The paying back of outstanding bond money, advice please
Guest
Posts: n/a
411A,
You'll have to do better than that, I'm afraid - why should a pilot be tied to his job in a way in which those in other, equivalent, professions are not?
Airlines are not renowned, for example, for being upfront with details of the manner in which their crews can expect to work.
If my reading of the 'oranges' remark in the first post here is correct, then the airline concerned recruited pilots some time ago using the gambit that IT pilots fed up of night flying might prefer to do day-time schedules.
This airline now does more night flying than any other scheduled operator, and more than most IT companies! Needless to say, some of those pilots are very unhappy about this, and seek to move on. They are unable to, because they are bonded. Is this fair?
------------------
'Brighten my Northern Sky' Nick Drake R.I.P.
You'll have to do better than that, I'm afraid - why should a pilot be tied to his job in a way in which those in other, equivalent, professions are not?
Airlines are not renowned, for example, for being upfront with details of the manner in which their crews can expect to work.
If my reading of the 'oranges' remark in the first post here is correct, then the airline concerned recruited pilots some time ago using the gambit that IT pilots fed up of night flying might prefer to do day-time schedules.
This airline now does more night flying than any other scheduled operator, and more than most IT companies! Needless to say, some of those pilots are very unhappy about this, and seek to move on. They are unable to, because they are bonded. Is this fair?
------------------
'Brighten my Northern Sky' Nick Drake R.I.P.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Northern Sky .. interesting... Line training is completed on revenue generating flights so in what way does line training cost a company money? You quote the cost of a training department, well we would need a training department whether taking type rated pilots or in house training, u seem to forget the annual line check and 6 month LPC/OPC. So we always need a training department ( stanards dept ). So all the admin costs etc would be there anyway.
I once heard a chief training Captain say "I dont care how many sectors it takes in line training as it costs the company nothing" great attitude and acknowledgement that as a line trainee u are generating the company some money ...
The bonding issue we are talking about here is what £2500, a minimal amount in the grand scale of the airline finances. So what we are dealing with is a company wanting to control its pilot workforce and will try and do it till the day that this guy leaves the company. He has worked for almost 2.5 years that to me sounds like a good record and who knows why he is moving on, family,money etc.
Aviation is the only industry that feels the need to bond its employees. Having come from an IT industry where i have been on training courses that have cost in excess of £2-3000 per week, never even heard the whiff of a bond agreement. In fact it would have been laughed out of the office. The pilot workforce is no more or no less mobile/desirible than any other professionally trained sector. In industry outside aviation people keep employees in the company by offering top quality working conditions. They offer training and career development,private health,pensions,.. ie they offer a quality of life package. So where do we stand in aviation, well i think a lot of us are second career people ... yeah i am one of them and just happy to have my job. So i suppose we are own worst enemy... and we all sign the bond agreement but do we really read it carefully and know what is expected from us. Maybe if there was a national standard of bond across company all this would be stopped. We are all part of a union in way or another .. surely this would create a standardisation of empolyment across the indsutry..
Just a thought !!!
I once heard a chief training Captain say "I dont care how many sectors it takes in line training as it costs the company nothing" great attitude and acknowledgement that as a line trainee u are generating the company some money ...
The bonding issue we are talking about here is what £2500, a minimal amount in the grand scale of the airline finances. So what we are dealing with is a company wanting to control its pilot workforce and will try and do it till the day that this guy leaves the company. He has worked for almost 2.5 years that to me sounds like a good record and who knows why he is moving on, family,money etc.
Aviation is the only industry that feels the need to bond its employees. Having come from an IT industry where i have been on training courses that have cost in excess of £2-3000 per week, never even heard the whiff of a bond agreement. In fact it would have been laughed out of the office. The pilot workforce is no more or no less mobile/desirible than any other professionally trained sector. In industry outside aviation people keep employees in the company by offering top quality working conditions. They offer training and career development,private health,pensions,.. ie they offer a quality of life package. So where do we stand in aviation, well i think a lot of us are second career people ... yeah i am one of them and just happy to have my job. So i suppose we are own worst enemy... and we all sign the bond agreement but do we really read it carefully and know what is expected from us. Maybe if there was a national standard of bond across company all this would be stopped. We are all part of a union in way or another .. surely this would create a standardisation of empolyment across the indsutry..
Just a thought !!!
Guest
Posts: n/a
NorthernSky-
Of course they can move on to the next company (have done so at times myself) if they give proper notice and complete their AGREED contract, OR pay off their bond in a mutually agreed manner. Why should the company have to pay for training costs TWICE just because some junior guy does not like it there anymore? After all, when they joined they asked for work, did they not?
Of course they can move on to the next company (have done so at times myself) if they give proper notice and complete their AGREED contract, OR pay off their bond in a mutually agreed manner. Why should the company have to pay for training costs TWICE just because some junior guy does not like it there anymore? After all, when they joined they asked for work, did they not?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Dear 411A
For goodness' sake, what planet do you live on?
