Bonds. Legal or not in UK Law?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Just a quickie 'cos I'm tired and it's late.
Besides, tilii made a cogent response. I'll just pick up a few points.
You originally said:
>> But in commercial terms it would cripple an airline who didn't, for arguments sake, get new entrants to the airline bonded. <<
I replied:
"Doesn't seem to cripple British Airways very much, does it?"
You responded:
>> Well it wouldn't would it, and is therefore an unrealistic analogy. <<
So BA isn't an airline?
>> Army, Navy and Air Force. You want out you buy yourself out<<
These are NOT businesses, as you well know. They have no bottom line and are not required to make a profit. Have another go!
>> But had you been around in the 80's when the problem first surfaced it had a dire effect on several operations - some of whom went under. <<
I was, and the demise of all those carriers had nothing whatsoever to do with not bonding
pilots- in fact most of the ones that went down DID bond pilots!
>> As far as a bonded loan is concerned, and as you describe it I have to say I am unfamiliar with it and on the face of it agree that it appears to be somewhat unsavoury. <<
As this is now the de facto standard for bonding, perhaps you should do some quick research. This is what we don't like!
>> Absolutely not RD. If you want a job and it costs the company £25,000... <snip> ...you seem to suggest that the company should accept this as on the job training. EasyJet for example have ordered 32 B737-700's = 384 pilots - no bonding? I don't think so. That is naive RD, and unlike you. You cannot expect a company to risk that kind of money without some safeguard. This is business we are talking about not a play place for pilots. <<
In that case, the airlines are out of step with most other industries. Example- if I leave university with a good IT degree, then go to work for Microsoft, they will train me as much as necessary for me to work effectively with their tools and products. This training is generally far more intensive, expensive and time-consuming than what airlines provide, and can go on for many years as a person rises through the company. Now, if a person leaves after a couple of years, having received training worth tens of thousands of pounds, and making them instantly employable worldwide, how much do you think Microsoft has bonded them for? NOTHING! This is NORMAL outside the airlines (and one or two other industries).
>> but it was some pilots who caused the problem in the first place. Take it from me RD, it is a fact. Not all, as I was careful to say before, but it was caused by greed and a 'romantic' need to fly the jets for a big airline. <<
Now YOU are being naive! Pilots didn't cause it- it was as much the fault of the airlines for simply not planning for the eventuality. Did they just sit back and assume that all their pilots, deliriously happy with their lot, would stay for 25 years and never look elsewhere?
Also, wanting a career path is no more "greedy" than an airline wanting to make a profit! As for the "romantic" need to fly big jets, I am sure you are aware that those companies (and types) also carry the largest salaries. Maybe it IS romantic to want the best for your family- but then again, perhaps it is just normal behaviour!
>> The bond however, is negated IF the person was sensible enough to ensure that he would not be liable. <<
NOT POSSIBLE with a bank loan bond.
>> And, of course, the very nature of the business means that your aeroplanes go where they will do most good for the company, not I am afraid for the benefit of pilots and their families. <<
All airlines have a moral responsibility for the welfare of their employees- that includes their mental well-being. At the very least, if a company moves base it should give its' crews the choice (see your 15 mile statement) of either staying or leaving. If they choose to enforce a bond in that situation, the pilot effectively has no choice. It HAS been done.
>> Whereas mine has been one of seeing both sides <<
Hands up all readers who agree with that!!!
>> Ah see RD, this is where what I espouse is because I am British and you are a Kiwi, we did something wrong did we? Come on mate, you are here now and you have to accept the British way. <<
That isn't the point at all! The issue is one of rightness or wrongness, not Britishness versus New Zealand-ness (which is why I didn't mention how things are done in NZ).
>> we do what we do because we are what we are. <<
Oh OK then, so we have no obligation to try and do the right thing? We cannot learn from others? You make my point for me.
The bond is a stick (if you leave, I'll hit you with a large bill or leave you to pay off a loan).
My firm certainly does, as previously explained by tilii.
>> making a difference between Kiwi's and British working in the same environment is unfortunate at best <<
Now I didn't do that, you did! I never mentioned Kiwis.
The point is, a good American company will make you want to work for them. A British company will try and prevent you leaving. It is a fundamental difference in approach. Sadly, we (ie the Brits) have a long, long way to go in the area of employee satisfaction. If your employees are happy, they won't leave. Your company will make lots more money with committed, happy employees. The Americans have learned that this is the cheapest and most effective way to run a business.
Anyway... bedtime. What was I saying about a quickie???
Besides, tilii made a cogent response. I'll just pick up a few points.
You originally said:
>> But in commercial terms it would cripple an airline who didn't, for arguments sake, get new entrants to the airline bonded. <<
I replied:
"Doesn't seem to cripple British Airways very much, does it?"
You responded:
>> Well it wouldn't would it, and is therefore an unrealistic analogy. <<
So BA isn't an airline?
>> Army, Navy and Air Force. You want out you buy yourself out<<
These are NOT businesses, as you well know. They have no bottom line and are not required to make a profit. Have another go!
>> But had you been around in the 80's when the problem first surfaced it had a dire effect on several operations - some of whom went under. <<
I was, and the demise of all those carriers had nothing whatsoever to do with not bonding
pilots- in fact most of the ones that went down DID bond pilots!
>> As far as a bonded loan is concerned, and as you describe it I have to say I am unfamiliar with it and on the face of it agree that it appears to be somewhat unsavoury. <<
As this is now the de facto standard for bonding, perhaps you should do some quick research. This is what we don't like!
>> Absolutely not RD. If you want a job and it costs the company £25,000... <snip> ...you seem to suggest that the company should accept this as on the job training. EasyJet for example have ordered 32 B737-700's = 384 pilots - no bonding? I don't think so. That is naive RD, and unlike you. You cannot expect a company to risk that kind of money without some safeguard. This is business we are talking about not a play place for pilots. <<
In that case, the airlines are out of step with most other industries. Example- if I leave university with a good IT degree, then go to work for Microsoft, they will train me as much as necessary for me to work effectively with their tools and products. This training is generally far more intensive, expensive and time-consuming than what airlines provide, and can go on for many years as a person rises through the company. Now, if a person leaves after a couple of years, having received training worth tens of thousands of pounds, and making them instantly employable worldwide, how much do you think Microsoft has bonded them for? NOTHING! This is NORMAL outside the airlines (and one or two other industries).
>> but it was some pilots who caused the problem in the first place. Take it from me RD, it is a fact. Not all, as I was careful to say before, but it was caused by greed and a 'romantic' need to fly the jets for a big airline. <<
Now YOU are being naive! Pilots didn't cause it- it was as much the fault of the airlines for simply not planning for the eventuality. Did they just sit back and assume that all their pilots, deliriously happy with their lot, would stay for 25 years and never look elsewhere?
