Page 2 of 5

Re: Companies that do not require Training bonds

Posted: Wed Aug 13, 2008 7:44 am
by xsbank
Can we please, once and for all, clarify the difference between a "bond" and money up front, the Unnamed Company Scam?

JC's bond is a promise to pay back a certain amount of money if the pilot leaves before the period of time he agreed to, expires. No cash up front, no pro-rated salaries, no BS. No pilot should be unable to first give his word and then live up to it, but if circumstances demand, the bond will be willingly paid.

This is reasonable and fair given the cost of, well, everything.

Money up front, pro-rated salaries and loss if interest (both meanings!) are crap, BS and should be illegal. Pilots that need this type of company get what they deserve - so does the company. These are the ones that make Doc (and me) get all red in the face.

One day, these companies will go to the wall and take a bunch of pilots with them who will cry and whine and say how unfair it all was, they didn't know how it worked and the government should do something about it - the aircraft will be sold and some deserving company will get them and operate them in a Happy Place. Won't that be nice?

Actually, a thought: let's say The Unnamed Company has an accident that damages a National Heritage Site but nobody is injured or killed. Say a Dash 8 falls on the new War Museum in Ottawa. High profile, right? "Lucky no one was hurt." I wonder how the accident report will deal with the CRM between the company and the Unhappy Pilot who HAD to fly that day even though he didn't want to but otherwise he would have lost all of his $15,000?

Re: Companies that do not require Training bonds

Posted: Wed Aug 13, 2008 9:27 am
by Cap'n P8
Well once again...just for clarification, the bond at Wasaya is prorated, not the salary. The bond repayment by the company is paid out every month on top of salary. In fact bond and salary are no way connected. I already know your opinion on the subject, but at least get the details right.

And XS in our conversations in the past were quite civil, I didn't realize you held me under such contempt, especially considering we work for the same company.

By the way bonds with money up front came into being (in this country at least) because of dicks who couldn't honour their word. I would suspect that many companies who had bonds without money up front and changed were probably burned by some of the above mentioned dicks.

By the way, I did in fact get what I deserved. After years and years of busting my ass from one side of the country (and continent) in pursuit of bigger and better things I have landed my retirement job. It has nothing to do with training bonds either. It is because I always tried to do the most professional job I could for every employer I ever worked for.

So tell you what else maybe when guys like XS and Doc get around to organizing some sort of solidarity I'll join you guys on the front line. Until that happens, I am not putting my wife, two daughters and two dogs on food stamps.

Re: Companies that do not require Training bonds

Posted: Wed Aug 13, 2008 12:55 pm
by xsbank
Well Cap'n P8, I actually don't hold you in contemp......? I'll re-read this stuff and see where I might have given you that impression.

Re: Companies that do not require Training bonds

Posted: Wed Aug 13, 2008 1:43 pm
by Cap'n P8
xsbank wrote:Can we please, once and for all, clarify the difference between a "bond" and money up front, the Unnamed Company Scam?

JC's bond is a promise to pay back a certain amount of money if the pilot leaves before the period of time he agreed to, expires. No cash up front, no pro-rated salaries, no BS. No pilot should be unable to first give his word and then live up to it, but if circumstances demand, the bond will be willingly paid.

This is reasonable and fair given the cost of, well, everything.

Money up front, pro-rated salaries and loss if interest (both meanings!) are crap, BS and should be illegal. Pilots that need this type of company get what they deserve - so does the company. These are the ones that make Doc (and me) get all red in the face.

One day, these companies will go to the wall and take a bunch of pilots with them who will cry and whine and say how unfair it all was, they didn't know how it worked and the government should do something about it - the aircraft will be sold and some deserving company will get them and operate them in a Happy Place. Won't that be nice?

Actually, a thought: let's say The Unnamed Company has an accident that damages a National Heritage Site but nobody is injured or killed. Say a Dash 8 falls on the new War Museum in Ottawa. High profile, right? "Lucky no one was hurt." I wonder how the accident report will deal with the CRM between the company and the Unhappy Pilot who HAD to fly that day even though he didn't want to but otherwise he would have lost all of his $15,000?
Maybe contempt was a bit harsh...