You say: "After all, when they joined they asked for work, did they not?". Is that really how you view a pilot's application for a position with your company, that he is asking for work? This attitude belongs in the early Industrial Revolution times, old bean.
Surely, in most instances the company is looking for pilots to fly its equipment just as much as we pilots might be looking to fly for the company. It is certainly a mutual benefit thing and not "us and them".
This is precisely why the bonding matter is so offensive to most of us. Irrespective of the odd selfish user among us (and I do acknowledge their existence as much as I assert the existence of their employer equivalent), bonding creates from the outset an environment of mistrust and bonding airlines speak to us from a position of collective power (no sign, no job).
Others have pointed to the fact that pilots are, in many ways, their own worst enemies in that some will sign anything to advance their careers. It is this sad fact that has permitted the system to flourish, but it can soon be reversed if there was a collective will among enough of us to tell those who push the papers across the interview desk to go to hell.
For a group of supposedly intelligent and committed individuals (and individuals is perhaps the key element here) we do show selfish and mule-like tendencies at times.
The sooner we all (old and young, senior jockeys and wannabes) wake up to the undeniable fact that the airlines cannot operate their expensive machines without the licensed pilots up front, the sooner we can return to our former glory days when the PROFESSION of airline pilot was highly respected and we were envied among our peers.
The way things stand at present, I respectfully suggest that we are little short of a laughing stock among those who have the world at their feet and are deciding where to invest for their futures. Very few talented youngsters these days will spend more than a moment or two looking at the so-called profession of airline pilot. Who can blame them?
For goodness' sake, what planet do you live on?
You say: "After all, when they joined they asked for work, did they not?". Is that really how you view a pilot's application for a position with your company, that he is asking for work? This attitude belongs in the early Industrial Revolution times, old bean.
Surely, in most instances the company is looking for pilots to fly its equipment just as much as we pilots might be looking to fly for the company. It is certainly a mutual benefit thing and not "us and them".
This is precisely why the bonding matter is so offensive to most of us. Irrespective of the odd selfish user among us (and I do acknowledge their existence as much as I assert the existence of their employer equivalent), bonding creates from the outset an environment of mistrust and bonding airlines speak to us from a position of collective power (no sign, no job).
Others have pointed to the fact that pilots are, in many ways, their own worst enemies in that some will sign anything to advance their careers. It is this sad fact that has permitted the system to flourish, but it can soon be reversed if there was a collective will among enough of us to tell those who push the papers across the interview desk to go to hell.
For a group of supposedly intelligent and committed individuals (and individuals is perhaps the key element here) we do show selfish and mule-like tendencies at times.
The sooner we all (old and young, senior jockeys and wannabes) wake up to the undeniable fact that the airlines cannot operate their expensive machines without the licensed pilots up front, the sooner we can return to our former glory days when the PROFESSION of airline pilot was highly respected and we were envied among our peers.
The way things stand at present, I respectfully suggest that we are little short of a laughing stock among those who have the world at their feet and are deciding where to invest for their futures. Very few talented youngsters these days will spend more than a moment or two looking at the so-called profession of airline pilot. Who can blame them?
Guest
Posts: n/a
tilii,
We are in agreement - it would be interesting to pursue this somehow... Will you write to the IPA? Are you a member?
411A,
You confuse contracts of employment with bonding agreements. Most contracts have a three month notice period for either party, but most bonds are for three years from date of joining (or in the case of some nastier airlines, from FLC - which could be a year after joining if their training programmes are horribly inefficient). There is no supposition of a contracted period of employment of three years. It's a basic distinction.
HPSauce,
I didn't mention line training, did I? It does carry additional costs, though, in providing training staff, having two Captains flying together when a new Captain is under training, and all the administrative support mentioned earlier. Yes, OPCs and LPCs incur costs, but these are not relevant to the bonding issue as all airlines have to carry them out. The resources dedicated are not comparable to the resources required for ab initio training on type for an airline with a high staff turnover.
------------------
'Brighten my Northern Sky' Nick Drake R.I.P.
We are in agreement - it would be interesting to pursue this somehow... Will you write to the IPA? Are you a member?
411A,
You confuse contracts of employment with bonding agreements. Most contracts have a three month notice period for either party, but most bonds are for three years from date of joining (or in the case of some nastier airlines, from FLC - which could be a year after joining if their training programmes are horribly inefficient). There is no supposition of a contracted period of employment of three years. It's a basic distinction.
HPSauce,
I didn't mention line training, did I? It does carry additional costs, though, in providing training staff, having two Captains flying together when a new Captain is under training, and all the administrative support mentioned earlier. Yes, OPCs and LPCs incur costs, but these are not relevant to the bonding issue as all airlines have to carry them out. The resources dedicated are not comparable to the resources required for ab initio training on type for an airline with a high staff turnover.