Also, wanting a career path is no more "greedy" than an airline wanting to make a profit! As for the "romantic" need to fly big jets, I am sure you are aware that those companies (and types) also carry the largest salaries. Maybe it IS romantic to want the best for your family- but then again, perhaps it is just normal behaviour!
>> The bond however, is negated IF the person was sensible enough to ensure that he would not be liable. <<
NOT POSSIBLE with a bank loan bond.
>> And, of course, the very nature of the business means that your aeroplanes go where they will do most good for the company, not I am afraid for the benefit of pilots and their families. <<
All airlines have a moral responsibility for the welfare of their employees- that includes their mental well-being. At the very least, if a company moves base it should give its' crews the choice (see your 15 mile statement) of either staying or leaving. If they choose to enforce a bond in that situation, the pilot effectively has no choice. It HAS been done.
>> Whereas mine has been one of seeing both sides <<
Hands up all readers who agree with that!!!
>> Ah see RD, this is where what I espouse is because I am British and you are a Kiwi, we did something wrong did we? Come on mate, you are here now and you have to accept the British way. <<
That isn't the point at all! The issue is one of rightness or wrongness, not Britishness versus New Zealand-ness (which is why I didn't mention how things are done in NZ).
>> we do what we do because we are what we are. <<
Oh OK then, so we have no obligation to try and do the right thing? We cannot learn from others? You make my point for me.
The bond is a stick (if you leave, I'll hit you with a large bill or leave you to pay off a loan).
My firm certainly does, as previously explained by tilii.
>> making a difference between Kiwi's and British working in the same environment is unfortunate at best <<
Now I didn't do that, you did! I never mentioned Kiwis.
The point is, a good American company will make you want to work for them. A British company will try and prevent you leaving. It is a fundamental difference in approach. Sadly, we (ie the Brits) have a long, long way to go in the area of employee satisfaction. If your employees are happy, they won't leave. Your company will make lots more money with committed, happy employees. The Americans have learned that this is the cheapest and most effective way to run a business.
Anyway... bedtime. What was I saying about a quickie???
Guest
Posts: n/a
Just to add further fuel to the fire.....
Some IT companies DO bond for training courses, but over a shorter time period. It depends depends on the cost or type of training etc.
The Company I used to work for did bond. For example if a course cost £3000 you would be bonded for about 6 months. The reason for the shorter time, is that the IT industry is always trying to catch up with new technology/software, therefore any training starts to lose its worth in a very short time.
Some IT companies DO bond for training courses, but over a shorter time period. It depends depends on the cost or type of training etc.
The Company I used to work for did bond. For example if a course cost £3000 you would be bonded for about 6 months. The reason for the shorter time, is that the IT industry is always trying to catch up with new technology/software, therefore any training starts to lose its worth in a very short time.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Quite right, and there are one or two other industries that do as well- I was just hoping InFin would do some research! The point remains, however, that only a small minority of IT companies do so... the major players don't. They would prefer to keep their employees by using good management practices, allied with worthwhile incentives and other motivators. Stick and carrot, again.
A bit different to the UK airline approach to staff satisfaction, which has changed little in 20 years (with the exception of such "innovators" as EuroDirect).
Perhaps the adoptees of the Southwest model would do well to visit one of their "team rallies"...
A bit different to the UK airline approach to staff satisfaction, which has changed little in 20 years (with the exception of such "innovators" as EuroDirect).
Perhaps the adoptees of the Southwest model would do well to visit one of their "team rallies"...
Guest
Posts: n/a
I spent the better part of an hour trying to do the decent thing and answer both tilli and RD. Pressed de button and lost the lot.
Not sure I want to it again. We'll see. VERY annoying when that happens. Normally I would catch it in the mouse, but didn't do it!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Much as I hate to interrupt emotional outpouring with a few facts, I will:-
In general, training bonds of the type discussed are enforceable at law. Nothing in recent EU legislation has changed this position. Not the “.in general.” There are some that are excessively draconian (where the bonded sum is out of all proportion to the costs incurred or the amortisation period is unduly long) that may be a little shaky under English Law.
The BALPA paper referred to earlier in this thread was produced by an experienced practitioner. There has been little substantive change in the law since then.
Always remember the golden rule: anyone who signs an agreement expecting not to be bound by it is a fool.
And yes, I am both lawyer and pilot.
[This message has been edited by me-judice (edited 11 April 2001).]
In general, training bonds of the type discussed are enforceable at law. Nothing in recent EU legislation has changed this position. Not the “.in general.” There are some that are excessively draconian (where the bonded sum is out of all proportion to the costs incurred or the amortisation period is unduly long) that may be a little shaky under English Law.
The BALPA paper referred to earlier in this thread was produced by an experienced practitioner. There has been little substantive change in the law since then.
Always remember the golden rule: anyone who signs an agreement expecting not to be bound by it is a fool.
And yes, I am both lawyer and pilot.
[This message has been edited by me-judice (edited 11 April 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
I currently work as a manager in an IT company and 2 types of training that we provide. One is the Required training. Without the skills and knowledge of this type of training the employee cannot do their job. For this, we "bond" the employee for 6 months, the level of repayment required reducing pro rata over time. If the company decide, or need, to fire the employee the 'bond'is not recovered. Is this the case with airline bonds?
The second type of training is Desirable training. This is where the training augments current skills but does not have a direct bearing on the employee's job. For this type of training the company will "bond" the employee for 12 months with the amount reducing pro rata per month. I have had one employee who did this type of training course and decided that they would skip off to another company 2 months after completing the training (the course cost in excess of GBP4500). I did on a point of principle persue the "bond" and the employee's new employer paid the outstanding balance. Would this sort of arrangement work in aviation? If not why not?
The second type of training is Desirable training. This is where the training augments current skills but does not have a direct bearing on the employee's job. For this type of training the company will "bond" the employee for 12 months with the amount reducing pro rata per month. I have had one employee who did this type of training course and decided that they would skip off to another company 2 months after completing the training (the course cost in excess of GBP4500). I did on a point of principle persue the "bond" and the employee's new employer paid the outstanding balance. Would this sort of arrangement work in aviation? If not why not?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Me-judice
I don’t suppose you really mean to sound pompous, but I do hope you will acknowledge that there were many cogent facts stated above, long before you plonked down your two penneth. Some of us lesser mortals may well be guilty of expressing our emotions above but this is, I aver, because the subject of bonded servitude is rather an emotional one, and has been so since time immemorial.
