs. That way, they will have NO training costs other than recurrency training. They can easily do this on the basis that the type rating is a requirement of the job. Many companies do, in fact, already do this. Pilots will pay for their type ratings to get the job (as commonly happened in the mid-nineties).
Now, which scenario will most pilots prefer, free training and a bond, or pay for it all upfront? I know which I would take... but then, I have no intention of breaking my agreements...
>> Since it is inescapably true that an airline is required by law to ensure that its pilots are trained on the aircraft type it is intended to operate, the cost of such training is foreseeable, easily estimated, and is a true cost that MUST be taken into account. <<
Two points here. First, you are right that the pilot must legally have the type rating to operate. However, the law does not say how or where he must obtain this training- the airline could simply make having the rating a condition of employment. "You don't have the rating? Well, we can sell you one..." Goodbye bonds (and all risks for the airline, as they will now not have to worry about losses from training failures).
Secondly, and unfortunately, such costs are often extremely difficult to predict. That was a feature of the pilot shortage of 1987-89. I well remember a week in 1989 when we had 19 pilots resign in one week from our company (about ten percent of the pilot workforce). We couldn't train them as fast as they were leaving, the training budget was busted by over 300%, and the end result was a move from a "gentlemans agreement" to a legal bond.
The point is that there is no reliable predictor of hiring patterns.
>> A workforce should not be required to become a SOURCE of revenue. <<
It isn't. In the normal course of events, an employee will honour his or her commitment, and no money will change hands.
>> Notwithstanding the fact that there is a proportion (arguably small) of a pilot workforce that will leave the employer before the cost of type training was planned to be amortised, it remains true that this is a factor that can be accurately estimated and included in the initial cost assessment. If it is true that such pilots exist, then it is true that they can, and should, be taken into account in cost assessment. <<
No it isn't, for the same reasons mentioned earlier. There is simply no reliable predictor, as pilot recruitment is subject to market forces, geographic factors, and the rising and falling fortunes of airlines. Similarly, it is not possible to reliably account for the moral qualities of a pilot workforce.
>> And there is the rub, boys, for we have let them do this. <<
"We" have essentially had no choice.
>> We have lost the status of paid professional. <<
Leaving aside for a moment the debate over the term "professional", and the emotive nature of the argument, your statement is a logical absurdity. All pilots I know of are salaried, so therefore cannot be thought of as having "lost" status of "paid" anything.
>> It is my experience that one will find it virtually impossible to have a beancounter voluntarily factor in a human condition <<
Don't know who you work for, but in my company (and many others), these factors are allowed for- for example, allowing extra (unbonded) training for those who have difficulty with the conversion course, keeping on pilots who are long-term sick (not a legal requirement, but many companies do it anyway), allowing compassionate days off (again, not a legal requirement), providing cheap or free loans for staff members who find themselves in difficulties, etc etc.
Your case sounds impressive, but it is essentially emotive in nature, and ignores a lot of the good things companies do for their employees in what is most definitely a partnership for the benefit of BOTH parties. You paint all airlines as ruthless and conniving, and that is a decidedly one-sided and innaccurate viewpoint.
Yes, there will be airlines that abuse the bonding process. In those cases, there are other remedies (ie courts, Industrial tribunals, CAA, BALPA, etc). In any morally correct airline (and most are), the process is painless for the employee and the employer. Only those who choose to renege on their commitments have anything to be concerned about.
Finally, the argument is essentially pointless. Airlines are never going to stop attempting to protect their investment. All that will happen (as I already mentioned in another thread) is that airlines will simply start to sell type ratings to pilots, then offer them jobs. That way, they will have NO training costs other than recurrency training. They can easily do this on the basis that the type rating is a requirement of the job. Many companies do, in fact, already do this. Pilots will pay for their type ratings to get the job (as commonly happened in the mid-nineties).
Now, which scenario will most pilots prefer, free training and a bond, or pay for it all upfront? I know which I would take... but then, I have no intention of breaking my agreements...
Guest
Posts: n/a
Certainly, I'd have no problem putting in an independent arbitration clause into a bonding agreement - but frankly, the problem seems to be one of clear understanding what does/does not trigger the repayment of a bond rather than any need for dispute resolution!
The agreement should, in my opinion, be a positie one - by which I mean that it should specify all of those circumstances under which repayment of a bond can be triggered. Then, if the circumstance is not on that list - there's no repayment: as simple as that. That way, everyone knows exactly where they stand.
Training costs are far in excess of the basic simulator session - especially for new hires and conversions. In our case, we'll probably use a figure of US$36,000 which will reduce by US$1,000 per month over a 36 month period and would only be applicable to someone without a current L1011 rating. Again, it's designed to be fair - some carriers would work it on the basis that the deduction only kicks in at the end of each calendar year, so even if you were there for say 364 days they may require repayment in full of the full year's bond. Not ehical, in my opinion. That figure covers the following:
1) Recruitment costs
2) Assessment
3) Training - classroom, CBT, CPT, simulators
4) Accommodation
5) Pay whilst under training
6) Training personnel costs
7) Overhead of training infrastructure
One could, of course, reduce those costs substantially by requiring applicants to pay (as many US major carriers do) for their applications and assessment tests; and subsequently not pay them until they are on the line.