I would say that most of the assumptions you are making in general seem to be correlated with Voyageur's training bond it would seem. I'll tell you I've had three separate training bonds and currently a training agreement (my definition of no money up front) and none of them were anything similar to the conditions on that voyageur sample that was posted.

Re: Companies that do not require Training bonds

Posted: Wed Aug 13, 2008 3:02 pm
by Doc
P8, when I go senile, nobody will notice. I'll be no more screwed up in ten years than I was ten years ago....I've always been senile. Ask anybody.

Re: Companies that do not require Training bonds

Posted: Wed Aug 13, 2008 4:02 pm
by Cap'n P8
I hope that you realize the senile bit was a joke, hence the wink.

But as far as your previous comment about no self-worth. Although I love my job as much as the next guy, it is not where I get my sense of self-worth from, it is a means to provide for my family, end of story.

I get my sense of self-worth from my beautiful wife and two adorable daughters. I dragged them around the north of Canada for seven years to finally be able to bring my family back to our home town. Sorry if that makes me lower than pond scum in your eyes because I had to work for a couple of operators who had bonds.

Re: Companies that do not require Training bonds

Posted: Wed Aug 13, 2008 6:53 pm
by chu me
Dear .;

As far as career moves are concerned I have fucked myself several times, so I am trying to give that up. After 10yrs as a bouncer in bars around the world I would cage fight anyone so thanks for the invitation. Perhaps when I'm done fucking myself we could meet? :mrgreen: To everyone else thanks for the posts. Maybe less discussion about bonds and more company names. Lists like . are more like what I was after when I started this thread. Thanks again!!

Sincerely

Chu me

Re: Companies that do not require Training bonds

Posted: Wed Aug 13, 2008 10:50 pm
by ScudRunner
This is good news indeed!!! Aviation needs more cage fighting!

One day when . Aviation opens for Bidness I will hold cage fights among the rampies for top position to eventually posibly go to flight line. But first they must front 10K for a PPC on the Forklift. But I will not charge for aircraft PPC's because I wont require them on my airplanes as that would lead to paper work, the first one to figure out how to get it off the ground is made captain. the fastest beer bong chug will be made CP, but will have to pay for his own computer and internet, but they really don't do anything other than scan Avcanada for fresh noobs and to talk smack.

Re: Companies that do not require Training bonds

Posted: Wed Aug 13, 2008 11:11 pm
by victory_aviation
I know of a few that dont have bonds:

- Airborne Energy Solutions (Singles)
- Commercial Aviation
- Alberta Central Airways
- Keewatin (might be wrong about this one)

Alberta Central and Commercial are both great companies. I hear that Airborne and Keewatin are really good as well.

Re: Companies that do not require Training bonds

Posted: Wed Aug 13, 2008 11:15 pm
by broompusher
In YYC that I know of:

Suncor

Qjets (CP is a great guy and is fighting hard for the line pilots)

Re: Companies that do not require Training bonds

Posted: Thu Aug 14, 2008 1:00 am
by jpilot77
Hey another Bouncer pilot! I guess we are perfect for a Cargo operation because were used to the hours. Good luck Chu.

Re: Companies that do not require Training bonds

Posted: Thu Aug 14, 2008 5:21 am
by xsbank
P8, I still think BOND is the wrong terminology, unless you actually mean restraints or handcuffs.

Bond=good
Money-up-front=shit

I was going to drop this subject, so I'll git while the gittin's good.