Believe it or not (and the evidence is before you should you read this and other bonding-related threads carefully enough) most of us are painfully aware of the fact that bonding agreements are legally enforceable without the benefit of your tardy advice.
Though “[n]othing in recent EU legislation has changed this position”, you have carefully avoided expressing an opinion on what is perhaps a more important issue. The Human Rights Act 1998 is British, not EU, legislation. How do you say this Act affects the position with respect to the bonding issue?
May I enquire as to how you know that “[t]he BALPA paper referred to earlier in this thread was produced by an experienced practitioner”? Would you care to describe that practitioner’s experience to us all so that we may henceforth be more trusting of his/her advice.
As to “the golden rule” you say we should all remember, shame on you me-judice. For someone professing to be “both a lawyer and pilot”, I am astonished that you use this term so glibly when you should know from your first year studies in law that the golden rule has nothing to do with contract law but is in fact a rule of construction employed by judges with respect to statutory interpretation, namely to read same according to the ordinary meaning of the words used in the statute unless the result produces illogicality or inconsistency. The golden rule allows a judge to avoid such illogicality in statutory interpretation, but no more.
[snide remark now removed with apologies!]
Flypuppy
A very interesting contribution indeed. Thank you.
You have not said why your company finds it necessary to bond employees in the first instance.
Since you have, by your own statement, only had one employee “skip off to another company” after completing the training to which you refer, what practical value have you sought from the imposition of bonded servitude (albeit of short duration) upon your employees?
As to your having had to “persue [sic]” the aforementioned deviant for the bond, I find it more than a little interesting that his/her new employer coughed up the dough, so to speak. Does this mean that it was his/her new employer you ‘persued’, or was it in fact the employee? And, given your location as stated in your profile, is the said bonding and ‘persuing’ company Dutch or British?
As to your final questions, I think (another emotional outpouring, me-judice) the answer is that the arrangements with respect to bonding are totally unacceptable in whatever form.
[This message has been edited by tilii (edited 12 April 2001).]
I don’t suppose you really mean to sound pompous, but I do hope you will acknowledge that there were many cogent facts stated above, long before you plonked down your two penneth. Some of us lesser mortals may well be guilty of expressing our emotions above but this is, I aver, because the subject of bonded servitude is rather an emotional one, and has been so since time immemorial.
Believe it or not (and the evidence is before you should you read this and other bonding-related threads carefully enough) most of us are painfully aware of the fact that bonding agreements are legally enforceable without the benefit of your tardy advice.
Though “[n]othing in recent EU legislation has changed this position”, you have carefully avoided expressing an opinion on what is perhaps a more important issue. The Human Rights Act 1998 is British, not EU, legislation. How do you say this Act affects the position with respect to the bonding issue?
May I enquire as to how you know that “[t]he BALPA paper referred to earlier in this thread was produced by an experienced practitioner”? Would you care to describe that practitioner’s experience to us all so that we may henceforth be more trusting of his/her advice.
As to “the golden rule” you say we should all remember, shame on you me-judice. For someone professing to be “both a lawyer and pilot”, I am astonished that you use this term so glibly when you should know from your first year studies in law that the golden rule has nothing to do with contract law but is in fact a rule of construction employed by judges with respect to statutory interpretation, namely to read same according to the ordinary meaning of the words used in the statute unless the result produces illogicality or inconsistency. The golden rule allows a judge to avoid such illogicality in statutory interpretation, but no more.
[snide remark now removed with apologies!]
Flypuppy
A very interesting contribution indeed. Thank you.
You have not said why your company finds it necessary to bond employees in the first instance.
Since you have, by your own statement, only had one employee “skip off to another company” after completing the training to which you refer, what practical value have you sought from the imposition of bonded servitude (albeit of short duration) upon your employees?
As to your having had to “persue [sic]” the aforementioned deviant for the bond, I find it more than a little interesting that his/her new employer coughed up the dough, so to speak. Does this mean that it was his/her new employer you ‘persued’, or was it in fact the employee? And, given your location as stated in your profile, is the said bonding and ‘persuing’ company Dutch or British?
As to your final questions, I think (another emotional outpouring, me-judice) the answer is that the arrangements with respect to bonding are totally unacceptable in whatever form.
[This message has been edited by tilii (edited 12 April 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
tilii,
From my point of view the "bonding" is there for 2 basic reasons:
1. I have a limited annual budget and I want to get value from my investment. Sounds cold and impersonal I know, but a company exists to make money. If I invest in one of my team I want to get some useful work out of them and if a "bonding" arrangement makes somone stop and think about the moral implications, then so be it.
2. Linked in part to the first reason, the area I work in is suffering a shortage of good and experienced (sound familiar?) people, so by "bonding" people I believe it does make people think about their responsibilities to their employer.
I treat all my team as I would like to be treated: with respect and consideration. I hope I haven't come over as a Capitalist Stormtrooper.
The only reason I pursued the employee that skipped off was because she had taken a course in Web design, which did not really have much to do with her primary task. I agreed to let her do this course as it may have had a future role in our department, but before I could make use of her new skills she had departed. I felt that I had gone out of my way to accomodate her wishes, and that she had abused my trust. I originally sought repayment from her directly, but she discussed it with her new employer who contacted me and we resolved the issue in a businesslike and amicable way. The companies were both Dutch based.
I don't particularly agree with endentured service either tilii, but I don't see it as such. It is only because people have abused the system before that this sort of arrangement has become common.
What I find highly objectionable is when a company bonds somone for an unrealistic amount. I believe it was SIA that bonded some pilots for $100,000 on 747-400's. I don't think that that sort of bonding is fair.
From my point of view the "bonding" is there for 2 basic reasons:
1. I have a limited annual budget and I want to get value from my investment. Sounds cold and impersonal I know, but a company exists to make money. If I invest in one of my team I want to get some useful work out of them and if a "bonding" arrangement makes somone stop and think about the moral implications, then so be it.
2. Linked in part to the first reason, the area I work in is suffering a shortage of good and experienced (sound familiar?) people, so by "bonding" people I believe it does make people think about their responsibilities to their employer.
I treat all my team as I would like to be treated: with respect and consideration. I hope I haven't come over as a Capitalist Stormtrooper.
The only reason I pursued the employee that skipped off was because she had taken a course in Web design, which did not really have much to do with her primary task. I agreed to let her do this course as it may have had a future role in our department, but before I could make use of her new skills she had departed. I felt that I had gone out of my way to accomodate her wishes, and that she had abused my trust. I originally sought repayment from her directly, but she discussed it with her new employer who contacted me and we resolved the issue in a businesslike and amicable way. The companies were both Dutch based.
I don't particularly agree with endentured service either tilii, but I don't see it as such. It is only because people have abused the system before that this sort of arrangement has become common.