Or, as has been pointed out previously, one could do away with bonding altogether by simply requiring all applicants to be rated and current on type - again a common practice over in the States. Frankly, there's nothing wrong with that - if ABC plc wants to employ a C++ computer programmer, it's hardly likely to employ someone with Cobol and train them up to meet its requirements - it wants someone with C++ experience. Why should pilots be any different?
Minogue - I understood your tongue in cheek humour perfectly ... as I suspect over 95% of readers did as well.
As for the premise that bonds prevent fair market movement - what a load of tosh!
If someone is determined to leave and go elsewhere, then there's nothing you can do: unless you go the draconian Indian Airlines route where they introduced an act of parliament to keep the pilots in place! The EZY 'golden handshake' 737NG recruitment campaign is a good example of this - I suspect that quite a few people will have used some of that money to repay whatever bonding they may have had ... I only hope they read the small print, which required pilots to repay that money in full (after, of course, the tax man has had his slice) if one leaves within a specified period.
At the end of the day, employees from the CEO down are business tools - used in exactly the same way as aircraft or computers to create income for the employer. That's why they must create a return for the company - if they don't; then by definition they are unproductive assets and subject to disposal.
The agreement should, in my opinion, be a positie one - by which I mean that it should specify all of those circumstances under which repayment of a bond can be triggered. Then, if the circumstance is not on that list - there's no repayment: as simple as that. That way, everyone knows exactly where they stand.
Training costs are far in excess of the basic simulator session - especially for new hires and conversions. In our case, we'll probably use a figure of US$36,000 which will reduce by US$1,000 per month over a 36 month period and would only be applicable to someone without a current L1011 rating. Again, it's designed to be fair - some carriers would work it on the basis that the deduction only kicks in at the end of each calendar year, so even if you were there for say 364 days they may require repayment in full of the full year's bond. Not ehical, in my opinion. That figure covers the following:
1) Recruitment costs
2) Assessment
3) Training - classroom, CBT, CPT, simulators
4) Accommodation
5) Pay whilst under training
6) Training personnel costs
7) Overhead of training infrastructure
One could, of course, reduce those costs substantially by requiring applicants to pay (as many US major carriers do) for their applications and assessment tests; and subsequently not pay them until they are on the line.
Or, as has been pointed out previously, one could do away with bonding altogether by simply requiring all applicants to be rated and current on type - again a common practice over in the States. Frankly, there's nothing wrong with that - if ABC plc wants to employ a C++ computer programmer, it's hardly likely to employ someone with Cobol and train them up to meet its requirements - it wants someone with C++ experience. Why should pilots be any different?
Minogue - I understood your tongue in cheek humour perfectly ... as I suspect over 95% of readers did as well.
As for the premise that bonds prevent fair market movement - what a load of tosh!
If someone is determined to leave and go elsewhere, then there's nothing you can do: unless you go the draconian Indian Airlines route where they introduced an act of parliament to keep the pilots in place! The EZY 'golden handshake' 737NG recruitment campaign is a good example of this - I suspect that quite a few people will have used some of that money to repay whatever bonding they may have had ... I only hope they read the small print, which required pilots to repay that money in full (after, of course, the tax man has had his slice) if one leaves within a specified period. At the end of the day, employees from the CEO down are business tools - used in exactly the same way as aircraft or computers to create income for the employer. That's why they must create a return for the company - if they don't; then by definition they are unproductive assets and subject to disposal.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Raw Data
In your previous post on page 7 (6 June at 2013 hours), you stated quite categorically, quote:
“I won't be responding to you any more, tilii. I don't have the time to waste on you.”, end quote.
You were not missed, RD, and I wonder why, having then been so rudely dismissive of me, you now feel at liberty to go back on your petulant word (something you so frequently claim you never do).
However, since you now choose to return …
Quote, “[T]he airline could simply make having the rating a condition of employment.”
Yes, it could. Indeed, given the prevailing mindset of most UK airline employers one is driven to ask why they do not already do just that (after all, it would be the ultimate ‘protection of investment’, would it not?). Perhaps it is because a potential downside to such action includes the fact that this would inevitably result in a limited supply of pilots able, or even willing, to pay for the rating? Then again, perhaps the airlines recognise that a pilot already armed with the type rating is in a far more powerful bargaining position than when without said rating. He/she is totally free to pick and choose between employers, is free to walk away at will without regard to the continued stable operations of the employer (unless the imaginative employer then seeks to introduce notice periods stretched to 2 or 3 years). Further, such pilots are far more likely to seek, if not DEMAND, higher remuneration (as you say, there is no training cost or risk for the employer and, at least according to The Guvnor, those costs are US$36,000 net – and not tax deductible – to each pilot). Why should the pilot not seek to protect his/her investment by demanding its return to the pilot by way of increased salary – and within 2 or 3 years?
