Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Terms and Endearment
Reload this Page >

Training bonds - enforceable or not?

Terms and Endearment The forum the bean counters hoped would never happen. Your news on pay, rostering, allowances, extras and negotiations where you work - scheduled, charter or contract.

Training bonds - enforceable or not?

Old 14th Sep 2019, 18:55
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,018
Originally Posted by TinFoilhat2 View Post
Not true, a lot of so called bonds are taken out of your salary over a 3 year period so you are in fact paying for it yourself, you just did not have to stump up the cash upfront.
Most of the bonds Iíve seen in Europe over the last few years are simply decreasing with time and thatís it, there is no repayment from salary.
CargoOne is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2019, 21:03
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Amantido
Posts: 27
In my airline, the trained pilots are on a reduced salary for 3 years. AeroLogic retains for 3 years an amount of €208,33 from the basic salary.
Banana Joe is online now  
Old 15th Sep 2019, 14:15
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Near an aerodrome
Posts: 32
Originally Posted by jetblast101 View Post
KeepCalm, do you know where exactly this legislation can be found?
I'm afraid I wasn't precise enough there. I had a few conversations about this in the past with my wife and I had the understanding it was EU-law.
Took a look on the internet, but could not find anything in EU labor law, but just in the Spanish "generic labor law", where it says the employer may ask for a training bond to be signed, for a maximum period of 2 years (very generic)
Asked the missus and she told me that it does not specify that it has to be pro-rata, as it's a common "law-convention".

And she also told me if taken to court it depends on what the judge deems reasonable, that you would need to check on previous sentences (precedent). Her understanding is that an employer would have the right to enforce a type rating bond, as it's something that you can carry on to your next employer and/or gives an advantage to your next employer, but for instance the OCC (operator's conversion course) would not be eligible as it's company-specific training.

Having said that, the type rating bond contract has to be well-written and has to be reasonable (as already said by other colleagues in this thread) for it to not be shot down in court straight away (this applies to any kind of contract really). For instance, abusive clauses or quantities claimed (i.e. asking for a compensation of 25k, if the type rating cost for the company is 15k) would probably make the employer lose the case.
KeepCalm is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2019, 00:33
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 23
Originally Posted by oggers View Post
Mate, if you do not have the type rating you have not “already paid for your training”. You need to get real. Period.






All very Jim Dandy and copacetic mate - but an airline must pay the costs of crew training as it's the cost of doing business mate - and it's a cost not to be paid by the employee. If an airline can't afford training costs then it can't afford to operate as it's dangerously underfunded. Note the BA fight and hope the rewards tumble downhill mate. Period.

Last edited by ratpackgreenslug; 16th Sep 2019 at 00:50.
ratpackgreenslug is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2019, 00:04
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 525
Originally Posted by CargoOne View Post

Most of the bonds Iíve seen in Europe over the last few years are simply decreasing with time and thatís it, there is no repayment from salary.

CargoOne - TUI in the UK has a bond which is repaid via a salary reduction, even for type-rated pilots! Hence I didn't apply.
RAFAT is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2019, 03:53
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Amantido
Posts: 27
Originally Posted by RAFAT View Post
CargoOne - TUI in the UK has a bond which is repaid via a salary reduction, even for type-rated pilots! Hence I didn't apply.
Hear hear... Why would it be the case? Now that I know this I am happy that their lady 787 FO in charge of recruitment rejected my application before I even applied.
Banana Joe is online now  
Old 17th Sep 2019, 09:23
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: World
Posts: 1,693
Originally Posted by Banana Joe View Post
Hear hear... Why would it be the case? Now that I know this I am happy that their lady 787 FO in charge of recruitment rejected my application before I even applied.
Wizzair does the same, but you didnít mind applying.
dirk85 is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2019, 10:42
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Amantido
Posts: 27
Originally Posted by dirk85 View Post


Wizzair does the same, but you didn’t mind applying.
I applied as NTR, the bond in that case made sense. If I paid for the TR on my own with no base training, they would provide me base training and they would only require a minimum of one year commitment, but no money withdrawn from the salary was mentioned.

I don't see why I need to be bonded by TUI when I am already qualified and fly the 737 for a living. That does not make sense.
Banana Joe is online now  
Old 17th Sep 2019, 10:58
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: World
Posts: 1,693
Originally Posted by Banana Joe View Post
I applied as NTR, the bond in that case made sense. If I paid for the TR on my own with no base training, they would provide me base training and they would only require a minimum of one year commitment, but no money withdrawn from the salary was mentioned.