What I find highly objectionable is when a company bonds somone for an unrealistic amount. I believe it was SIA that bonded some pilots for $100,000 on 747-400's. I don't think that that sort of bonding is fair.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Flypuppy-
No-one denies that bonding does happen (to a very limited extent) in some IT companies, but it is far from the norm, particularly amongst the major players. I know this because my sister did three years training with IBM, then left. No bonds, not even a objection from the company. Same goes for a current colleague who used to work for Microsoft. My examples are real-world ones.
Just to clear up another point, back in the midst of the last major pilot shortage, it was relatively common for companies to buy off bonds in order to get pilots. In fact, I still have several response letters from airlines from those days, saying that the information they needed was how many hours I had, what licence I held, and how much was outstanding on my bond. Many pilots changed employers and had their bonds paid, a little like the current EasyJet enticement.
One slightly amusing thing about all this, is the way in which companies who rigorously enforce bonds are usually the ones to try and get you to break yours. I saw an example of this just three weeks back! Rather gives the lie to InFins' management stance.
No-one denies that bonding does happen (to a very limited extent) in some IT companies, but it is far from the norm, particularly amongst the major players. I know this because my sister did three years training with IBM, then left. No bonds, not even a objection from the company. Same goes for a current colleague who used to work for Microsoft. My examples are real-world ones.
Just to clear up another point, back in the midst of the last major pilot shortage, it was relatively common for companies to buy off bonds in order to get pilots. In fact, I still have several response letters from airlines from those days, saying that the information they needed was how many hours I had, what licence I held, and how much was outstanding on my bond. Many pilots changed employers and had their bonds paid, a little like the current EasyJet enticement.
One slightly amusing thing about all this, is the way in which companies who rigorously enforce bonds are usually the ones to try and get you to break yours. I saw an example of this just three weeks back! Rather gives the lie to InFins' management stance.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Hello again, Northern Sky me ole chum.
How goes it?
I thoroughly agree with your assessment of the 'value' of what airlines say is their 'consideration' in bonding agreements. The problem would be convincing members of the judiciary of same.
Notwithstanding the BALPA document, it is very basic contract law we are looking at when we address the issue of consideration. Essentially, the law says one cannot enforce a bare promise (for example, one where you simply say that you promise, out of the goodness of your heart, to give me a million pounds). Unless such promise is made under seal, it is not enforceable.
Sadly, I think most judges will quickly conclude that training (even on an obsolete type) has value of some kind and is thus fair consideration. The law does not seek to save us from our own stupidity. If we make a bad bargain, that is just too bad. Thus, when we sign a bonding agreement with The Guvnor to train on his desert-bound Tristar, we have made a legally enforceable contract. His consideration is that training, ours is to fly the thing for him. Provided that you are so trained and the terms of the agreement on his part are all honoured, fly it for him for the agreed term or pay the price.
Hope that helps. I do understand how it feels to put your mind to something and have it whistle over everyone's head but this line of thought is, I am sorry to say, a dead end, old chum.
It has some merit in the minds of aviators who have some understanding of the relative value of specific type ratings, but tell it to the judge and you're in the proverbial brown stuff, methinks.
[This message has been edited by tilii (edited 11 April 2001).]
How goes it?
I thoroughly agree with your assessment of the 'value' of what airlines say is their 'consideration' in bonding agreements. The problem would be convincing members of the judiciary of same.
Notwithstanding the BALPA document, it is very basic contract law we are looking at when we address the issue of consideration. Essentially, the law says one cannot enforce a bare promise (for example, one where you simply say that you promise, out of the goodness of your heart, to give me a million pounds). Unless such promise is made under seal, it is not enforceable.
Sadly, I think most judges will quickly conclude that training (even on an obsolete type) has value of some kind and is thus fair consideration. The law does not seek to save us from our own stupidity. If we make a bad bargain, that is just too bad. Thus, when we sign a bonding agreement with The Guvnor to train on his desert-bound Tristar, we have made a legally enforceable contract. His consideration is that training, ours is to fly the thing for him. Provided that you are so trained and the terms of the agreement on his part are all honoured, fly it for him for the agreed term or pay the price.
Hope that helps. I do understand how it feels to put your mind to something and have it whistle over everyone's head but this line of thought is, I am sorry to say, a dead end, old chum.
It has some merit in the minds of aviators who have some understanding of the relative value of specific type ratings, but tell it to the judge and you're in the proverbial brown stuff, methinks.
[This message has been edited by tilii (edited 11 April 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Well after that PP what can I do. Very annoying though, don't know if I can get into gear again. Anyway, I agree that debates should be conducted with decorum. I will have nothing to do with the abuse that often finds it's way on PPRuNe. Btw PP this is supposed to be impartial - ain't seen a sign of it yet!
tilli, let me answer yours first. But I have to say we are going round in circles here and after this I will stop following the oozlum bird and get off the roundabout.
Other industries where they have bonds? Well we now know, just I said, they do. And in the very field RD didn't expect - as he used that example twice. ICL is another computer giant where they do to I checked at their head office today. There are, of course, other company's and it would be extremely naive to think otherwise. OK the 3 Services was stretching it a bit but it's not far from civvy street in that regard.
Your third para indicates that you didn't read my first post very well in regard to the problems caused in my operations. And with you respect you either deliberately missed the point or you completely misunderstood it. The PROBLEM stems from pilots accepting jobs, receiving an IR re-newal and type rating, base check and line checks and then staying for a few months and then departing. That meant we had to employ other pilots and go through the whole process again. How long do you think we should have continued to do that tilli? One fast jet pilot stayed for ONE month and went to BCal. I could have sued and won probably, but I had good relations with BCal and one Curly Walters, and I was not about rock the boat. It was a very soft approach on my part.
After that I took steps to avoid the problem in the future. But I would like to know how you know that operations didn't go down as a direct result of NOT bonding. You didn't know that I was having problems at the time but I can give you the names of the companies - but I am not going to.
I am sorry you are worried that my post mentioned pilots wanting jobs. But I didn't mention that it was abnormal. And what was wrong in asserting, though I didn't, that pilots and airlines go together. Can you think of another way to operate aeroplanes?
Profitability is the ONLY reason people run airlines. There NO inbetween. No other way. An aeroplane sitting on the ground if worthless junk if it ain't earning money. Who earns that money - the pilots! However, pilots cannot hold an airline to ransom, or expect that they hold the airline in their pocket! Oh that happens too. But it is incumbent on the airline to ensure that they treat pilots with respect - and even reverence. But that does NOT include GIVING them the opportunity to leave after they have been given expensive training. The bond was put in place to ensure that they KNEW what the consequences of that were. They accepted it and they signed a contract to endorse it. Crying wolf later is pointless and crass. Those that then moan because they don't like the hardness of the bullet they have to bite should look back at what they agreed to. Were there shotguns on the table when they signed? No! So the airline simply protects itself from the few who think that it is good for a screw.