Your argument as to predictability is quite bizarre. It seems you have ‘shot yourself in the foot’. On the one hand you say that training costs “are often extremely difficult to predict” and “[t]here is simply no reliable predictor, as pilot recruitment is subject to market forces, geographic factors, and the rising and falling fortunes of airlines”. Later, you demonstrate beyond doubt that your own company is quite adequately able to factor in such unpredictably rising and falling events as “extra (unbonded) training for those who have difficulty with the conversion course, keeping on pilots who are long-term sick … allowing compassionate days off … [and] providing cheap or free loans for staff members who find themselves in difficulties, etc etc.”.
Just as there is “no reliable predictor of hiring patterns”, there is no reliable predictor of: successful conversion training (if there was, then pilots predicted to fail would not be hired); the long-term sick (again, if there was, then such pilots would not be hired); or of staff members who might find themselves in difficulty and in need of a cheap or free loan (and what a fantastically generous and cash-rich employer you must work for if it truly dishes out such loans).
If, “[i]n the normal course of events, an employee will honour his or her commitment” then why the need for bonding?
Quote: “[I]t is not possible to reliably account for the moral qualities of a pilot workforce.” Surely bonding is an attempt to do just that. By your own words, then, you aver that bonding is an attempt to do what is NOT POSSIBLE.
During your absence from this thread, this discourse has progressed on a sound basis without “emotive” argument. I recognise your determination to have it return to such a basis, but I would point to the fact that I have not once suggested that all airlines are “ruthless and conniving”. Indeed, in my last post above I made it abundantly clear that my own employer is quite the opposite.
You seem to acknowledge that “there will be airlines that abuse the bonding process” but advocate either court action or a complaint to the CAA as the appropriate way to deal with such abuse. Since you have elsewhere described your own past as including litigation, you would be aware that court action is both extremely expensive (you may have to put up your entire life’s work) and fraught with danger. My own experience in making an approach to the CAA suggests that such action is also fraught with danger (shoot the messenger syndrome). Surely, the best way forward, then, is to prevent such abuse at source.
Quote: “Only those who choose to renege on their commitments have anything to be concerned about.”
It is self-evident that pilots do not always “choose to renege”. A handful may, but many others will feel COMPELLED to do so for what may well be totally justifiable reasons.
Given that this thread is now some 9 pages long, and further given your willingness to return to the debate after your earlier resignation from it, your assertion that “the argument is essentially pointless” seems something more than hollow. It is contradictory, and hypocritical in the extreme.
The Guvnor
It is heartening indeed that, should your proposed airline ever materialise, you would be prepared to include a ‘dispute resolution clause’, or what you describe as an “independent arbitration clause”, in your pilot bonding agreements. Such a concession appears to be a step forward in your thinking to date.
However, to discuss an agreement in ‘positive’ terms as you do is, with respect, a little naïve. For example, let us say that we wish to include in the proposed list of circumstances under which repayment of the bond may be triggered the term ‘where the pilot fails the training course’ (and I know that some bonds already do this). Such a term does not specify how such failure is to be reasonably assessed. Who is to arbitrate on whether or not the failure, or success, of the pilot under training was properly and fairly decided. A desperate employer may wish to have its own training department placed under pressure to pass a pilot trainee in circumstances where he/she ought not to be passed (and we all know that this actually happens, do we not?). The pilot, in this instance, might be well aware of his/her own shortcomings and may wish to withdraw from the training rather than go on with it. Such a desire for withdrawal might well be described as both honourable and professional. Yet to withdraw may trigger a demand for repayment of the bond, or at least for that part of it which the employer has already expended. How does the ‘positive agreement’ deal with such an event?
We have already crossed swords over the convoluted manner of your imaginative accounting as to the true cost of pilot training. It does not bear repetition.
Nowhere have I asserted that “bonds prevent fair market movement”. What I said was that bonds can be said to restrict a ‘right to free movement’. I refer here to the rights contained within the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. I might equally well be referring to our own Human Rights Act 1998 or, in fact, to the American Constitution, or its Bill of Rights. The fact is that it is widely held that workers should have the right to free movement. That is to say that they should be able to ‘market’, if you like, their services without restraint. Bonding agreements place a restraint upon such freedom and thus might be held to be a breach of fundamental freedom and thus unlawful.