Re: Companies that do not require Training bonds

Posted: Thu Aug 14, 2008 10:10 am
by chu me
O.K. This is getting better. Here is what we have accumulated so far.
Arctic Sunwest
Summit Air
Canadian North
Fugro
Gilliam Air
Air Georgian
Air Labrador,
Provincial Airlines
Strait Air
Grenfell Health Corporation
Skyjet
Exactair ( we are not sure about this one, so if someone out there knows for sure, PM or post please)
Air North
Fort Francis Air
First Air
Carson Air
Clearwater Aviation
Commercial Aviation
Walsten Air
MNR
Airborne energy
Alberta Central Airways
Qjets
Villers Air Service. Ft Nelson BC
Wolverine Air. Ft Simpson NWT
Simpson Air. Ft Simpson NWT
Alkan Air. Whitehorse YK
Perimeter Aviation, Manitoba (2 years on the ramp)
North Cariboo Air, BC+AB (12,500 below no bond)
Wasaya, Ont ( I think its just a working bond)
CargoJet
Air Canada
WestJet
Jazz
CMA (except Do328)
KFC
Air Spray
ConAir
Borek
Calm Air (working Bond)
Transwest Air
Buffalo Air
Air Tindi
Integra Air Inc.
Pacific Sky Aviation

I'm sure there are more out there, it doesn't matter how big or how small the company is,( Clearwater only has one aircraft) nor what type of aircraft they fly. For all you young guys or maybe just pilots looking for a change here is where you should send your resumes. Please keep the posts coming and keep this list growing. Good luck and safe flying.

Sincerely

Chu me

P.S. Thanks for all the posts!!! . let me know when you have it up and running and I'll cage fight you for position of owner!!!!!!!

Re: Companies that do not require Training bonds

Posted: Thu Aug 14, 2008 6:43 pm
by Tiny Voices
Fort Francis Air.

Re: Companies that do not require Training bonds

Posted: Sat Aug 16, 2008 9:43 am
by flyboy114
Carson Air. You sign a training agreement for the Metro 11 and 111, no money changes hands, it is for two years, and the company agrees to pay the bond. It is pro-rated, and if you stay the course you won't be affected by it at all.

Re: Companies that do not require Training bonds

Posted: Sat Aug 16, 2008 7:34 pm
by chu me
Tiny Voices, flyboy 114;
Thanks those names have been added to the growing list. If you have good things to say about how these companies treat their pilots, feel free to include those comments in the post as well. This thread is all about giving those companies that deserve a good name a "thumbs up" if you will.

Sincerely


Chu me

Re: Companies that do not require Training bonds

Posted: Sat Aug 16, 2008 11:27 pm
by 'effin hippie
What about Transwest, Buffalo and Tindi???

ef

Re: Companies that do not require Training bonds

Posted: Sun Aug 17, 2008 7:11 am
by chu me
Dear Effin Hippie;
They have now been added to the list, bringing the total to 33 companies that do not require training bonds. Thats a good start for all the young pilots new to the business. Thanks again everyone for your posts, hopefully now, some new pilot won't be screwed to the wall just to fly for a living!!!!

Sincerely

Chu me

Re: Companies that do not require Training bonds

Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 5:48 am
by sgms
How about Air Georgian?

Re: Companies that do not require Training bonds

Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 6:58 am
by LegoMan
Keewatin captains are bonded 2 years, $10,000 upfront for both BE20 and BE02. FOs 1 year promisary notes

Re: Companies that do not require Training bonds

Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 7:59 am
by 3Green
Georgian = No Bond

Re: Companies that do not require Training bonds

Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 12:18 pm
by chu me
To 3Green and sgms;
Air Georgian has now been added to the list. Thanks!!
Legoman if someone else substantiates this about Keewatin I will remove them from the list.
Thanks again for the help!

Sincerely

Chu me

Re: Companies that do not require Training bonds

Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 7:04 pm
by definenormal
Sander Geophysics Ltd. Good company. No bond or cash up front, just a pro rated promisary for $10,000 over 12 months.

Re: Companies that do not require Training bonds

Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 10:39 pm
by ScudRunner
looks like you can scratch Missinipi $8000 bucks up front.

Re: Companies that do not require Training bonds

Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 6:53 am
by chu me
Scratched!!!!!!! Please people this is for companies that do NOT,I repeat DO NOT require training bond to work for them. For instance, if you are hired by Commercial Aviation or Clearwater Aviation you do not have to cough up cash, or sign a promissary note, or sign a training bond, you just get the proper training( provided by them at no cost to you ) and go to work. I don't think it could be any clearer than that.

Thanks for the posts

Chu me