Page 4 of 5

Re: Companies that do not require Training bonds

Posted: Fri Sep 19, 2008 8:25 am
by chu me
Added. Thanks wallypilot !

Re: Companies that do not require Training bonds

Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2008 3:42 pm
by bomber44
pacific coastal airlines is a promissory note

Re: Companies that do not require Training bonds

Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2008 5:08 pm
by wallypilot
I haven't read every post in this thread, but if we are talking about companies WITHOUT any bond at all, then you have to take Carson Air off the list. They have a formal bond program that is adhered to quite strictly unless you come type rated and with a current PPC. Bond is quite high, and longer than other companies such as Borek. If carson stays on the list, then you have to add almost every company out there that uses bonds, and hence the list would be useless. Let's keep it to companies that honestly have no bond.

The reason is following:

NO bond often implies better working conditions, happier employees, and a better overall employment experience(not always, of course)...after all, isn't that indirectly the point of this thread?

Anyways, you can also add Sander Geophysics to the list of NO BOND WHATSOEVER.

Re: Companies that do not require Training bonds

Posted: Sat Oct 04, 2008 5:59 pm
by HighBypass
Arctic Sunwest Requires training bonds.

Re: Companies that do not require Training bonds

Posted: Sat Oct 04, 2008 9:07 pm
by Phileas Fogg
:(

Re: Companies that do not require Training bonds

Posted: Sun Oct 05, 2008 12:21 pm
by Apache64_
Regional 1 definitely has no bond.

Re: Companies that do not require Training bonds

Posted: Sun Oct 05, 2008 1:50 pm
by mattedfred
where's the sticky so i can see the whole list?

i'm a complete idiot when it comes to computers

Re: Companies that do not require Training bonds

Posted: Mon Oct 06, 2008 4:51 pm
by chu me
Hi Everyone;

First of all, thanks for all the posts. To the ones that have been listed as having training bonds ( Carson , Artic Sunwest , Borek ) if someone can post or PM me to back up these claims then I will remove them.
Mattedfred the list is tacked on to the first post in this thread.

Thanks everyone

Re: Companies that do not require Training bonds

Posted: Sun Oct 12, 2008 10:58 am
by JerryRig
chu me wrote:Hi Everyone;

First of all, thanks for all the posts. To the ones that have been listed as having training bonds ( Carson , Artic Sunwest , Borek ) if someone can post or PM me to back up these claims then I will remove them.
Mattedfred the list is tacked on to the first post in this thread.

Thanks everyone
Borek has a "promisary note" (contract). No money upfront, but require a year commitment, reduced fractionally starting on month 7.

Re: Companies that do not require Training bonds

Posted: Mon Oct 13, 2008 8:46 am
by Niodatchi
No training bonds with Transat on any type. If not already posted, Nio

Re: Companies that do not require Training bonds

Posted: Mon Oct 13, 2008 6:01 pm
by Phileas Fogg
JerryRig wrote:
chu me wrote:Hi Everyone;

First of all, thanks for all the posts. To the ones that have been listed as having training bonds ( Carson , Artic Sunwest , Borek ) if someone can post or PM me to back up these claims then I will remove them.
Mattedfred the list is tacked on to the first post in this thread.

Thanks everyone
Borek has a "promisary note" (contract). No money upfront, but require a year commitment, reduced fractionally starting on month 7.

contract...promisary note...bond......whatever you call it put them on the list.

Re: Companies that do not require Training bonds

Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 7:52 pm
by flying4dollars
A lot of those companies in post 1 require bonds

Re: Companies that do not require Training bonds

Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 10:59 am
by 'effin hippie
Slow up for a second here. We need to agree on what we are listing.

Not all bonds are created equal. There are some outfits with a promisory note or employment agreement that doesn't require any money up front etc etc.

Maybe they should remain on the list with a comment to the effect that you do sign something.

Or if we want this list to be 100% bond free, then yah , there's quite a few that have to go. Including, for my money, some pretty decent employers.

Borek has a 1 year, pro-rated, 6K per type employment agreement. Not required for renewals, but it is for initial upgrades I believe. I still have my old copy.