Your ultimate paragraph above is, I think, revealing of the current stance of so many of our ‘Captains of Industry’. Employees are “business tools”, you say, to be used in “exactly the same way as aircraft or computers”. Whether you like it or not, Guvnor, human beings are NOT machines. Each and every one of us is an individual in his/her own right. We have families, and we have the need for human fulfilment, to do more with our relatively short lives than merely to endlessly labour at the whim of the self-serving and the greedy. To fail to recognise these simple facts is to fundamentally err. Treat us like machines and computers and just watch us behave like those objects so frequently do. Perhaps the only way in which we are truly like machines is in our ability to break down and to fail. To treat us with respect, compassion, and a mature understanding of our strengths and weaknesses is to reduce or prevent the likelihood of such failure. That is what a smart employer does. If your airline does get up and running, what kind of an employer will you be?
[This message has been edited by tilii (edited 14 June 2001).]
In your previous post on page 7 (6 June at 2013 hours), you stated quite categorically, quote:
“I won't be responding to you any more, tilii. I don't have the time to waste on you.”, end quote.
You were not missed, RD, and I wonder why, having then been so rudely dismissive of me, you now feel at liberty to go back on your petulant word (something you so frequently claim you never do).
However, since you now choose to return …
Quote, “[T]he airline could simply make having the rating a condition of employment.”
Yes, it could. Indeed, given the prevailing mindset of most UK airline employers one is driven to ask why they do not already do just that (after all, it would be the ultimate ‘protection of investment’, would it not?). Perhaps it is because a potential downside to such action includes the fact that this would inevitably result in a limited supply of pilots able, or even willing, to pay for the rating? Then again, perhaps the airlines recognise that a pilot already armed with the type rating is in a far more powerful bargaining position than when without said rating. He/she is totally free to pick and choose between employers, is free to walk away at will without regard to the continued stable operations of the employer (unless the imaginative employer then seeks to introduce notice periods stretched to 2 or 3 years). Further, such pilots are far more likely to seek, if not DEMAND, higher remuneration (as you say, there is no training cost or risk for the employer and, at least according to The Guvnor, those costs are US$36,000 net – and not tax deductible – to each pilot). Why should the pilot not seek to protect his/her investment by demanding its return to the pilot by way of increased salary – and within 2 or 3 years?
Your argument as to predictability is quite bizarre. It seems you have ‘shot yourself in the foot’. On the one hand you say that training costs “are often extremely difficult to predict” and “[t]here is simply no reliable predictor, as pilot recruitment is subject to market forces, geographic factors, and the rising and falling fortunes of airlines”. Later, you demonstrate beyond doubt that your own company is quite adequately able to factor in such unpredictably rising and falling events as “extra (unbonded) training for those who have difficulty with the conversion course, keeping on pilots who are long-term sick … allowing compassionate days off … [and] providing cheap or free loans for staff members who find themselves in difficulties, etc etc.”.
Just as there is “no reliable predictor of hiring patterns”, there is no reliable predictor of: successful conversion training (if there was, then pilots predicted to fail would not be hired); the long-term sick (again, if there was, then such pilots would not be hired); or of staff members who might find themselves in difficulty and in need of a cheap or free loan (and what a fantastically generous and cash-rich employer you must work for if it truly dishes out such loans).
If, “[i]n the normal course of events, an employee will honour his or her commitment” then why the need for bonding?
Quote: “[I]t is not possible to reliably account for the moral qualities of a pilot workforce.” Surely bonding is an attempt to do just that. By your own words, then, you aver that bonding is an attempt to do what is NOT POSSIBLE.
During your absence from this thread, this discourse has progressed on a sound basis without “emotive” argument. I recognise your determination to have it return to such a basis, but I would point to the fact that I have not once suggested that all airlines are “ruthless and conniving”. Indeed, in my last post above I made it abundantly clear that my own employer is quite the opposite.
You seem to acknowledge that “there will be airlines that abuse the bonding process” but advocate either court action or a complaint to the CAA as the appropriate way to deal with such abuse. Since you have elsewhere described your own past as including litigation, you would be aware that court action is both extremely expensive (you may have to put up your entire life’s work) and fraught with danger. My own experience in making an approach to the CAA suggests that such action is also fraught with danger (shoot the messenger syndrome). Surely, the best way forward, then, is to prevent such abuse at source.
Quote: “Only those who choose to renege on their commitments have anything to be concerned about.”
It is self-evident that pilots do not always “choose to renege”. A handful may, but many others will feel COMPELLED to do so for what may well be totally justifiable reasons.
Given that this thread is now some 9 pages long, and further given your willingness to return to the debate after your earlier resignation from it, your assertion that “the argument is essentially pointless” seems something more than hollow. It is contradictory, and hypocritical in the extreme.
The Guvnor
It is heartening indeed that, should your proposed airline ever materialise, you would be prepared to include a ‘dispute resolution clause’, or what you describe as an “independent arbitration clause”, in your pilot bonding agreements. Such a concession appears to be a step forward in your thinking to date.