------------------
'Brighten my Northern Sky' Nick Drake R.I.P.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Northern Sky
It does indeed seem that we are in agreement.
No, as you might gather from the views I have expressed on these pages I am neither an IPA nor a BALPA member. Have been in the past but too disillusioned these days.
As I have already said, I am not inclined to believe that either of these so-called 'pilot associations' is the least bit interested in the issue of bonding agreements, thus I have never felt inspired to write to them.
I apologise if this offers offence to "an IPA man" like your good self. It's merely the way I see things.
What would be interesting, I feel, would be the opportunity to meet and chew the fat on the issue. I like your style, my friend.
Perhaps we might do this one day soon. For now, I prefer to remain anonymous on this website (for obvious reasons) but I have noted your email address at the PPRuNe email website. Might drop you a line on that, though I'm not too sure about its security.
Meanwhile, do keep posting on this thread. It has been quite illuminating, I feel. Nice to know one is not, after all, alone.
It does indeed seem that we are in agreement.
No, as you might gather from the views I have expressed on these pages I am neither an IPA nor a BALPA member. Have been in the past but too disillusioned these days.
As I have already said, I am not inclined to believe that either of these so-called 'pilot associations' is the least bit interested in the issue of bonding agreements, thus I have never felt inspired to write to them.
I apologise if this offers offence to "an IPA man" like your good self. It's merely the way I see things.
What would be interesting, I feel, would be the opportunity to meet and chew the fat on the issue. I like your style, my friend.
Perhaps we might do this one day soon. For now, I prefer to remain anonymous on this website (for obvious reasons) but I have noted your email address at the PPRuNe email website. Might drop you a line on that, though I'm not too sure about its security.
Meanwhile, do keep posting on this thread. It has been quite illuminating, I feel. Nice to know one is not, after all, alone.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Tilii, 'old bean'.
According to you:
Neither of "these so-called 'pilots associations'" are interested in the bonding issue.
And, engaging lawyers familiar with the industry and its practices is a waste of money.
Well, that's spiffing!
But, what do you say is the practical solution to the problem, given that pilots anxious to obtain their first job and/or those wishing to get onto something bigger, will always be tempted to agree to bonds they may later regret if they want to leave?
Ooops! I've just remembered:
" ..... bonding airlines speak to us from a position of collective power (no sign, no job)." With that, I agree.
And, "..... it can soon be reversed if there was a collective will among enough of us to tell those who push the papers across the interview desk to go to hell."
And who's going to be first? Confident, of course, that the next applicant will also honour the 'collective will.'
If I may borrow your phrase: "For goodness' sake, what planet do you live on?"
The 'collective will' would only be be effective if used to ensure that "these so-called 'pilots associations'" fight the issue on behalf of their members. Then, if their collective power proves ineffective in negotiation, instruct lawyers familiar with the industry to fight a test case in the courts to resolve the matter one way or the other. And 'the other' may, of course, be a way which we may not like!
[This message has been edited by virgin (edited 06 April 2001).]
According to you:
Neither of "these so-called 'pilots associations'" are interested in the bonding issue.
And, engaging lawyers familiar with the industry and its practices is a waste of money.
Well, that's spiffing!
But, what do you say is the practical solution to the problem, given that pilots anxious to obtain their first job and/or those wishing to get onto something bigger, will always be tempted to agree to bonds they may later regret if they want to leave?
Ooops! I've just remembered:
" ..... bonding airlines speak to us from a position of collective power (no sign, no job)." With that, I agree.
And, "..... it can soon be reversed if there was a collective will among enough of us to tell those who push the papers across the interview desk to go to hell."
And who's going to be first? Confident, of course, that the next applicant will also honour the 'collective will.'
If I may borrow your phrase: "For goodness' sake, what planet do you live on?"
The 'collective will' would only be be effective if used to ensure that "these so-called 'pilots associations'" fight the issue on behalf of their members. Then, if their collective power proves ineffective in negotiation, instruct lawyers familiar with the industry to fight a test case in the courts to resolve the matter one way or the other. And 'the other' may, of course, be a way which we may not like!
[This message has been edited by virgin (edited 06 April 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Virgin
Would you like to run that past me again? ... oh, and this time please include a little original thought if you are capable of that.
In response to your question as to what I say "is the practical solution to the problem", there is only one satisfactory solution as far as I am concerned: a return to the days when there was no such thing as bonding. In my view, this can only be achieved through legislation banning its practice or by a precedent set through fighting the practice in a test case. I agree that precedent can be set that might not achieve the desired outcome, so I favour legislation.
What is your view? Do you in fact have one?
[This message has been edited by tilii (edited 06 April 2001).]
Would you like to run that past me again? ... oh, and this time please include a little original thought if you are capable of that.