Sorry tilli, but I can't have been explaining myself very well. Let me try this. If a company, any company, wants to remove itself to another part of the country it can do that without any reference to it's employees. What it must do, however, is inform them, and if the distance is greater than 15 miles and the employee does not want to go he can claim redundancy. If he is also bonded the company cannot include that in the package. Then, if the employee has no further contract with them, he can walk away. That some silly people didn't do that in recent times is down to them.
"Surely I can do better than that can't you". I'm trying tilli, against all odds and onesidedness!
Btw tilli, in answer to your question. I know RD quite well, I know his company quite well, I know the CEO quite well, I knew the previous boss quite well and I knew Jack Walker quite well. Does that answer your question?
RD
After the fiasco of losing the thread! ummmmm. It has given you time to realise that there are TWO computer companies, though why you chose IT's I will never know, who have bonds. There are other company's but I am NOT going to do research as you would like. I have more than enough work on PPRuNe to do.
So, I wonder why you took the point about BA. BA wouldn't have a problem with pilots bonding would they. They are the very company that pilots left most us smaller airlines in the lurch for!!
As I said the 3 services was stretching it a bit far, but the principal is still the same. Mind you they can go to the nick if they try to abscond!!!
We are, in all probablity, thinking of different airlines that went down in the 80's - understandable. But it makes no difference they did suffer severely as a result of NOT getting the bond under way. Don't forget too that it was BM who placed it on the map as it were. And it was they who first tested it in court - and won.
I am getting the point about a bonded bank loan. But I then to have to ask. WHY did you accept it? As I said to tilli, did they have shotguns at the ready? Were you so desperate for a job that you let the company nail your backside to the wall? Did you get advice? Does it affect your work performance? Shall I go on RD? Very unsatisfactory indeed.
So how do you plan for of dishonest pilots using an airline to get their licences and then leaving them having "taken" up to £25,000 out of the company's bank account?
Now we come to being British. I am actually quite proud of that but that is beside the point. What you said was the British have a certain way of dealing with things. Well, the point I was trying to make was that you have chosen to work in a British Society and in the same environment that is British. You cannot argue with that. But you chose to do so. Like I said we are what we are. The fact that you chose to work in this environment means that you choose, or not, to accept it. Whingeing about it will not alter it. We do some daft things in this country, but doesn't every country do that?
I just cannot grasp your real meaning in your last para RD, the fact is that you have to find the symptom before you can cure it. Pilots and airlines alike have not come near to finding how to cure the symptons. Perhaps one day they will but I doubt it. One reason for this is that there is a deep underlying mistrust of each other. Now how would you see that being cured? Tell you what RD. You'll never see it in your lifetime and neither will the current generation of young pilots. It will require a new sense of well being - and hell might just freeze over before that happens.
I am getting to end of this and I have enjoyed it but I can hold my hand on my heart and say that I did have a high regard for those pilots who were loyal to me. I returned it in full measure.
30 of my pilots went to BA, and about another 40 went to Virgin, Britannia, Monarch, Air 2000, Airtours and other operations all round the world. I met one in Florida three weeks ago having a great life.
No sticks RD. Not once, but plenty of respect for them is what I gave, and what is need now. That I was also a pilot helped too and perhaps this is where one particular Chairman of a major comes unstuck. He hates pilots! But he is good at getting their backs up and they would all like to do him in I expect. I would like to meet him to give him some good advice. Never treat your pilots with contempt, they fly your aeroplanes and make your money.
But pilots also have a problem. So long as they treat an airline with contempt and disregard they will always be bonded. It's the name of the game and it will remain.
Bed for me now but a good debate. I hope my input has been at least a little bit useful.
tilli, let me answer yours first. But I have to say we are going round in circles here and after this I will stop following the oozlum bird and get off the roundabout.
Other industries where they have bonds? Well we now know, just I said, they do. And in the very field RD didn't expect - as he used that example twice. ICL is another computer giant where they do to I checked at their head office today. There are, of course, other company's and it would be extremely naive to think otherwise. OK the 3 Services was stretching it a bit but it's not far from civvy street in that regard.
Your third para indicates that you didn't read my first post very well in regard to the problems caused in my operations. And with you respect you either deliberately missed the point or you completely misunderstood it. The PROBLEM stems from pilots accepting jobs, receiving an IR re-newal and type rating, base check and line checks and then staying for a few months and then departing. That meant we had to employ other pilots and go through the whole process again. How long do you think we should have continued to do that tilli? One fast jet pilot stayed for ONE month and went to BCal. I could have sued and won probably, but I had good relations with BCal and one Curly Walters, and I was not about rock the boat. It was a very soft approach on my part.
After that I took steps to avoid the problem in the future. But I would like to know how you know that operations didn't go down as a direct result of NOT bonding. You didn't know that I was having problems at the time but I can give you the names of the companies - but I am not going to.
I am sorry you are worried that my post mentioned pilots wanting jobs. But I didn't mention that it was abnormal. And what was wrong in asserting, though I didn't, that pilots and airlines go together. Can you think of another way to operate aeroplanes?
Profitability is the ONLY reason people run airlines. There NO inbetween. No other way. An aeroplane sitting on the ground if worthless junk if it ain't earning money. Who earns that money - the pilots! However, pilots cannot hold an airline to ransom, or expect that they hold the airline in their pocket! Oh that happens too. But it is incumbent on the airline to ensure that they treat pilots with respect - and even reverence. But that does NOT include GIVING them the opportunity to leave after they have been given expensive training. The bond was put in place to ensure that they KNEW what the consequences of that were. They accepted it and they signed a contract to endorse it. Crying wolf later is pointless and crass. Those that then moan because they don't like the hardness of the bullet they have to bite should look back at what they agreed to. Were there shotguns on the table when they signed? No! So the airline simply protects itself from the few who think that it is good for a screw.
Sorry tilli, but I can't have been explaining myself very well. Let me try this. If a company, any company, wants to remove itself to another part of the country it can do that without any reference to it's employees. What it must do, however, is inform them, and if the distance is greater than 15 miles and the employee does not want to go he can claim redundancy. If he is also bonded the company cannot include that in the package. Then, if the employee has no further contract with them, he can walk away. That some silly people didn't do that in recent times is down to them.
"Surely I can do better than that can't you". I'm trying tilli, against all odds and onesidedness!
