PPC Bonds

[Condorito]

If a pilot gets fired, should he/she still have to pay the remaining amount of the bond? Is this a common practice?

[Saubia]

mmm you shouldn't pay your bond if you are fired....

[godsrcrazy]

Depends. Did you get yourself fired to try and get out of your Bond.

[whistlerboy02]

Most bonds say if your fired "Due to Cause" then your probably on the hook to pay.
They would have needed to give you notice and warnings in advance that go with a proper legal firing depending on if you were still in the probation period or not.

[awitzke]

you shouldn't have to pay a bond (promissory note) out anyways, since they legally aren't worth the paper they're written on. hence why I presume companies have started taking loans out in the pilots names.

[digits_]

you shouldn't have to pay a bond (promissory note) out anyways, since they legally aren't worth the paper they're written on. hence why I presume companies have started taking loans out in the pilots names.

Do you have any legal reference for that ?

[leftoftrack]

I seem to recall a post on here where Carson Air sued an incompetent pilot and got the entire value of the bond plus court costs. Who told you that a training bond isnt worth the paper it's written on?

[JBI]

you shouldn't have to pay a bond (promissory note) out anyways, since they legally aren't worth the paper they're written on. hence why I presume companies have started taking loans out in the pilots names.

I wouldn't want you as my lawyer. As long as the circumstances around the signing of the training contract are fine, bonds are definitely enforceable http://skiesmag.com/news/article/Breaki ... -contracts

As for the original post, companies can put what they'd like in the training contract. The recent Carson Air decision had that particular term and the fired pilot was responsible for the outstanding amount of the training contract. It's up to you whether you want to sign. As a pilot (not a lawyer) I personally would not sign a bond that said I was liable for the outstanding amount if I was fired without cause. I would ask to have it amended and/or simply not take the job. What other people choose to sign is their own decision.

As a previous poster alluded to, there is a big difference between being fire WITH cause and fired WITHOUT cause. And, generally speaking, to terminate an employee WITH cause, an employer has a high burden to meet - i.e. multiple warnings and or discipline, not just out of the blue.

[leftoftrack]

http://www.avcanada.ca/forums2/viewtopi ... ir#p946063

[geodoc]

Getting fired is easy. Just walk into the HR office and tell them that since you couldn't find anything about it in the employee manual, could they clarify the company whistle blower policy?



.

[Sulako]

Our company policy is pretty straightforward.

If you get fired for cause, you`re on the hook. Especially if it was a total dick move, whatever it was.

If you are dismissed without cause, the company eats the cost.

If you go to AC like a year after you get on (we have 2-year bonds) then we probably won`t do anything about it, cause whaddayagonnado, stand in the way of someone`s dream? Nope.

If you go to a competitor to fly the same machine, the company will do lots of soul-searching; "What did we do wrong to drive away this pilot?", likely followed by a lawsuit to recover the training costs.

It all seems pretty fair to me.

[learcapt]

Bonds are 100 percent enforceable. A large company that I previously worked for successfully sued pilots who broke the bond.

[Illya Kuryakin]

If you're stupid enough to sign one, you're probably stupid to pay one.
Illya

[schnitzel2k3]

Our company policy is pretty straightforward.

If you go to AC like a year after you get on (we have 2-year bonds) then we probably won`t do anything about it, cause whaddayagonnado, stand in the way of someone`s dream? Nope.

Do you guys check that sort of drive in an interview, perhaps by asking 'Do you have any applications with the Majors?'. I'd think that's no different than going to a competitor if the applicant says no about the above and a few months later shuffles off without much explanation. IMO.

S.

[co-joe]

JBI I enjoyed the article. Very informative.

Is there not a stipulation that the training costs have to be proven by the employer? Ex: Carson air's supposed $35 000 bond for a BE350 when I'm sure the actual cost of training is closer to 15K? Now I have no idea what Carson actually has in their training agreement so what's stopping a company from having a 100K 10 year bond for a navajo?

[porcsord]

Here's a copy of Carson's bond.

Give it a good read, and most of the questions people have asked are answered in the wording.

And yes, it is worth much more than the paper it is written on.

Further, the reason a company might opt for a loan in escrow under the pilots name is because that is essentially cash up front and the pilot would be owed interest on it (much like a damage deposit, when you rent something other than your parents basement). Training bonds where no actual money changes hand do not require a repayment of interest at the end of term (from either party).

[flyinhigh]

Further, the reason a company might opt for a loan in escrow under the pilots name is because that is essentially cash up front and the pilot would be owed interest on it (much like a damage deposit, when you rent something other than your parents basement). Training bonds where no actual money changes hand do not require a repayment of interest at the end of term (from either party).

Money up front is a crock of cow dung no matter which way you justify in. No company is interested in paying a pilot the additional interest on a bond in the end, they only due it this way as they don't want to work for the money on their bonds when people leave.

[porcsord]

Anybody who gives money up front, or signs a loan for training deserves to lose their money.

[godsrcrazy]

Anybody who gives money up front, or signs a loan for training deserves to lose their money.

Anyone that says they will stay and then leaves deserves to lose money.

[JBI]

JBI I enjoyed the article. Very informative.

Is there not a stipulation that the training costs have to be proven by the employer? Ex: Carson air's supposed $35 000 bond for a BE350 when I'm sure the actual cost of training is closer to 15K? Now I have no idea what Carson actually has in their training agreement so what's stopping a company from having a 100K 10 year bond for a navajo?

Thanks co-joe.

Usually the company does not have to prove the actual training costs. Generally, what you'll see in a bond is that the company states the value of the bond and then has a clause in the contract which says something along the lines of "the pilot and the company agree that the amount of the training is $X and that this is a reasonable amount for such training". If the training is as planned of an acceptable quality (i.e. good training at a reputable sim or in the aircraft as agreed etc.) then a pilot would be very hard pressed to argue that $X wasn't the value.

It really comes down to what the pilot thinks is reasonable. If there are things in the contract that you don't think are reasonable, don't sign. Only in extreme situations will courts find that a contract was signed under 'duress'. Although they'd perhaps change their mind if they read AvCanada more Courts will assume that a pilot who entered a contract with an employer for training did so as a reasonable person and of their own free will. It will then bind the parties to what they agreed to.

This goes for all contracts. Let's say I want to sell my wife's Ford Fiesta to you. You, for some inexplicable reason LOVE Ford Fiestas and will pay me $100,000 for it. I, of course, sell it to you. The court will assume that you knew what you were doing when you agreed the value of the car was $100,000 (maybe you're a Fiesta Collector or speculate that once Trump builds a wall they'll skyrocket in value). Unless I was somehow being dishonest (i.e. I said it was a Ferrari, not a Fiesta) the court will likely find that the agreed value was $100,000; courts don't like to get involved in the business arrangements of private actors.

This isn't to say that there are not situations where what is agreed to in the contract/bond is not what is provided. That depends on the specific contract. Were there any misrepresentations from the company? Did they break the training contract? This is not so much an issue of proving the reasonableness of the value of the training, but instead looking at whether the whole of the contract has been fulfilled.

Clear as mud?