Bond thoughts
 

What are peoples ethical thoughts on companies bonding pilots for significant amounts (45000 euro) when the company incurred no cost for the training?
For instance, if a company buys a new aircraft and with this is included type ratings courses at the factory, is it fair to bond the pilot at what that type rating course would cost if it were paid for? Or would it be unfair to profiteer off the pilot? or somewhere in between?
The company is of course bearing the initial cost of the aircraft, and perhaps one could argue the type training cost is factored into that
What if the company however, is simply operating the aircraft, then is it a different matter?
An interesting moral dilemma I have been unable to wrap my head around

I think it is fair to have a bond of some type if you have undergone a type rating for instance. Airlines don’t always get free training when they buy the aircraft. Sometimes the price of the aircraft is negotiated without the training credits.

Bonding arrangements do differ though. Having to pay something if you leave before 2 or 3 years is fair as the company will have bourne the cost of a new employee. This training burden could be large for a direct entry or fast tracked captain for instance. Initial rating then extra conversion training and additional line training sectors.

what is not so fair is being held for the three years and also having to pay all the money back.

some companies will give you half of the bond back if you stay a certain period of time. So the overall cost is manageable.

It’s purely a supply and demand problem. If everyone was happy to pay 30k up front for a rating, that’d be the norm. But actually a lot aren’t, especially people with experience such as DECs.

If people weren’t happy to be bonded either then that wouldn’t happen, it’d just be free training up front. But in general they are, so it’s a sort of middle ground where the ‘risk’ for want of a better word is held by both sides.

I don’t think you could argue that a decreasing bond is unfair. One that stays the full amount then cliff edges to zero at an arbitrary point though absolutely.

If you join EK today, with or without a TR, you are bonded for 42 months which decreases by USD1000/month. Reason? No reason except for “forcing” people to stay for 3,5 years.

Well, I prefer a bond rather than paying 35k EUR upfront like RYR expect you to do.
&

I think a bond is reasonable, especially compared to paying for it yourself. Preferably a reducing bond. Someone needs to pay for the type rating and the airline needs to get some return on investment so it should be win/win.

A guy who trained with me a few years ago literally left the company 2 weeks after finishing line training and went to SE Asia.

Because of that person the company now has a 2 year bond.

That's why companies have them. More than 2 years I feel is a little excessive though.

Not because of that person . Because the HR has failed to provide competitive conditions to make him staying without any bond.

I hate it… Wizz Air constantly wants to bond me if I join them with my own current type rating. Silly wizz air … :D

He never intended to stay. He just used the company for a free type rating.

But I'm glad you could jump to your conclusion knowing nothing about the company itself.

JliderPilot fair points, thanks for sharing, I do agree there's certainly some bond which should be paid off
But bond was structured in a different way, I was told via email my lower salary offer factored in the cost of the type training, and the obligation for the cost of the type training would decrease pro rata per month. So in the end, If I leave after 2 years, I essentially will have paid for the training myself, right? Other pilots in my position who joined AFTER me are earning about 2000 Euro a month more which equates to 48000 EURO

VariablePitchP thanks too for your insight and also agree that a decreasing bond is fair, just trying to come to terms with if decreased salary and decreasing bond is fair? Or it should have been one or the other? Especially considering the 45000 euro is a fictitious amount and the company got the two rating slots for free because they're managing the aircraft for a state entity

Dissident1 that is fascinating, thanks for sharing

rudestuff good point, the chances of me forking out the cash for the rating are small

pilotchute So despicable. And I agree, leaving after two weeks he knew his intentions well before he started that type rating. As you said people like that are the pure reason bonds exist.
As for I had every intention of staying my two years, but having arrived things are far from what were promised or foretold

dynamicq No ways! I had no idea this was practice in Airlines... to bond already type rated pilots..

I think bonds are fine as long as they are transparent and both parties go in with eyes open. If you intend to stay with the company long term, then you should not be negatively affected. It sucks if an opportunity pops up during your bond period, but that is where the eyes open part comes in. Know what you sign up for.

However, the companies that ask for both a bond and a salary deduction for incurred costs, those are the ones to avoid. My previous employer played around with such schemes. I joined as experienced pilot, was bonded for 3 years but with full salary. Some other who joined after with less or no commercial experience, were bonded for the same 3 years but with a lower salary as well.

When I went for command, I started the command course with a deal for another small bond, which ran along side the type rating bond. It basically extended my time commitment by 6 months. All good. When I was done with the command course and got the contract to sign, they added a salary deduction which would have me sit in the left seat for less pay than I had in the right seat :rolleyes:. I told them I would just continue flying in the right seat then, after which it quickly went back to the original deal.

But yeah, scummy companies will try. And there are those who will accept those conditions as well.

Can you imagine if, say, Starbucks introduced a totally new menu and staff had to go on a three day course to learn about it. They're told that the course would cost the company £1500 each. If they leave in the next 3 years, they will have to reimburse the company. They have no option but to do it or resign.

:ugh:

737 type rating cost to company

285 / hour x 48 hrs = 13680

half for company , half for 2 pilots = 6840 for company 3420 per pilot
3420 is the max I would pay if I left immediately after the rating

Wait a minute. My company pays full wage from day 1. Ground school and systems is 3 weeks. SIM is 2.5 weeks. Instructors and classrooms cost money as do my wages when I'm not being productive. My company also covers hotel and transport for the duration of training (ground and SIM training)

Your 3420 is now closer to 10000.