Btw tilli, in answer to your question. I know RD quite well, I know his company quite well, I know the CEO quite well, I knew the previous boss quite well and I knew Jack Walker quite well. Does that answer your question?
RD
After the fiasco of losing the thread! ummmmm. It has given you time to realise that there are TWO computer companies, though why you chose IT's I will never know, who have bonds. There are other company's but I am NOT going to do research as you would like. I have more than enough work on PPRuNe to do.
So, I wonder why you took the point about BA. BA wouldn't have a problem with pilots bonding would they. They are the very company that pilots left most us smaller airlines in the lurch for!!
As I said the 3 services was stretching it a bit far, but the principal is still the same. Mind you they can go to the nick if they try to abscond!!!
We are, in all probablity, thinking of different airlines that went down in the 80's - understandable. But it makes no difference they did suffer severely as a result of NOT getting the bond under way. Don't forget too that it was BM who placed it on the map as it were. And it was they who first tested it in court - and won.
I am getting the point about a bonded bank loan. But I then to have to ask. WHY did you accept it? As I said to tilli, did they have shotguns at the ready? Were you so desperate for a job that you let the company nail your backside to the wall? Did you get advice? Does it affect your work performance? Shall I go on RD? Very unsatisfactory indeed.
So how do you plan for of dishonest pilots using an airline to get their licences and then leaving them having "taken" up to £25,000 out of the company's bank account?
Now we come to being British. I am actually quite proud of that but that is beside the point. What you said was the British have a certain way of dealing with things. Well, the point I was trying to make was that you have chosen to work in a British Society and in the same environment that is British. You cannot argue with that. But you chose to do so. Like I said we are what we are. The fact that you chose to work in this environment means that you choose, or not, to accept it. Whingeing about it will not alter it. We do some daft things in this country, but doesn't every country do that?
I just cannot grasp your real meaning in your last para RD, the fact is that you have to find the symptom before you can cure it. Pilots and airlines alike have not come near to finding how to cure the symptons. Perhaps one day they will but I doubt it. One reason for this is that there is a deep underlying mistrust of each other. Now how would you see that being cured? Tell you what RD. You'll never see it in your lifetime and neither will the current generation of young pilots. It will require a new sense of well being - and hell might just freeze over before that happens.
I am getting to end of this and I have enjoyed it but I can hold my hand on my heart and say that I did have a high regard for those pilots who were loyal to me. I returned it in full measure.
30 of my pilots went to BA, and about another 40 went to Virgin, Britannia, Monarch, Air 2000, Airtours and other operations all round the world. I met one in Florida three weeks ago having a great life.
No sticks RD. Not once, but plenty of respect for them is what I gave, and what is need now. That I was also a pilot helped too and perhaps this is where one particular Chairman of a major comes unstuck. He hates pilots! But he is good at getting their backs up and they would all like to do him in I expect. I would like to meet him to give him some good advice. Never treat your pilots with contempt, they fly your aeroplanes and make your money.
But pilots also have a problem. So long as they treat an airline with contempt and disregard they will always be bonded. It's the name of the game and it will remain.
Bed for me now but a good debate. I hope my input has been at least a little bit useful.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Tilli, come now! I would have expected rather more from you. me-judice has obviously made a pro-nouncemnt that you don't want to hear. Sticking one's head in the sand it what this whole problem is about.
I mentioned in my last post that since BM won a case in the High Court, the law on bonding is enforceable. It is NOW law, check on it yourself. Is your library open tomorrow?
I also made reference to abuse. I include in that snide remarks. They are unnecessary. RD and I have been in agreement before on put downs, and we didn't like it. If me-judice wishes to respond he will, but if he wishes to treat you with contempt for doubting him, you deserve it. I don't think he has to explain his comments to you or me anymore than I have to explain mine to you.
We choose if we wish too.
Now please, I am withdrawing but no more snide. It is unworthy and spoils a good debate.
I mentioned in my last post that since BM won a case in the High Court, the law on bonding is enforceable. It is NOW law, check on it yourself. Is your library open tomorrow?
I also made reference to abuse. I include in that snide remarks. They are unnecessary. RD and I have been in agreement before on put downs, and we didn't like it. If me-judice wishes to respond he will, but if he wishes to treat you with contempt for doubting him, you deserve it. I don't think he has to explain his comments to you or me anymore than I have to explain mine to you.
We choose if we wish too.
Now please, I am withdrawing but no more snide. It is unworthy and spoils a good debate.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Flypuppy and InFinRetirement
[edit - InFin, your last post above popped up while I wrote this. Did you actually read the one above by me addressed to Northern Sky? If so, you will surely see that I am fully aware of the law on bonding. I merely question whether or not me-judice is. I will now edit out the only remark I acknowledge is unacceptable.]
I wonder if I might ask you to do something? If you take the time to read each other’s last posts you may be quite surprised to read that you each have a lot in common.
For example, you both argue for bonding on moral grounds, at least so far as they apply to your employees. Again, you both seem to wish us to accept that you love/d your team and had great respect for them, particularly those that were loyal to you.
But most importantly, I feel, you both refer to just one individual who ‘done you in’, so to speak, with respect to running off after training. OK, InFin, you counted up those who had gone elsewhere but you made no claim that each of those had jumped ship immediately after training or while bonded.
It really is interesting to see the similarity in thought, moral stance, and tale of betrayal by an employee that you share – AS EMPLOYERS.
Now, may I ask if either of you acknowledge the existence of airline employers who let down their employees, or lied to them, or conned them into taking a job with a bond and then used that bond as a coercive tool? Oh yes, such employers do exist.
And so we get down to the nitty gritty at last. The fact is that there are at least as many abuses BY employers as there are OF employers. And I think, in fact, that we might agree with each other in many ways, especially with regard to the way we should treat each other as opposed to what happens in daily life.
InFin is right to point to a deep seated mistrust underlying employer/employee relationships – and not just in the UK (look at the SIA thread, or reflect upon the OZ pilot dispute). That mistrust is, I aver, founded upon bad experiences on both sides. Why, then, does this have to continue? Why this ‘us and them’ approach? So very much of what InFin has to say is actually in favour of change, despite his assertion that such change “will require a new sense of well being - and hell might just freeze over before that happens”.
Well being is, as InFin says, a sense, or a state of mind. It does not in fact take very much to change the collective state of mind. The question is simply one of who will start the ball rolling? Frankly, I think that is down to the employers. As RD has rightly said, employers in the US adopt an entirely different approach – and it seems to work without bonding. Why can’t we try that here?
Though I speak out strongly against bonding, I am the first to acknowledge that bad employees need to be taken to task, perhaps by their peers. That surely does not mean bonding for the vast majority of us.