However, to discuss an agreement in ‘positive’ terms as you do is, with respect, a little naïve. For example, let us say that we wish to include in the proposed list of circumstances under which repayment of the bond may be triggered the term ‘where the pilot fails the training course’ (and I know that some bonds already do this). Such a term does not specify how such failure is to be reasonably assessed. Who is to arbitrate on whether or not the failure, or success, of the pilot under training was properly and fairly decided. A desperate employer may wish to have its own training department placed under pressure to pass a pilot trainee in circumstances where he/she ought not to be passed (and we all know that this actually happens, do we not?). The pilot, in this instance, might be well aware of his/her own shortcomings and may wish to withdraw from the training rather than go on with it. Such a desire for withdrawal might well be described as both honourable and professional. Yet to withdraw may trigger a demand for repayment of the bond, or at least for that part of it which the employer has already expended. How does the ‘positive agreement’ deal with such an event?
We have already crossed swords over the convoluted manner of your imaginative accounting as to the true cost of pilot training. It does not bear repetition.
Nowhere have I asserted that “bonds prevent fair market movement”. What I said was that bonds can be said to restrict a ‘right to free movement’. I refer here to the rights contained within the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. I might equally well be referring to our own Human Rights Act 1998 or, in fact, to the American Constitution, or its Bill of Rights. The fact is that it is widely held that workers should have the right to free movement. That is to say that they should be able to ‘market’, if you like, their services without restraint. Bonding agreements place a restraint upon such freedom and thus might be held to be a breach of fundamental freedom and thus unlawful.
Your ultimate paragraph above is, I think, revealing of the current stance of so many of our ‘Captains of Industry’. Employees are “business tools”, you say, to be used in “exactly the same way as aircraft or computers”. Whether you like it or not, Guvnor, human beings are NOT machines. Each and every one of us is an individual in his/her own right. We have families, and we have the need for human fulfilment, to do more with our relatively short lives than merely to endlessly labour at the whim of the self-serving and the greedy. To fail to recognise these simple facts is to fundamentally err. Treat us like machines and computers and just watch us behave like those objects so frequently do. Perhaps the only way in which we are truly like machines is in our ability to break down and to fail. To treat us with respect, compassion, and a mature understanding of our strengths and weaknesses is to reduce or prevent the likelihood of such failure. That is what a smart employer does. If your airline does get up and running, what kind of an employer will you be?
[This message has been edited by tilii (edited 14 June 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Tilii, why is it that when both RD and I respond to you in reasonable tones you adopt a rather uncivilised demeanour in response? There's no call for it and frankly it devalues your arguments.
Raw Data is perfectly entitled to add further responses to this or any other thread. He can change his mind should he desire - surely this freedom of choice is precisely what you so stridently advocate?
I'm rather amused at your response to my proposal for a list of 'positive' definitions for the triggering of bonds. You claim on the one hand that you'd be opposed to putting down the failure of the pilot to pass the training course as this is apparently, in your opinion, not cut and dried.
Well, I'd have to take issue with you on that. You either pass or you fail - perhaps you may be allowed some leeway to retake the test if the fail was marginal; but otherwise I can't see any problem with that as a definition. No employer is going to deliberately put people through training courses to deliberately fail them - and to suggest otherwise is ridiculous in the extreme. Any pilot who obviously couldn't make the cut should have been weeded out at the selection point and that's the responsibility of the senior training and operations personnel doing the selection.
You then go on to say: "We have already crossed swords over the convoluted manner of your imaginative accounting as to the true cost of pilot training". You will recall that you were challenged to provide detailed figures relating to all aspects of training costs for a large aircraft - this you singularly failed to do; and since you have again brought it up I challenge you to do so again.
Next, I'm sorry to say, you've completely lost me. You say: "Nowhere have I asserted that “bonds prevent fair market movement”. What I said was that bonds can be said to restrict a ‘right to free movement’." What exactly is the difference between the two?
Finally, you finish off with a statement that employees are not business tools.
Ummm, right.
Sure, I agree that they are humans - that goes without saying. But are you trying to make out here that just anyone should be employed, regardless of their abilities? If not, then I'd submit that you're agreeing that they are tools - in so far as they have (as individuals) particular talents, skills and experience that qualifies them for specific duties. In pretty much the same way that you wouldn't use a PC to make your coffee; or use a BAC1-11 to fly transatlantic operations; or a Phillips screwdriver to unscrew a slot-head screw - each of those are also tools, with specific applications.
What any sensible employer does is selects the right tool for the job and ensures it's well maintained and looked after - so that it can complete its job with the minimum of effort. That applies to the CEO of a company as much as it does to an aircraft, vehicle or power drill.
Raw Data is perfectly entitled to add further responses to this or any other thread. He can change his mind should he desire - surely this freedom of choice is precisely what you so stridently advocate?
I'm rather amused at your response to my proposal for a list of 'positive' definitions for the triggering of bonds. You claim on the one hand that you'd be opposed to putting down the failure of the pilot to pass the training course as this is apparently, in your opinion, not cut and dried.
