Surely that is a bit unfair. It is not a case of them getting money when
anyone leaves but if someone leaves them before the training agreement expires.

Do you seriously suggest that Flybe should essentially subsidise the training costs of competing airlines.

SR

it's not a matter of subsidising the training expenses of competing airlines, it is just that rating the remainder amount of money to the remaining time you owe them (up to 3 years) seems more just.

Do u think that someone who would leave after 2.5 year with them should refund the total sum ?
come on...

By and large I agree. To pay the remainder would be more just from the pilots point of view. But what is more just from the company's perspective? Remember it is the pilot who is defaulting on the agreement, not Flybe. If Flybe has to keep training because pilots leave a short time after joining it costs them money as they need more training staff.

I realise it sounds like I am coming down on the side of the company. I am not. I just think you cannot look at pilots' interests in isolation from the needs and interests of the employer. I certainly don't agree that it is "disgraceful". Yes, it is less than ideal but not altogether unreasonable.

SR

Speedrestriction, we will have to disagree on that I think! However, the airline industry is not the only one where this happens and I must admit that if the non-reducing bond had been in place when I joined I would have accepted it. I wanted the job and I enjoy it.

In an ideal world though, I do believe that any company should shoulder the full cost of training. If a business doesn't want to subsidise the training costs of their competitors they should work harder to make people stay.

Finally, although I have strong views on this issue, they are not directed towards Flybe specifically and we do not live in an ideal world. I do understand that from a business point of view it would be folly not to bond pilots in the current climate. There are so many of us who are willing to accept it, most other airlines do it (or worse) and there are so many opportunities for chaps with a few TP hours to move on. A huge training budget also doesn't look good on the balance sheet when a company is being sold off!

Okeydokey:ok:

SR

From the CC yesterday-It's official

New joiners will be bonded for 3 years, if they leave before the 3 years are up, they are liable for the whole bond...ie the £13.5k

Would like to see how that would stand up in court though:confused:


-----------------
endofeng:ok:

Endofeng - there would be a contract in place!

Q400 Pilot (you really do need to change that if you move on!)

Granted, but this is new territory, apparently BALPA are not too happy with this either.

According to our CC man the contracts aren't worth the paper they are written on....hmmmm interesting eh!

I'm/we are lucky, we only pay back the balance remainding if/when we leave:}

Feel sorry for new joiners.....

----------------
endofeng:ok:

It's funny isn't? Management will quite happily give you the "this is a training airline" and "we don't really care if people move on after a year" crap when it's time for payrises and such.

But now they seem to be wanting (encouraging!?) people to stay on longer.

What's it to be you bunch of hypocritical oafs?

I have seen this work in other industries. A mate of mine was being chased for the cost of a management course when he had signed a similar agreement and then left the company. Legally he has to pay up, if they can track him down of course. (and no, it is not me)

The answer lies in the Unfair Contract Terms Act.
Test of fairness
A term is unfair if:
contrary to the requirement of good faith it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations under the contract.
Reducing bond is one thing - but non reducing - doesn't that cause a significant imbalance in the parties rights and obligations??

Another interesting point is that a contract can be voided if it is proven that one of the parties to the contract had unfair bargaining advantage. Having said that, I am unsure as to on whom the burden of proof lies in such a situation.

sr

flybe bond
 

According to Balpa any bond is legal and just providing there is a degree of amortisation, so a bond that does not reduce, as this one appears not to, is indeed not enforceable. Makes you wonder why they continue to offer this bonding arrangement....

If they are serious about attracting experienced people they sure are going about it in a strange way.

This bond policy is not going to stop people leaving with short service. I know of several guys who have left TP operators and happily paid the bond to gain a jet job as the increase in salary gets them there money back pretty soon. Perhaps FLYBE should be having a look at some older guys! Yes i know they could leave too but this is less likely.

Nomercy, they are looking at older guys. Current recruitment seems to favour ex flying instructors, air taxi guys or guys with a small amount of commercial experience, i.e the type of people who can have 8mnths on the line, and be promoted straight to the left hand seat to help solve the shortage of captains problem.

As for the non-reducing bond, add to that the company's proposal of new joining f/o's starting on £23,000!

As of today new joiners start on £26191 but tomorrow? who knows???:ugh:

Just to clarify:

Have the CC have agreed in principle a pay cut of over 11% for future joiners? What is the rationale applied? I was under the impression that Flybe are a profitable company (albeit one which is investing heavily in expansion). If what Flyingbug says is correct the CC are prepared to allow the company erode T&Cs in a time of profitable trading.:eek: How is this justified? I dread to think what would happen if there was a downturn.

Will the savings be used to fund wage increases for those at the other end of the seniority list?:yuk: Please tell me it is not true. It is a bit like selling your children off into slavery.:{

sr

E195 Update
 

I have seen recent pictures of the E195 in action and I believe service may have started out of Birmingham. How many E195s are expected to be on line before the end of 06? How many expected during 07? Will they operate them out of Southampton?

For the FOs on the 195, are most former Captains on the Dash or just very senior former 146 FOs? Understand they would never hire into the 195, then are the FOs former 146 FOs as those aircraft are phased out?

I don't think employing older pilots will solve FlyBE's retention problems. Improving terms, conditions, roster stability etc might do the trick though.

Riker - in answer to your questions, it is expected that there will 2 possible 3 in service by the end of this year, the first one is operating out of BHX the second one will based out of EXT and the 3rd will be out of SOU.
I believe that next year a further 4 possibly 5 may be delivered.
With regards to crewing it - currently it is being flown by ex 146 Capt's and F/O's who were the most senior member's in the seniority. Further crews will be picked from the seniority list and is also dependent on where further E195's will be based and crew's could be made up off Dash8 crew's and 146 crews just dependent on there seniority.
NO direct entry crew's will be taken for the E195 unless i guess they've allready got either the E170 or the E190 on there license.

hope this helps
brgds
W.G