I am old enough to remember the days when bonding did not exist in the UK airline vocabulary and, frankly, I believe that the esteemed profession of airline pilot was at its peak at that time. The slippery slope down which the profession has been sliding for at least the last 20 years has more to do with a fundamental, collective greed and selfishness than with the imposition of bonding. Bonding agreements are a symptom of the underlying disease.
When will employers and employees alike wake up and reject this ‘us and them’ philosophy?
[This message has been edited by tilii (edited 12 April 2001).]
[edit - InFin, your last post above popped up while I wrote this. Did you actually read the one above by me addressed to Northern Sky? If so, you will surely see that I am fully aware of the law on bonding. I merely question whether or not me-judice is. I will now edit out the only remark I acknowledge is unacceptable.]
I wonder if I might ask you to do something? If you take the time to read each other’s last posts you may be quite surprised to read that you each have a lot in common.
For example, you both argue for bonding on moral grounds, at least so far as they apply to your employees. Again, you both seem to wish us to accept that you love/d your team and had great respect for them, particularly those that were loyal to you.
But most importantly, I feel, you both refer to just one individual who ‘done you in’, so to speak, with respect to running off after training. OK, InFin, you counted up those who had gone elsewhere but you made no claim that each of those had jumped ship immediately after training or while bonded.
It really is interesting to see the similarity in thought, moral stance, and tale of betrayal by an employee that you share – AS EMPLOYERS.
Now, may I ask if either of you acknowledge the existence of airline employers who let down their employees, or lied to them, or conned them into taking a job with a bond and then used that bond as a coercive tool? Oh yes, such employers do exist.
And so we get down to the nitty gritty at last. The fact is that there are at least as many abuses BY employers as there are OF employers. And I think, in fact, that we might agree with each other in many ways, especially with regard to the way we should treat each other as opposed to what happens in daily life.
InFin is right to point to a deep seated mistrust underlying employer/employee relationships – and not just in the UK (look at the SIA thread, or reflect upon the OZ pilot dispute). That mistrust is, I aver, founded upon bad experiences on both sides. Why, then, does this have to continue? Why this ‘us and them’ approach? So very much of what InFin has to say is actually in favour of change, despite his assertion that such change “will require a new sense of well being - and hell might just freeze over before that happens”.
Well being is, as InFin says, a sense, or a state of mind. It does not in fact take very much to change the collective state of mind. The question is simply one of who will start the ball rolling? Frankly, I think that is down to the employers. As RD has rightly said, employers in the US adopt an entirely different approach – and it seems to work without bonding. Why can’t we try that here?
Though I speak out strongly against bonding, I am the first to acknowledge that bad employees need to be taken to task, perhaps by their peers. That surely does not mean bonding for the vast majority of us.
I am old enough to remember the days when bonding did not exist in the UK airline vocabulary and, frankly, I believe that the esteemed profession of airline pilot was at its peak at that time. The slippery slope down which the profession has been sliding for at least the last 20 years has more to do with a fundamental, collective greed and selfishness than with the imposition of bonding. Bonding agreements are a symptom of the underlying disease.
When will employers and employees alike wake up and reject this ‘us and them’ philosophy?
[This message has been edited by tilii (edited 12 April 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Sorry, this a bit on the long side.
The total cost of this type of training comes to £ 8665.00. Add the cost of transport and accomodation and the total cost to the company will be over £10,000. This kind of expertise is sought after in the IT market, and imagine your training budget for the Finacial Year is only £50,000. You would be a tad peeved if you put one of your team through this kind of course and they bailed out on you within a couple of months. From a business point of view, you have not realised any return on investment. Why shouldn't a company try to recover the lost investment?
Certainly in our company the employee does not pay for any of their training, by witholding money out of salary (as British Midland, and I believe BA, do for their Cadet Pilot schemes). It is only if an employee decides to bite the hand that fed it and make use of their new found desirability in the employment market will the company penalise the employee. From both an employee and an employer point of view I dont find this unreasonable. As for just one person "doing me in", well it has only happened to me personally once, companywide and industry wide it became something of an epidemic a few years ago, hence the introduction of this type of "bonding".
Raw Data, you will find that many IT companies will have similar clauses in built into their contracts. It is not described as bonding, per se, but the effect is similar. These clauses are there to prevent a competitor gaining an edge at your expense. Normally the time limit is for 6 or 12 months. So if your sister completed some form of training and then left after 6 months had elapsed since that course the company wouldn't raise an eybrow. You will also find that Microsoft would be unlikely to raise an objection to your colleague, as he was not leaving to work for a competitor company.
[This message has been edited by Flypuppy (edited 12 April 2001).]
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">The Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer credential is the top certification for professionals who analyse the business requirements for a system architecture, design solutions, deploy, install, and configure architecture components, and troubleshoot system problems.
The new Microsoft Windows 2000 track is designed for IT professionals working in a complex computing environment of medium to large organisations. A Windows 2000 MCSE candidate should have at least one year of experience implementing and administering a network operating system.
MCSEs in the Windows 2000 track are required to pass five core exams and two elective exams that provide a valid and reliable measure of technical proficiency and expertise.
Course Microsoft Windows 2000 Network & Operating System Essentials MS2151-2
Type Classroom based, Instructor Led Training
Length 3 days
List Price GBP £995.00
Course Microsoft Windows 2000 Network & Operating System Essentials MS2151-2
Type Classroom based, Instructor Led Training
Length 3 days
List Price GBP £995.00
Course Supporting Microsoft Windows 2000 Professional and Server MS2152-1
Type Classroom based, Instructor Led Training
Length 5 days
List Price GBP £1,495.00
Course Supporting a Network Infrastructure using Microsoft Windows 2000 MS2153-1
Type Classroom based, Instructor Led Training
Length 5 days
List Price GBP £1,495.00
Course Implementing and Administering Microsoft Windows 2000 Directory Services MS2154-1
Type Classroom based, Instructor Led Training
Length 5 days
List Price GBP £1,495.00
Course Designing a Secure Microsoft Windows 2000-based Network MS2150-1
Type Classroom based, Instructor Led Training
Length 5 days
List Price GBP £1,495.00
Course Designing a Microsoft Windows 2000 Migration Strategy MS2010-1
Type Classroom based, Instructor Led Training
Length 2 days
List Price GBP £695.00 </font>
The new Microsoft Windows 2000 track is designed for IT professionals working in a complex computing environment of medium to large organisations. A Windows 2000 MCSE candidate should have at least one year of experience implementing and administering a network operating system.
MCSEs in the Windows 2000 track are required to pass five core exams and two elective exams that provide a valid and reliable measure of technical proficiency and expertise.