That's a completely fallacious argument though - in your example the Starbucks employee is only gaining something of any value when working for Starbucks.

Keep drinking that Kool-aid buddy

Wizzair is taking money from your salary even if you are bonded (don't know the present amount and years). Still not so many companies on the market with no salary deduction for the type rating, no matter how long you intend to stay with them.

You forget that all costs have special discounts, VAT recoverable and deductible from company’s turnover.
And even if it wasn’t the case, salaries of inexperienced pilots are lower. So they manage to recover a higher amount compared to the real costs.

Many companies prefer that F/os leave as soon as the bond period is over. First, this frees up positions for new F/Os who will start flying at a lower salary. Second, since they cannot upgrade them all so that they start as Captains at a lower salary than the experienced ones, they remain as “high-cost senior F/Os” raising the payroll costs.

Naturally, no manager will admit that the whole situation is beneficial for the company's costs and will use the exceptions, leaving during the bond period, to terrorize the remaining employees. We have reached the point where companies are asking for a bond to be signed for the costs of the conversion course for already rated and current pilots. As if the conversion course can be used to join another company.

And no one comments that despite the economic benefits (cost deduction from turnover, lower salaries for junior F/Os and junior Captains, lower and lower experience requirements for both seats and their pairing), the cost of fares is constantly increasing.

What a load of crap. Just get yourself a type rating and don't be a burden.

My employer is actively recovering costs from those that left with debt collection agencies.

I'm having a hard time finding a counterargument between the accusations and the threats.

Can you explain to me why there used to be no bonds and people had long careers in one company?
Didn't the employer then consider the employee an investment in the true sense of the term instead of simply considering the training cost as an investment as is the case these days?

Some things in life are mutual. If you believe your employee is replaceable, he will believe the same about his employer.

That is actually the case. We aren't tied to our employers.

Who told you there were no bonds? Bonds or paid up front type ratings go back decades.

I was always of the opinion that the correct way is for companies to fund ratings for those joining their first pilot jobs (they'd have a hard time trying to get experienced pilots to pay so this topic is really about the first timers!).

Having seen the behaviour of some pilots, I mean just look at the very question that kicked off this thread, I now say no. First timers should fund upfront. No good deed goes unpunished and far too often I have seen that grovelling first job applicant do a runner within a year, taking the "free" rating, not repaying the bond and ungratefully forgetting the helping hand they were given. Let them pay and they'll appreciate it a lot more!

Controversial opinion - don’t run your airline like a workhouse and there’s a good chance your employees won’t leave at the first possible opportunity…

I agree with the principle, but that's not always the case, is it.

Take the regional airline trying to "do things right" and providing fully funded ratings and hotac for the 200 hr newbies for their first rating. They treat him like family. That person however jumps ship to the first jet airline that will take them with 500 hrs CS25 time. It is not exactly a reflection of the airline he is leaving.

Nothing wrong with leaving in such circumstances btw, we all have careers to build .. but to do so and evade the bond agreement with the very airline without whom you wouldn't have even been looked at by the jet operator .. that's not kosher. That's what I am against. The only solution is upfront payment if bonds can't be followed by court.

Pilots shoot themselves in the foot time and time again then we cry why nobody is nice to us. This thread is a prime example.

Fairest bond I ever had was the Airline arranged a bank loan in my name to cover training costs. Payment way £500 per month for 3 years. The Airline paid me a tax free amount each month of £500 to cover that payment, if I left within the 3 years then the payment to the bank was mine to fund. Worked well as the amount reduced and if someone left there was no admin cost to the airline of chasing a payment.

Well ultimately if you want your workforce to stay then you need to offer competitive terms and conditions to stop them leaving, irrelevant if you have spinny blade things or jets on the wings.

If the only way you can survive as an airline is by paying your pilots peanuts then is it really that bad if you go under?

Look at US regional pilot pay over the last decade, gone up 3-4x. Because if they didn’t increase the pay dramatically it’d have been even more chaotic. That wasn’t them being charitable, they’d happily had people living in cars and quite literally eating from food stamps when it suited them. Certainly not going to lose sleep about a CEO having to begrudgingly pay a competitive salary…

This is actually pretty reasonable. You owe the bank not the company. If you leave its not their problem and they aren't out of pocket.

Yeah very reasonable until there’s a pandemic and the airlines decides to stop paying back the loan that’s in your name…

https://www.bailiwickexpress.com/new...raining-costs/

Update - after approaching management a month ago about a schedule and rest days it was said
"there is no schedule, we are a reactive company"
I am now coming up on 4 months of permanent on call status during daylight hours
I drew up a schedule that would allow pilots to have the legal rest days required to comply with CAA minimums (1 day free of duty every two weeks and two consecutive days free of duty every month) but nothing has come of it in weeks
I think this argument has two sides, one side being unscrupulous pilots who intentionally use companies to get type ratings and leave, and the other side being unscrupulous companies who use bonds to trap their employees despite unpleasant and sometimes illegal working conditions

Ask them to write that down in an email and sent from a company verifiable email address. Then have a chat with your local CAA FOI. Could even CHIRP. Illegal behaviour by the Operator if true.

None of the above should be a surprise.
Do people not bother to read the terms and conditions of their job offers any more?
If they do, and then agree those terms by signing the contract, why is this discussion even taking place?

You are responsible for your own decisions. Live with them.