Well, I'd have to take issue with you on that. You either pass or you fail - perhaps you may be allowed some leeway to retake the test if the fail was marginal; but otherwise I can't see any problem with that as a definition. No employer is going to deliberately put people through training courses to deliberately fail them - and to suggest otherwise is ridiculous in the extreme. Any pilot who obviously couldn't make the cut should have been weeded out at the selection point and that's the responsibility of the senior training and operations personnel doing the selection.
You then go on to say: "We have already crossed swords over the convoluted manner of your imaginative accounting as to the true cost of pilot training". You will recall that you were challenged to provide detailed figures relating to all aspects of training costs for a large aircraft - this you singularly failed to do; and since you have again brought it up I challenge you to do so again.
Next, I'm sorry to say, you've completely lost me.
You say: "Nowhere have I asserted that “bonds prevent fair market movement”. What I said was that bonds can be said to restrict a ‘right to free movement’." What exactly is the difference between the two? Finally, you finish off with a statement that employees are not business tools.
Ummm, right.
Sure, I agree that they are humans - that goes without saying. But are you trying to make out here that just anyone should be employed, regardless of their abilities? If not, then I'd submit that you're agreeing that they are tools - in so far as they have (as individuals) particular talents, skills and experience that qualifies them for specific duties. In pretty much the same way that you wouldn't use a PC to make your coffee; or use a BAC1-11 to fly transatlantic operations; or a Phillips screwdriver to unscrew a slot-head screw - each of those are also tools, with specific applications.
What any sensible employer does is selects the right tool for the job and ensures it's well maintained and looked after - so that it can complete its job with the minimum of effort. That applies to the CEO of a company as much as it does to an aircraft, vehicle or power drill.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Just couldn't help yourself, could you tilii?
I wondered as I posted my last contribution, whether you would answer the points like a sensible human being, or once again stoop to personal abuse. I wasn't disappointed, as it turns out.
First things first. Any vaguely competent user of english would understand the concept of CONTEXT. My statement that I wouldn't respond to you was made in the context of the personal and vindictive flame war that you seem to want to continue. I never said I wouldn't continue contributing to the thread. I wasn't responding to you in any case, but to all interested parties... unless of course you feel that you "own" the thread. Surprised you didn't pick up on that. Well, actually, I'm not.
Anyway... to the argument.
>>Your argument as to predictability is quite bizarre. It seems you have ‘shot yourself in the foot’. On the one hand you say that training costs “are often extremely difficult to predict” and “[t]here is simply no reliable predictor, as pilot recruitment is subject to market forces, geographic factors, and the rising and falling fortunes of airlines”. Later, you demonstrate beyond doubt that your own company is quite adequately able to factor in such unpredictably rising and falling events as “extra (unbonded) training for those who have difficulty with the conversion course, keeping on pilots who are long-term sick … allowing compassionate days off … [and] providing cheap or free loans for staff members who find themselves in difficulties, etc etc.”. <<
I'm afraid it is your own foot that now sports a smoking hole. First of all the two contentions are not related. My company does not necessarily do all do these things, but that it does any at all is an indication that they have NOT managed to factor in all the variables. The only one that actually pertains to training is extra time for those having difficulty with conversions- all the others are social issues. The only reason that any company will allow extra training, is that it is cheaper to do that than to start again with a new candidate (if there is any hope that the candidate in question will eventually pass). It is in many ways a failure of the recruitment process when this happens. However, going the extra mile with a person in these circumstances is a proof of UNPREDICTABILITY, not the reverse. The extra cost is not "factored in"- it simply serves as an extra drain on the training budget (which is very seldom a fixed figure). Obviously, any training budget will take account of training failures. Extra training helps to smooth that particular bump. More to the point, the provision of extra training has absolutely NOTHING to do with predicting recruitment patterns.
>> If, “[i]n the normal course of events, an employee will honour his or her commitment” then why the need for bonding?
Quote: “[I]t is not possible to reliably account for the moral qualities of a pilot workforce.” Surely bonding is an attempt to do just that. By your own words, then, you aver that bonding is an attempt to do what is NOT POSSIBLE. <<
Once again you miss the point. Bonding is there to protect an investment- and therefore must assume the worst case. It doesn't try to predict anything; it certainly does not attempt to do what is not possible. Like any law, if you don't break it, it doesn't cost you anything. If you keep your word, you will never pay a penny of a bond.
>> During your absence from this thread, this discourse has progressed on a sound basis without “emotive” argument. <<
Oh, I don't think so... one example...
>> And there is the rub, boys, for we have let them do this. We have given our approval to being treated like the company car rather than as individual human beings. We have lost the status of paid professional. <<
Next...
>>but I would point to the fact that I have not once suggested that all airlines are “ruthless and conniving”. <<
Not in so many words... however...
>>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 <<
...and...
>>"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".<<
It is quite clear what you think of some airlines.
Moving on...