I don't see why I need to be bonded by TUI when I am already qualified and fly the 737 for a living. That does not make sense.
You were speaking about 787 before, not 737.
dirk85 is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2019, 11:36
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Amantido
Posts: 27
Originally Posted by dirk85 View Post
You were speaking about 787 before, not 737.
The lady in charge of recruitment is a 787 FO in TUI.
Banana Joe is online now  
Old 17th Sep 2019, 13:21
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: Aust
Posts: 51
Originally Posted by TinFoilhat2 View Post
Maybe if companies invested in people and accepted training as part and parcel of doing business then this would not happen. Expecting people to be liable for the costs of the very business the company went into to make money off is ridiculous.

The pilot already paid for his training to get a licence, the company must pay for training within their own organisation and if they cant afford it then they should not be in business.

Bonding and asking for pilots to pay for type ratings should be outlawed period!!
Absolutely correct.

The thing that amazes me is that those companies that want a bond, pay only 50% salary during line training and other unethical practices then expect LOYALTY!
deja vu is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2019, 13:45
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: Aust
Posts: 51
Originally Posted by Snr View Post
I'm afraid I disagree. To charge people for a TR, or force someone into a new TR and bond them - your point is fair enough. But a simple bond of say 2-5 years in exchange for providing training is, and should be, completely fair. You're right that an airline should be able to factor in the cost of type rating a pilot into their business model, if that's what is required to fly their planes to make money - however to allow said pilot to leave after 6 months and being forced to pay another £15-20k to recruit a new one (only for them to do the same) is completely unreasonable. That money could be used to prop up the business, pay better wages to the pilots that currently work there, improve T&C's, or pay for better maintenance.

More importantly, if you have entered into a contract to be bonded for 3 years in exchange for zero training costs, then if you break that agreement you should pay what you owe. Why should my colleagues and myself be burdened with the financial responsibility because you decided to jump ship for a better job, despite signing a legal agreement to say you wouldn't? All of us, as pilots, should be of this mindset, because if we are happy for the airlines to pick up the training bill for little-to-no return in work, then they will go down the PTF route again, or ask for upfront TR costs. And we all know where that road ends up.
Wow, now I see why this industry is so screwed up and so many shitty operators survive. Disgraceful.
deja vu is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2019, 16:39
  #53 (permalink)  
Snr
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Scotland
Posts: 18
Originally Posted by deja vu View Post
Wow, now I see why this industry is so screwed up and so many shitty operators survive. Disgraceful.

May I ask why? I work for a regional "training airline" if you will. Things are far from perfect, but the vast majority of those that leave within their bond period do so because they want to fly a shiny jet, or go long haul to explore the world. That's fair, each to their own, we all have different goals in life. If everyone that left within the first year paid no bond back, the airline would be paying £15k training costs, plus 1 year salary, to only get 1 year of service out of them. That is unsustainable long term. That money could be used to increase wages for current pilots.

This isn't a question of the airline using a bond to keep T&C's low, or make money from new pilots. The people leaving aren't doing so because another operator is offering better pay and conditions, they are leaving because they had no intention of staying in the first place. I don't know any figures for who ends up paying and who doesn't, but everyone I know who has left has dutifully paid their bond, factoring that cost into their career decision. Any quite frankly they are happy (happy enough anyway) to do so, having signed the bond and been given their first airline job in the process.

Are you saying that pilots who are happy where they are should be the ones paying the price for those who break a legal agreement? Because I'll say it again - if everyone that left in the first 3 years didn't pay back their bond, the airline has 2 options. Ask for training fees up front, or go bust. There is no other sustainable option.
Snr is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2019, 17:57
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: Australia
Posts: 27
if everyone that left in the first 3 years didn't pay back their bond, the airline has 2 options. Ask for training fees up front, or go bust. There is no other sustainable option.[/QUOTE]

There you have it....go bust because they canít afford the training fees. If that was never factored into their business plan then they should not be in business.

if they factored in all of these costs plus offered decent T&C,s as well as QOL and decent treatment from management then they would have extremely low turn over.

Again it is the cost of doing business and if they cannot afford it then they should not be in business.

TinFoilhat2 is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2019, 18:18
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Earth
Posts: 662
Originally Posted by TinFoilhat2 View Post
if everyone that left in the first 3 years didn't pay back their bond, the airline has 2 options. Ask for training fees up front, or go bust. There is no other sustainable option.


There you have it....go bust because they canít afford the training fees. If that was never factored into their business plan then they should not be in business.

if they factored in all of these costs plus offered decent T&C,s as well as QOL and decent treatment from management then they would have extremely low turn over.

Again it is the cost of doing business and if they cannot afford it then they should not be in business.