In response to your question as to what I say "is the practical solution to the problem", there is only one satisfactory solution as far as I am concerned: a return to the days when there was no such thing as bonding. In my view, this can only be achieved through legislation banning its practice or by a precedent set through fighting the practice in a test case. I agree that precedent can be set that might not achieve the desired outcome, so I favour legislation.
What is your view? Do you in fact have one?
[This message has been edited by tilii (edited 06 April 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
tilli
Would I like to run that past you again?
Certainly.
My views:
(1) See above
(2) If there genuinely is a 'collective will', in contradistinction to a mere 'collective desire', then the associations can me made to take up the issue by the democratic will of their members. Unfortunately, and a fact of life in my view, the majority are usually apathetic, allowing those with an objective to influence decisions/policy which, often, we don't like. Both associations could be forced to take up the cudgels if the majority of members were prepared to push the proposal through.
(3) Before proceeding, the associations should take legal advice from a barrister familar with contract/labour law in general, and the aviation industry in particular. Probably expensive, but if an issue is of such importance, well worth it in the long run. Every man to his job, in my view.
(4) Then, depending upon the advice, either the routes I've previously mentioned, or another route is so advised.
As for legislation, I agree it would be wonderful. But, how is that to be achieved?
Who would bring pressure to bear upon parliament to introduce such legislation? The issue is not a vote-catcher so the government wouldn't take the initiative.
A private members bill stands little chance of being debated, and far less chance of becoming law - unless it suits the goverment's ideology/tactics like banning country sports .
Back to square one:
Majority will of members
+ pressure by us as professionals on our professional association(s)
+ obtain legal advice on the issue, and upon the best tactics.
You've made it clear you have little respect for expensive lawyers, and you're disillusioned with the pilots' associations. I totally disagree with your views on the former. Nobody has to like lawyers, but the good ones do a good job.
I tend to agree with you on the latter, but believe that problem could soon be resolved if the will was there. I'm embarrassed to criticise as I've never in my career done anything to help/influence the associations. Like most people, I've just paid my dues and criticised them for appearing to do nothing for us.
In my view, the associations and lawyers are both are necessary if the objective is to be achieved.
Hope that's clearer.
(PS Do try not to be so rude to those who express a different view.)
Would I like to run that past you again?
Certainly.
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">" The 'collective will' would only be be effective if used to ensure that "these so-called 'pilots associations'" fight the issue on behalf of their members. Then, if their collective power proves ineffective in negotiation, instruct lawyers familiar with the industry to fight a test case in the courts to resolve the matter one way or the other."</font>
(1) See above
(2) If there genuinely is a 'collective will', in contradistinction to a mere 'collective desire', then the associations can me made to take up the issue by the democratic will of their members. Unfortunately, and a fact of life in my view, the majority are usually apathetic, allowing those with an objective to influence decisions/policy which, often, we don't like. Both associations could be forced to take up the cudgels if the majority of members were prepared to push the proposal through.
(3) Before proceeding, the associations should take legal advice from a barrister familar with contract/labour law in general, and the aviation industry in particular. Probably expensive, but if an issue is of such importance, well worth it in the long run. Every man to his job, in my view.
(4) Then, depending upon the advice, either the routes I've previously mentioned, or another route is so advised.
As for legislation, I agree it would be wonderful. But, how is that to be achieved?
Who would bring pressure to bear upon parliament to introduce such legislation? The issue is not a vote-catcher so the government wouldn't take the initiative.
A private members bill stands little chance of being debated, and far less chance of becoming law - unless it suits the goverment's ideology/tactics like banning country sports .
Back to square one:
Majority will of members
+ pressure by us as professionals on our professional association(s)
+ obtain legal advice on the issue, and upon the best tactics.
You've made it clear you have little respect for expensive lawyers, and you're disillusioned with the pilots' associations. I totally disagree with your views on the former. Nobody has to like lawyers, but the good ones do a good job.
I tend to agree with you on the latter, but believe that problem could soon be resolved if the will was there. I'm embarrassed to criticise as I've never in my career done anything to help/influence the associations. Like most people, I've just paid my dues and criticised them for appearing to do nothing for us.
In my view, the associations and lawyers are both are necessary if the objective is to be achieved.
Hope that's clearer.
(PS Do try not to be so rude to those who express a different view.)
Guest
Posts: n/a
Insider
I am most grateful for your kind words. It is deeply pleasing to know that others share some of the views I express. Your encouragement is appreciated. Thanks.
Virgin
When I asked if you’d like to run that past me again, it was not because I was unable to read your first post. It was a plea for you to try again, and to make yourself clearer.
Your postscript note about rudeness is hypocritical given the tone of your own post (the sarcasm was virtually dripping from the page). Address me in a polite manner and I will gladly reciprocate.