>> you would be aware that court action is both extremely expensive (you may have to put up your entire life’s work) and fraught with danger. My own experience in making an approach to the CAA suggests that such action is also fraught with danger (shoot the messenger syndrome). Surely, the best way forward, then, is to prevent such abuse at source. <<
If you have any semblence of a case, you should be able to count on the good offices of BALPA (as I did), or the IPA if you have bought their legal insurance. I checked out my situation with other solicitors, and to a man they said I had a solid case. I went with BALPA for their expertise. Didn't cost me a bean. Just be sure you have a good case.
Concerning the CAA, it is worrying that you should see them as more likely to "shoot the messenger". I have found them quite the reverse, very approachable and thorough in their investigation of complaints. Of course, if you waste their time, they tend to get annoyed.
>> It is self-evident that pilots do not always “choose to renege”. A handful may, but many others will feel COMPELLED to do so for what may well be totally justifiable reasons. <<
You keep saying that, but seem reluctant to be specific. As I have said, if you have a case, there are other avenues. If you just feel aggrieved for some reason, well, perhaps you need to look in a mirror in order to see the problem.
>> given your willingness to return to the debate after your earlier resignation from it, your assertion that “the argument is essentially pointless” seems something more than hollow. It is contradictory, and hypocritical in the extreme. <<
Oh, come on. I never "resigned" from the thread (a little pompous, don't you think), and if you disagree with my assertion, argue it. You haven't argued most of the points I have put to you, and my statement is most certainly not contradictory or hypocritical- please feel free to back those two assertions up with reasoned, logical argument. Well, try to, anyway.
For everyone else, I remain opposed to bonding... and woolly, illogical argument.
[This message has been edited by Raw Data (edited 14 June 2001).]
I wondered as I posted my last contribution, whether you would answer the points like a sensible human being, or once again stoop to personal abuse. I wasn't disappointed, as it turns out.
First things first. Any vaguely competent user of english would understand the concept of CONTEXT. My statement that I wouldn't respond to you was made in the context of the personal and vindictive flame war that you seem to want to continue. I never said I wouldn't continue contributing to the thread. I wasn't responding to you in any case, but to all interested parties... unless of course you feel that you "own" the thread. Surprised you didn't pick up on that. Well, actually, I'm not.
Anyway... to the argument.
>>Your argument as to predictability is quite bizarre. It seems you have ‘shot yourself in the foot’. On the one hand you say that training costs “are often extremely difficult to predict” and “[t]here is simply no reliable predictor, as pilot recruitment is subject to market forces, geographic factors, and the rising and falling fortunes of airlines”. Later, you demonstrate beyond doubt that your own company is quite adequately able to factor in such unpredictably rising and falling events as “extra (unbonded) training for those who have difficulty with the conversion course, keeping on pilots who are long-term sick … allowing compassionate days off … [and] providing cheap or free loans for staff members who find themselves in difficulties, etc etc.”. <<
I'm afraid it is your own foot that now sports a smoking hole. First of all the two contentions are not related. My company does not necessarily do all do these things, but that it does any at all is an indication that they have NOT managed to factor in all the variables. The only one that actually pertains to training is extra time for those having difficulty with conversions- all the others are social issues. The only reason that any company will allow extra training, is that it is cheaper to do that than to start again with a new candidate (if there is any hope that the candidate in question will eventually pass). It is in many ways a failure of the recruitment process when this happens. However, going the extra mile with a person in these circumstances is a proof of UNPREDICTABILITY, not the reverse. The extra cost is not "factored in"- it simply serves as an extra drain on the training budget (which is very seldom a fixed figure). Obviously, any training budget will take account of training failures. Extra training helps to smooth that particular bump. More to the point, the provision of extra training has absolutely NOTHING to do with predicting recruitment patterns.
>> If, “[i]n the normal course of events, an employee will honour his or her commitment” then why the need for bonding?
Quote: “[I]t is not possible to reliably account for the moral qualities of a pilot workforce.” Surely bonding is an attempt to do just that. By your own words, then, you aver that bonding is an attempt to do what is NOT POSSIBLE. <<
Once again you miss the point. Bonding is there to protect an investment- and therefore must assume the worst case. It doesn't try to predict anything; it certainly does not attempt to do what is not possible. Like any law, if you don't break it, it doesn't cost you anything. If you keep your word, you will never pay a penny of a bond.
>> During your absence from this thread, this discourse has progressed on a sound basis without “emotive” argument. <<
Oh, I don't think so... one example...
>> And there is the rub, boys, for we have let them do this. We have given our approval to being treated like the company car rather than as individual human beings. We have lost the status of paid professional. <<
Next...
>>but I would point to the fact that I have not once suggested that all airlines are “ruthless and conniving”. <<
Not in so many words... however...
>>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 <<
...and...
>>"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".<<
It is quite clear what you think of some airlines.
Moving on...