[/QUOTE]
This isn't unique to piloting. When any company invests a significant amount in you most would expect some return on investment. They have spent the money and are within their right to do so. It's unreasonable to expect a comoany to sign everyone up for 20k then have everyone leave and the company keep bleeding cash and no one questions why when they never get their return.
Officer Kite is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2019, 20:06
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: Australia
Posts: 27
Originally Posted by Officer Kite View Post
There you have it....go bust because they canít afford the training fees. If that was never factored into their business plan then they should not be in business.

if they factored in all of these costs plus offered decent T&C,s as well as QOL and decent treatment from management then they would have extremely low turn over.

Again it is the cost of doing business and if they cannot afford it then they should not be in business.
This isn't unique to piloting. When any company invests a significant amount in you most would expect some return on investment. They have spent the money and are within their right to do so. It's unreasonable to expect a comoany to sign everyone up for 20k then have everyone leave and the company keep bleeding cash and no one questions why when they never get their return.[/QUOTE]

If you look after your employees financially and give them quality of life you wonít have that problem.

when employees leave, itís just business. They have families to support and will do what is in their best interest so look after them and they wonít leave.

If you canít afford to or wonít then you should not have gone into business.

Just like when times are tough for companies during economic downturns they will cut employees loose in the blink of an eye regardless of their mortgage, kids school fees, food for their family etc and their motto is itís nothing personal..,Just business, well it works both ways.
TinFoilhat2 is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2019, 20:11
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: europe
Posts: 0
Originally Posted by TinFoilhat2 View Post
If you look after your employees financially and give them quality of life you wonít have that problem.

when employees leave, itís just business. They have families to support and will do what is in their best interest so look after them and they wonít leave.

If you canít afford to or wonít then you should not have gone into business.
Do you really expect a regional/commuter airline to be able to pay and give same conditions like a major/legacy?
arketip is offline  
Old 18th Sep 2019, 00:26
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Earth
Posts: 662
Originally Posted by TinFoilhat2 View Post
If you look after your employees financially and give them quality of life you won’t have that problem.

when employees leave, it’s just business. They have families to support and will do what is in their best interest so look after them and they won’t leave.

If you can’t afford to or won’t then you should not have gone into business.

Just like when times are tough for companies during economic downturns they will cut employees loose in the blink of an eye regardless of their mortgage, kids school fees, food for their family etc and their motto is it’s nothing personal..,Just business, well it works both ways.


The issue is a sizeable portion of those who join regional carriers have no intention of staying at all, they want to fly heavy metal as soon as they can and it has nothing to do with terms or conditions at the regional. Nothing wrong with that at all, we all have our aspirations, but what makes us think we don’t need to accept the bills we’ve built up for the airline that have effectively been used as a stepping stone?

I’m all for keeping our t&c’s acceptable but in this case I struggle not to side with the airline. Someone has joined, taken advantage of an airline who were willing to give them their first break and paid their rating (they absolutely don’t have to in the current climate for low hour pilots) that likely allowed them to even get the experience before the airline wih the heavy metal would even look at them, then it’s acceptable for them to just wander off? Especially for airlines that don’t deduct the tr from your salary and are trying to be ethical when others are charging 50k for the rating and line training, i think this is really poor form. Where is the encouragement for an airline to pay for the tr of young pilots in future who can’t afford it up front? If everyone ran for the hills there wouldn’t be an airline on the planet with a half competent financial department that would pay for anyone’s rating, then we’d all come on here moaning that no airline is willing to sponsor new aviators for the tr after they’ve forked out on an ATPL. Well who is to blame when we threw it back in their faces everytime they tried doing something even half ethical.




Officer Kite is offline  
Old 18th Sep 2019, 03:08
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: Aust
Posts: 51
I am trying to think of any other industry that expects newly hired full time employees to pay for training on the employers equipment. Not only that but to forgo salary during that training in some cases and then be placed on a probationary period where summarily dismissal is an employers option.
deja vu is offline  
Old 18th Sep 2019, 07:55
  #60 (permalink)  
Snr
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Scotland
Posts: 18
Originally Posted by deja vu View Post
I am trying to think of any other industry that expects newly hired full time employees to pay for training on the employers equipment. Not only that but to forgo salary during that training in some cases and then be placed on a probationary period where summarily dismissal is an employers option.

That's the whole point of this argument. Some airlines (including my own) don't charge newly hired employees to pay for training. The airline pays for the training, and in return asks you to stay for 3 years. No salary sacrifice until you're passed the line check, no money upfront to cover costs. That's completely fair in my book.
Snr is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.