Since we probably can't agree on what if anything, constitutes an 'acceptable bond', maybe the list should be only totally bond free companies.

ef

Re: Companies that do not require Training bonds

Posted: Sun Jan 11, 2009 12:09 pm
by tsgas
Chu me a lot of the companies on your list are bogus.
They charge $ for a job and that's not right.

Re: Companies that do not require Training bonds

Posted: Sun Jan 11, 2009 12:54 pm
by mattedfred
tsgas wrote:Chu me a lot of the companies on your list are bogus.
They charge $ for a job and that's not right.
can you tell us which ones?

Re: Companies that do not require Training bonds

Posted: Sat Jan 24, 2009 2:47 pm
by bbb
KFC has a "training agreement", or no-money-up-front bond (promissary note). You sign it at the end of initial groundschool. It is 2yrs for initial (S/O) and again on an upgrade (not recurrent, upgrade as in S/O to F/O, F/O to Capt). I believe it was $7,000. Its pro-rated, you stay the entire time, no cost; you leave before your commitment ends, pro-rated cost. Also, they are in process of a new union agreement, and don't know if/how the bond is affected.

Re: Companies that do not require Training bonds

Posted: Fri Feb 06, 2009 1:50 pm
by Switchfoot
chu me wrote:First of all, thanks for all the posts. To the ones that have been listed as having training bonds ( Carson , Artic Sunwest , Borek ) if someone can post or PM me to back up these claims then I will remove them.
Yes, Carson Air does have a bond...for both the 350 and the Metro's. Not sure how much it is for the Metroliner but it's steep for the King Air.

Bottom line is: if you don't sign, you don't fly or work there.


Switchfoot.

Re: Companies that do not require Training bonds

Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 9:06 am
by timexd
Nor-Alta Aviation in Fort Vermilion and High Level AB have no bonds. Just a training agreement pro-rated over 12 months.

Re: Companies that do not require Training bonds

Posted: Sun Apr 26, 2009 10:12 am
by chopsticks
Yeah this post IS funny. Why do some of the companies that have training bonds have shitty chief pilots and shitty pay? Respect is a two way street and money up front is a disgraceful practice that should be abolished.

Re: Companies that do not require Training bonds

Posted: Wed Jul 01, 2009 1:04 pm
by chu me
To pile driver;

I can't see any reason not to have any post you like. Maybe you should start those threads.This thread was not meant to discuss the pro and cons of bonds, there are lots of other threads for that.
The reason I started this thread was to give people a place to post positive things about the companies they have worked for. I did this because I was tired of the negative bashing that was going on. So if you find this thread funny ( in a sacastic way )then I suggest you read and post on your own threads about dead beat pilots and such,...... oh wait a minute... there are no threads like that.

Sincerely

Chu me

P.S.This thread is to include all companies that do not require money up front and/ or have excellent working conditions. Training agreements or contracts are common, ( in all industries ) where employees have to sign on for a specified period of time and face a financial penalty if they do not stay for that period of time. Therefore I think these companies should be included as long as they are decent to work for.

P.P.S. to all you other posters thanks again for the info I will try to keep up

Deleted Pile Drivers post as it is off topic. Keep up the good work Chu.
Bandaid.

Re: Companies that do not require Training bonds

Posted: Thu Nov 26, 2009 8:47 pm
by dick whoreswaggon
ORNGE has none

Re: Companies that do not require Training bonds

Posted: Mon Jan 18, 2010 11:00 am
by 'effin hippie
Great River Air

Whitehorse/Dawson City. YT

NO bond.

Re: Companies that do not require Training bonds

Posted: Mon Jan 18, 2010 4:02 pm
by 0lancer0
This is a great post! Thanks chu and everyone who is contributing. Keeps aspiring pilots like myself a reason to continue flying in Canada!

Re: Companies that do not require Training bonds

Posted: Mon Jan 18, 2010 9:38 pm
by 302sc
Buffalo air does not require a bond either you just work hard non stop .

Re: Companies that do not require Training bonds

Posted: Thu Feb 11, 2010 2:34 pm
by c182rgt
chu me,

Wasaya shouldn't be on that list. They require money up front for all positions except f/o PC12.