>> you would be aware that court action is both extremely expensive (you may have to put up your entire life’s work) and fraught with danger. My own experience in making an approach to the CAA suggests that such action is also fraught with danger (shoot the messenger syndrome). Surely, the best way forward, then, is to prevent such abuse at source. <<
If you have any semblence of a case, you should be able to count on the good offices of BALPA (as I did), or the IPA if you have bought their legal insurance. I checked out my situation with other solicitors, and to a man they said I had a solid case. I went with BALPA for their expertise. Didn't cost me a bean. Just be sure you have a good case.
Concerning the CAA, it is worrying that you should see them as more likely to "shoot the messenger". I have found them quite the reverse, very approachable and thorough in their investigation of complaints. Of course, if you waste their time, they tend to get annoyed.
>> It is self-evident that pilots do not always “choose to renege”. A handful may, but many others will feel COMPELLED to do so for what may well be totally justifiable reasons. <<
You keep saying that, but seem reluctant to be specific. As I have said, if you have a case, there are other avenues. If you just feel aggrieved for some reason, well, perhaps you need to look in a mirror in order to see the problem.
>> given your willingness to return to the debate after your earlier resignation from it, your assertion that “the argument is essentially pointless” seems something more than hollow. It is contradictory, and hypocritical in the extreme. <<
Oh, come on. I never "resigned" from the thread (a little pompous, don't you think), and if you disagree with my assertion, argue it. You haven't argued most of the points I have put to you, and my statement is most certainly not contradictory or hypocritical- please feel free to back those two assertions up with reasoned, logical argument. Well, try to, anyway.
For everyone else, I remain opposed to bonding... and woolly, illogical argument.
[This message has been edited by Raw Data (edited 14 June 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
If Raw Data chooses to make derisory and dismissive remarks as he departs a thread, and then later reverses course, he should not be surprised if he is held to account for his contradictory fickleness. Nothing uncivilised about that, nor with my demeanour.
The Guvnor, you finally reveal yourself to be one who knows little about the actual workings of some UK airlines when you say: “You either pass or you fail - perhaps you may be allowed some leeway to retake the test if the fail was marginal”. I can personally vouch for the fact that management CAN and DO insist on an intake trainee PASSING base and line checks against the better judgement, even fervent advice, of its own training department. I know of no instances of management insistence on failure, but no doubt it happens. It would seem, then, that some operators are so anxious to ‘protect training investment’ that even safety must take a back seat. In any event, Guvnor, failure on a training course was not a part of my above example.
As for the remainder of your post (and that of RD posted while I addressed this), they are simply so meritless that they do not deserve a serious response. Sorry if that appears uncivilised to you, but it is a sincere opinion honestly held.
This debate has once again degenerated into a rather base contest along the lines of ‘my intellect is bigger than yours’. I choose not to engage any further.
I thank the moderators for their resolute patience in permitting it to run for far longer than expected, especially since its originator, ‘The_Mole’, not once emerged for further comment (apologies for the hijacking, Mole). It was an extremely interesting debate – at times. I again thank minogue and the several other contributors who challenged me earnestly and caused me many uncomfortable moments. It was a pleasure, gentlemen. Good night and God bless.
[This message has been edited by tilii (edited 14 June 2001).]
The Guvnor, you finally reveal yourself to be one who knows little about the actual workings of some UK airlines when you say: “You either pass or you fail - perhaps you may be allowed some leeway to retake the test if the fail was marginal”. I can personally vouch for the fact that management CAN and DO insist on an intake trainee PASSING base and line checks against the better judgement, even fervent advice, of its own training department. I know of no instances of management insistence on failure, but no doubt it happens. It would seem, then, that some operators are so anxious to ‘protect training investment’ that even safety must take a back seat. In any event, Guvnor, failure on a training course was not a part of my above example.
As for the remainder of your post (and that of RD posted while I addressed this), they are simply so meritless that they do not deserve a serious response. Sorry if that appears uncivilised to you, but it is a sincere opinion honestly held.
This debate has once again degenerated into a rather base contest along the lines of ‘my intellect is bigger than yours’. I choose not to engage any further.
I thank the moderators for their resolute patience in permitting it to run for far longer than expected, especially since its originator, ‘The_Mole’, not once emerged for further comment (apologies for the hijacking, Mole). It was an extremely interesting debate – at times. I again thank minogue and the several other contributors who challenged me earnestly and caused me many uncomfortable moments. It was a pleasure, gentlemen. Good night and God bless.
[This message has been edited by tilii (edited 14 June 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
>> This debate has once again degenerated into a rather base contest along the lines of ‘my intellect is bigger than yours’. I choose not to engage any further. <<
Hardly. Some of us have put points to you that you are clearly unwilling, or unable, to answer. Packing up your toys and leaving is yet more evidence of the weakness of your argument.
Hopefully some other, more able, debater will fill the gap...
Hardly. Some of us have put points to you that you are clearly unwilling, or unable, to answer. Packing up your toys and leaving is yet more evidence of the weakness of your argument.
Hopefully some other, more able, debater will fill the gap...