Again, your second post leaves me a little breathless, and I mean no offence. For example, what do you mean by “in contradistinction to”, and “those with an objective”? I do respect your right to have a different view, but I would like to see you at least try to express it in an intelligible manner.
Reading between the lines, I think I glean the gist of what you are trying to say and respond as follows:
Just what the IPA or BALPA think or do on this subject is of little or no interest to me. Never in my long career have I witnessed either body taking up what you describe as “the cudgels”. Correct me if I’m wrong, but there has not in my memory been a pilot strike in the UK (and that is what I assume you mean by taking up the cudgels as opposed to just pussyfooting around and making a lot of noise).
As to your perception as to my like or dislike of the legal profession, you simply could not be wider of the mark on my true position. I see no point, however, in Monkeyball being advised to go to great expense when he need not seek such guidance at this, very early, point in his dispute with his employer.
What you have said with respect to legislation is largely right. However, despite many suggesting otherwise on these pages, pilots are not now alone in being bullied into signing bonding agreements. Sadly, the practice is spreading like a disease and is now being imposed upon certain employees of Local Health Authorities and, believe it or not, upon bus drivers (given the arguments of 411A and the like, I guess it must be because drivers airframe and drivers omnibus cost much the same to train!!??). Thus, my dear chap, we are not alone if we seek to ask our politicians to outlaw the practice. And as time goes by, we may well be joined by many others, given the current greedy society in which we now live.
Yes, my dear Virgin, your second post was about as clear as mud, but I do hope I’ve managed to provide the answers you seemed to be wanting from me. Judging by your two posts here, I can expect yet another abusive and sarcastic reply. I would be really impressed if you could refrain from that and put some effort into making your next post a real pleasure to read. TTFN.
I am most grateful for your kind words. It is deeply pleasing to know that others share some of the views I express. Your encouragement is appreciated. Thanks.
Virgin
When I asked if you’d like to run that past me again, it was not because I was unable to read your first post. It was a plea for you to try again, and to make yourself clearer.
Your postscript note about rudeness is hypocritical given the tone of your own post (the sarcasm was virtually dripping from the page). Address me in a polite manner and I will gladly reciprocate.
Again, your second post leaves me a little breathless, and I mean no offence. For example, what do you mean by “in contradistinction to”, and “those with an objective”? I do respect your right to have a different view, but I would like to see you at least try to express it in an intelligible manner.
Reading between the lines, I think I glean the gist of what you are trying to say and respond as follows:
Just what the IPA or BALPA think or do on this subject is of little or no interest to me. Never in my long career have I witnessed either body taking up what you describe as “the cudgels”. Correct me if I’m wrong, but there has not in my memory been a pilot strike in the UK (and that is what I assume you mean by taking up the cudgels as opposed to just pussyfooting around and making a lot of noise).
As to your perception as to my like or dislike of the legal profession, you simply could not be wider of the mark on my true position. I see no point, however, in Monkeyball being advised to go to great expense when he need not seek such guidance at this, very early, point in his dispute with his employer.
What you have said with respect to legislation is largely right. However, despite many suggesting otherwise on these pages, pilots are not now alone in being bullied into signing bonding agreements. Sadly, the practice is spreading like a disease and is now being imposed upon certain employees of Local Health Authorities and, believe it or not, upon bus drivers (given the arguments of 411A and the like, I guess it must be because drivers airframe and drivers omnibus cost much the same to train!!??). Thus, my dear chap, we are not alone if we seek to ask our politicians to outlaw the practice. And as time goes by, we may well be joined by many others, given the current greedy society in which we now live.
Yes, my dear Virgin, your second post was about as clear as mud, but I do hope I’ve managed to provide the answers you seemed to be wanting from me. Judging by your two posts here, I can expect yet another abusive and sarcastic reply. I would be really impressed if you could refrain from that and put some effort into making your next post a real pleasure to read. TTFN.
Guest
Posts: n/a
tilii
You started by asking what planet someone lived on. Virgin just adopted it.
I can't see what you don't understand about Virgin's post. It seems perfectly clear to me.
Your memory about what you said about the value of lawyers is also extremely selective - it didn't stop at the post from which you've quoted.
You started by asking what planet someone lived on. Virgin just adopted it.
I can't see what you don't understand about Virgin's post. It seems perfectly clear to me.
Your memory about what you said about the value of lawyers is also extremely selective - it didn't stop at the post from which you've quoted.
Guest
Posts: n/a
tilii
'contradistinction' means a distinction made by contrasting the different qualities of two things.
'objective', when used as a noun, means a thing aimed at or sought; a goal.
Time will tell whether you still claim not to be able to understand my views.
[This message has been edited by virgin (edited 07 April 2001).]
'contradistinction' means a distinction made by contrasting the different qualities of two things.
'objective', when used as a noun, means a thing aimed at or sought; a goal.
Time will tell whether you still claim not to be able to understand my views.