Course Microsoft Windows 2000 Network & Operating System Essentials MS2151-2
Type Classroom based, Instructor Led Training
Length 3 days
List Price GBP £995.00
Course Microsoft Windows 2000 Network & Operating System Essentials MS2151-2
Type Classroom based, Instructor Led Training
Length 3 days
List Price GBP £995.00
Course Supporting Microsoft Windows 2000 Professional and Server MS2152-1
Type Classroom based, Instructor Led Training
Length 5 days
List Price GBP £1,495.00
Course Supporting a Network Infrastructure using Microsoft Windows 2000 MS2153-1
Type Classroom based, Instructor Led Training
Length 5 days
List Price GBP £1,495.00
Course Implementing and Administering Microsoft Windows 2000 Directory Services MS2154-1
Type Classroom based, Instructor Led Training
Length 5 days
List Price GBP £1,495.00
Course Designing a Secure Microsoft Windows 2000-based Network MS2150-1
Type Classroom based, Instructor Led Training
Length 5 days
List Price GBP £1,495.00
Course Designing a Microsoft Windows 2000 Migration Strategy MS2010-1
Type Classroom based, Instructor Led Training
Length 2 days
List Price GBP £695.00 </font>
Certainly in our company the employee does not pay for any of their training, by witholding money out of salary (as British Midland, and I believe BA, do for their Cadet Pilot schemes). It is only if an employee decides to bite the hand that fed it and make use of their new found desirability in the employment market will the company penalise the employee. From both an employee and an employer point of view I dont find this unreasonable. As for just one person "doing me in", well it has only happened to me personally once, companywide and industry wide it became something of an epidemic a few years ago, hence the introduction of this type of "bonding".
Raw Data, you will find that many IT companies will have similar clauses in built into their contracts. It is not described as bonding, per se, but the effect is similar. These clauses are there to prevent a competitor gaining an edge at your expense. Normally the time limit is for 6 or 12 months. So if your sister completed some form of training and then left after 6 months had elapsed since that course the company wouldn't raise an eybrow. You will also find that Microsoft would be unlikely to raise an objection to your colleague, as he was not leaving to work for a competitor company.
[This message has been edited by Flypuppy (edited 12 April 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Flypuppy
I'll get back to you in more depth later. Meanwhile, think about this:
Course to obtain the skills to operate an aircraft. Any UK approved flying training organisation. Cost to student about £60,000.
Runs, on average, full-time for a year.
Student funds this himself either through pre-existing family wealth or from monies earned (after tax) in employment.
Even type training on a modern heavy jet does not equal this kind of personal outlay for a budding pilot.
Tell us, then, how many of your IT employees expend this kind of sum before being able to sit down at one of your computers as a basic employee?
Further, how many of your employees could find themselves unable to continue in their employment (and thereby reap the reward from their outlay) on the basis of reassessment and evaluation of performance, and full medical check, on a six-monthly basis ongoing for their entire working lives?
There is, in my mind, no comparison to be made. What do you think?
I'll get back to you in more depth later. Meanwhile, think about this:
Course to obtain the skills to operate an aircraft. Any UK approved flying training organisation. Cost to student about £60,000.
Runs, on average, full-time for a year.
Student funds this himself either through pre-existing family wealth or from monies earned (after tax) in employment.
Even type training on a modern heavy jet does not equal this kind of personal outlay for a budding pilot.
Tell us, then, how many of your IT employees expend this kind of sum before being able to sit down at one of your computers as a basic employee?
Further, how many of your employees could find themselves unable to continue in their employment (and thereby reap the reward from their outlay) on the basis of reassessment and evaluation of performance, and full medical check, on a six-monthly basis ongoing for their entire working lives?
There is, in my mind, no comparison to be made. What do you think?
Guest
Posts: n/a
This is in response to tliii's question (in his response to me-judice's post) about the Human Rights Act 98. As I posted near the start of this thread, the Act is unlikely to be relevant to the enforceability of a bond. It does not deal with socio-economic rights. There is, for example, no protected right to work.
I would disagree slightly with me-judice on two points:-
(1) EU law might, just conceivably, allow an argument based on free movement of workers (this was the argument used to bust the football transfer system), but in order to make this argument good you would have to show that bonding has a measurable, adverse and disproportionate impact on the EU pilot job market. Not easy.
(2) Although me-judice is right to say that substantive law hasn't changed much since the BALPA opinion was written, judicial approaches to restraint of trade arguments do fluctuate, and if agreements do not keep up with the state of the art on drafting appropriately limited restraints they can come a cropper.
FNG
(employment) lawyer and (private) pilot
I would disagree slightly with me-judice on two points:-
(1) EU law might, just conceivably, allow an argument based on free movement of workers (this was the argument used to bust the football transfer system), but in order to make this argument good you would have to show that bonding has a measurable, adverse and disproportionate impact on the EU pilot job market. Not easy.
(2) Although me-judice is right to say that substantive law hasn't changed much since the BALPA opinion was written, judicial approaches to restraint of trade arguments do fluctuate, and if agreements do not keep up with the state of the art on drafting appropriately limited restraints they can come a cropper.
FNG
(employment) lawyer and (private) pilot
Guest
Posts: n/a
tilii,
I don't need to think about the investment a pilot makes in his/her own future. I have remortgaged my house and will spend 9 months of my life away from my family in order to chase my childhood dream. Including loss of earnings and fixed costs my total investment (including my PPL and the 300 hours I have) will be well in excess of 82,000. The emotional investment, I cannot put a value on. Please don't lecture me on what it costs to become a pilot.
In approxomately a years time I will be looking for my first job in aviation. If I have to sign a bond to the company that is going to give me my first break, well, so be it. I will accept it as long as I see it to be fair to both parties. If a company is willing to risk an investment in me I am willing to repay that with my loyalty.
What I was showing with my posts is that a form of bonding exists outside of the aviation world. It is difficult to draw an informed comparison as I don't really know what a 737 type rating costs.
I don't need to think about the investment a pilot makes in his/her own future. I have remortgaged my house and will spend 9 months of my life away from my family in order to chase my childhood dream. Including loss of earnings and fixed costs my total investment (including my PPL and the 300 hours I have) will be well in excess of 82,000. The emotional investment, I cannot put a value on. Please don't lecture me on what it costs to become a pilot.
In approxomately a years time I will be looking for my first job in aviation. If I have to sign a bond to the company that is going to give me my first break, well, so be it. I will accept it as long as I see it to be fair to both parties. If a company is willing to risk an investment in me I am willing to repay that with my loyalty.
What I was showing with my posts is that a form of bonding exists outside of the aviation world. It is difficult to draw an informed comparison as I don't really know what a 737 type rating costs.