[This message has been edited by virgin (edited 07 April 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Hoverman
I "started" in a post on this thread on 30 March at 1836 hours, and not with the matter to which you refer. But of course you were too busy 'searching' archives to read the entire thread, weren't you? No real luck, though, eh?
That Virgin's post was perfectly clear to you might demonstrate something about yourself.
You say: "Your memory about what you said about the value of lawyers is also extremely selective - it didn't stop at the post from which you've quoted."
Since I have not quoted one of my own posts, and I cannot recall being critical of the legal profession in any event, would you care to enlighten me?
Virgin
Believe it or not, I too am able to look up the meaning of words in a dictionary. The question I posed was to do with the context in which you employed the words in question rather than with their definition.
If this reallly is the best you can do (and it is, frankly, what I expected of you in light of your prior posts) then you are not someone to be taken seriously, other than perhaps with respect to your last sentence:
"Time will tell whether you still claim not to be able to understand my views."
Is this a threat of some kind? If so, kindly make the threat clear, will you? If not, again I ask what on earth are you talking about?
To Both of You
Do either of you actually want to debate the issue of bonding or do you simply want to take cheap shots at those who do?
[This message has been edited by tilii (edited 08 April 2001).]
I "started" in a post on this thread on 30 March at 1836 hours, and not with the matter to which you refer. But of course you were too busy 'searching' archives to read the entire thread, weren't you? No real luck, though, eh?
That Virgin's post was perfectly clear to you might demonstrate something about yourself.
You say: "Your memory about what you said about the value of lawyers is also extremely selective - it didn't stop at the post from which you've quoted."
Since I have not quoted one of my own posts, and I cannot recall being critical of the legal profession in any event, would you care to enlighten me?
Virgin
Believe it or not, I too am able to look up the meaning of words in a dictionary. The question I posed was to do with the context in which you employed the words in question rather than with their definition.
If this reallly is the best you can do (and it is, frankly, what I expected of you in light of your prior posts) then you are not someone to be taken seriously, other than perhaps with respect to your last sentence:
"Time will tell whether you still claim not to be able to understand my views."
Is this a threat of some kind? If so, kindly make the threat clear, will you? If not, again I ask what on earth are you talking about?
To Both of You
Do either of you actually want to debate the issue of bonding or do you simply want to take cheap shots at those who do?
[This message has been edited by tilii (edited 08 April 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
virgin
There are two sides to the bonding argument, both set out on this and similar threads many times, and the both sides have merit.
With that proviso, I think your suggestions make a lot of sense. It's difficult to see how else the bonding problem will be solved.
But, the trouble is that the collective desire expressed in debates like this never does become the collective will because bonding tends to affect new/younger guys more.
Don't fall for tilii's childish little games.
Remember that people can pretend to be anything they want on an anonymous forum and tilii often does. You name it, he's done it - if you believe him!!
[This message has been edited by Alty Meter (edited 08 April 2001).]
There are two sides to the bonding argument, both set out on this and similar threads many times, and the both sides have merit.
With that proviso, I think your suggestions make a lot of sense. It's difficult to see how else the bonding problem will be solved.
But, the trouble is that the collective desire expressed in debates like this never does become the collective will because bonding tends to affect new/younger guys more.
Don't fall for tilii's childish little games.
Remember that people can pretend to be anything they want on an anonymous forum and tilii often does. You name it, he's done it - if you believe him!!
[This message has been edited by Alty Meter (edited 08 April 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Alty
I read your post before and after the edit. What's the matter, dear chap? Have I been getting too close to the bone and a little too much support for my views on the bonding issue for your comfort? Ah well,if you can't lead the debate I guess you're best to sabotage it for everyone else.
Instead of vague innuendo, why don't you just spit it out and say what's on your mind? I guess it goes something like "I'm in favour of bonding and all pilots are plonkers!". You are obviously not an aviator or you'd know how to spell altimeter.
On second thought, don't bother to continue. Your contribution to the subject matter of this thread is duly noted. Well done. What stunning intellect. I am humbled into permanent total withdrawal. There really is no pleasure in debating with the likes of you and your mates here. I wonder how long it will take you to trip up and let us all know your alter ego, guv. The style remains the same no matter what you call yourself.
[This message has been edited by tilii (edited 08 April 2001).]
I read your post before and after the edit. What's the matter, dear chap? Have I been getting too close to the bone and a little too much support for my views on the bonding issue for your comfort? Ah well,if you can't lead the debate I guess you're best to sabotage it for everyone else.
Instead of vague innuendo, why don't you just spit it out and say what's on your mind? I guess it goes something like "I'm in favour of bonding and all pilots are plonkers!". You are obviously not an aviator or you'd know how to spell altimeter.
On second thought, don't bother to continue. Your contribution to the subject matter of this thread is duly noted. Well done. What stunning intellect. I am humbled into permanent total withdrawal. There really is no pleasure in debating with the likes of you and your mates here. I wonder how long it will take you to trip up and let us all know your alter ego, guv. The style remains the same no matter what you call yourself.
[This message has been edited by tilii (edited 08 April 2001).]
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: cambridge
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While not a lawyer (yet), I am am well on my way to becoming one (back up plan if I don't become a pilot), and am studying law at Cambridge.
I haven't read all the posts so far, but I think you're making the issue more complicated than it needs to be. There's no need for any legislation...the basic rules of contract law cover your situation more than adequately.
If you sign your bonding agreement detailing how it is to be paid back, they cannot then change their mind and demand it back in one go. Well, they can...but you can then take them to court and claim damages for breach of contract. The details for repayment are a term of the contract, and their threat to do [insert horrible act here] if you don't cough up will give you a claim in the event they try to do something to you. They will be breaching their contract with you, discharging you from performance of their onerous term. It's a fundamental legal principle.
Of course, there may not have been an agreement as to HOW the money was to be paid back. However, assuming it has been paid in instalments so far, and presuming the organisation issuing the bond has accepted your payments to date, this will act as consent and acceptance of this payment method, and an IMPLIED agreement as to the way the bond is to be repaid. The Courts will look at this as an implied term in the contract, irrespective of whether it was down in writing or not.
If it is industry standard for you to pay bonds back in instalments, which I am sure it is, then there is further evidence to support your case. The Courts will look at typical practice and will normally enforce it. If everyone pays bonds back in instalments, and you have done so to date, they cannot then demand a lump sum. Full stop. They have no legal ground on which to stand.
In short, if you've been paying in instalments so far, you're fine. Their threat is worthless.
However, the only awkward situation may be either where you have been paying in instalments, but not for long (perhaps you have just started paying your bond back), or if there is a clause in your contract giving them the power to demand it all back in one go.
If such a clause exists...well, you're screwed. By signing an agreement the law will force you to be bound by any terms and conditions of that agreement, if: a) it was obvious that the document contained terms and conditions, or b) it was a document that could be expected to have contained terms and conditions.
Given you signed a bond agreement, you can't argue that you didn't think it contained terms and agreements. If they have a clause in there giving them the power to demand full payment at any point, then they can.
The only situation in which they can't would be if it were so unusual, or such a highly peculiar clause, that they should have done more to draw your attention to it in some way. Merely slotting it in among the small print may not be enough. Perhaps putting it in bold would be. It's all context-dependent (like most law!).
The statutes you may have been thinking of, incidentally, are the Unfair Contract Terms Act (UCTA) 1977 or the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, both of which introduce an element of 'reasonableness' into contractual agreements. I would need to see your contract to see whether any of these apply, and would also need to know more about the background to your agreement.
In short, however, you're sound. If you've been paying in instalments so far they can't demand one off payment from you.
Regards,
Baz
I haven't read all the posts so far, but I think you're making the issue more complicated than it needs to be. There's no need for any legislation...the basic rules of contract law cover your situation more than adequately.
If you sign your bonding agreement detailing how it is to be paid back, they cannot then change their mind and demand it back in one go. Well, they can...but you can then take them to court and claim damages for breach of contract. The details for repayment are a term of the contract, and their threat to do [insert horrible act here] if you don't cough up will give you a claim in the event they try to do something to you. They will be breaching their contract with you, discharging you from performance of their onerous term. It's a fundamental legal principle.
Of course, there may not have been an agreement as to HOW the money was to be paid back. However, assuming it has been paid in instalments so far, and presuming the organisation issuing the bond has accepted your payments to date, this will act as consent and acceptance of this payment method, and an IMPLIED agreement as to the way the bond is to be repaid. The Courts will look at this as an implied term in the contract, irrespective of whether it was down in writing or not.
If it is industry standard for you to pay bonds back in instalments, which I am sure it is, then there is further evidence to support your case. The Courts will look at typical practice and will normally enforce it. If everyone pays bonds back in instalments, and you have done so to date, they cannot then demand a lump sum. Full stop. They have no legal ground on which to stand.
In short, if you've been paying in instalments so far, you're fine. Their threat is worthless.
However, the only awkward situation may be either where you have been paying in instalments, but not for long (perhaps you have just started paying your bond back), or if there is a clause in your contract giving them the power to demand it all back in one go.
If such a clause exists...well, you're screwed. By signing an agreement the law will force you to be bound by any terms and conditions of that agreement, if: a) it was obvious that the document contained terms and conditions, or b) it was a document that could be expected to have contained terms and conditions.
Given you signed a bond agreement, you can't argue that you didn't think it contained terms and agreements. If they have a clause in there giving them the power to demand full payment at any point, then they can.
The only situation in which they can't would be if it were so unusual, or such a highly peculiar clause, that they should have done more to draw your attention to it in some way. Merely slotting it in among the small print may not be enough. Perhaps putting it in bold would be. It's all context-dependent (like most law!).
The statutes you may have been thinking of, incidentally, are the Unfair Contract Terms Act (UCTA) 1977 or the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, both of which introduce an element of 'reasonableness' into contractual agreements. I would need to see your contract to see whether any of these apply, and would also need to know more about the background to your agreement.
In short, however, you're sound. If you've been paying in instalments so far they can't demand one off payment from you.
Regards,
Baz
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: NZ
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a few points:
Many moons ago, Air UK used to march new pilots down to Barclays to sign up as responsible for repayments on a loan that Air UK had arranged. In many cases, pilots on my course had terrible credit histories and would never have achieved the loan themselves. The funds were remitted to Air UK, Air UK repaid the loan by instalments. The only time the pilot was involved was if he left the company, at which time he or she took over the repayments. I believe there was some friendly arrangement 'twixt airline and bank regarding interest rates, because, if you think about it, it is a very inefficient way of protecting training costs.
411A
I know you like to think that the whole world operates like the US, but it doesn't. In the UK, a training bond is simply an agreement to pay back a proportion of training cost if you choose to leave before a predetermined time period has expired. Most companies are more than happy for you to leave, if you pay back the bond. There is no contractual period of employment over and above the notice period (unless your contract specifies differently, which a few do).
Your sterotypical view that pilots "ask" for a job is similarly erroneous. The Pilot is seeking a job, but the airline is seeking staff. Both have a need for each other. In most countries, the company offers a job and the pilot accepts. The pilot doesn't offer their services and the airline accept.
The question of repayment is probably academic in any case. Many airlines will simply withold your last months salary in lieu of the outstanding bond, if you don't have a deal with them.
I may have missed some stuff that relates to this, but frankly I can't be bothered wading through the verbosity on display from some of the larger egos...
Many moons ago, Air UK used to march new pilots down to Barclays to sign up as responsible for repayments on a loan that Air UK had arranged. In many cases, pilots on my course had terrible credit histories and would never have achieved the loan themselves. The funds were remitted to Air UK, Air UK repaid the loan by instalments. The only time the pilot was involved was if he left the company, at which time he or she took over the repayments. I believe there was some friendly arrangement 'twixt airline and bank regarding interest rates, because, if you think about it, it is a very inefficient way of protecting training costs.
411A
I know you like to think that the whole world operates like the US, but it doesn't. In the UK, a training bond is simply an agreement to pay back a proportion of training cost if you choose to leave before a predetermined time period has expired. Most companies are more than happy for you to leave, if you pay back the bond. There is no contractual period of employment over and above the notice period (unless your contract specifies differently, which a few do).
Your sterotypical view that pilots "ask" for a job is similarly erroneous. The Pilot is seeking a job, but the airline is seeking staff. Both have a need for each other. In most countries, the company offers a job and the pilot accepts. The pilot doesn't offer their services and the airline accept.
The question of repayment is probably academic in any case. Many airlines will simply withold your last months salary in lieu of the outstanding bond, if you don't have a deal with them.
I may have missed some stuff that relates to this, but frankly I can't be bothered wading through the verbosity on display from some of the larger egos...
Last edited by Raw Data; 15th Apr 2004 at 05:55.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Ditchling,Sussex,UK
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bond money
From a perspective on the other side of the fence - most airlines are willing to accept payment by instalments. However their concern is that it may be difficult to enforce payment, particularly taking into account the nature of the job. If the case does go to court, the court will require you to give evidence of earnings/outgoings, to see if the payments you propose (and if the company agrees to accept them) are reasonable and you can afford them. If you clearly cannot afford to pay the bond off in one go, then the court is unlikely to order you to do so.
However, bear in mind that even if you agree terms with the company, you may end up with a court order against you, which may affect your credit/loan/mortgage rating and you will likely have to pay the company's legal costs. Your last employer may also tell your new one about your problems with payment, which could have an impact on your position with your new company. Finally, a loan agreement, freely entered into by you for your benefit, is unlikely to be considered illegal/unlawful and not enforceable. Only if the agreement is vague on repayment terms would you be entitled to the benefit of the doubt on these - and the court might be swayed by evidence of common knowledge as to how these were normally repaid in the company.
Hope this helps!
However, bear in mind that even if you agree terms with the company, you may end up with a court order against you, which may affect your credit/loan/mortgage rating and you will likely have to pay the company's legal costs. Your last employer may also tell your new one about your problems with payment, which could have an impact on your position with your new company. Finally, a loan agreement, freely entered into by you for your benefit, is unlikely to be considered illegal/unlawful and not enforceable. Only if the agreement is vague on repayment terms would you be entitled to the benefit of the doubt on these - and the court might be swayed by evidence of common knowledge as to how these were normally repaid in the company.
Hope this helps!