Training bond case law.

[cncpc]

If you can't pay for something as basic as training your pilots you shouldn't be in business.

The very most fundamental truth of all this. In fact, every operator says in its Operations Manual or Training Manual approved by Transport Canada that it will provide "x" number of hours of training, not that the employee will pay to train himself or herself.

I can't think of any other industry that requires employees, once hired, to fund their own training and improvement.

[grimey]

To answer the question. Yes bonds are enforceable. Don't sign it thinking you can get out of it. There is case law training bonds. It is the same as the common law of contract. Here's a few cases:
http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/highlight. ... pc192.html
http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/highlight. ... 47468.html

If you want more, go on http://www.canlii.org and type in pilot training bond, or some permutation of that search string..

Also, don't think you can not pay the judgement. Eventually, you may end up in a well paying job, and just as yo think you've made it, your wages get garnished.

IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE BOND, DON'T SIGN IT!!

This. It's a contract. If it's properly worded, you're capable of signing a contract (pilots have a reputation for being dim, but they don't qualify as being mentally incapacitated) and doesn't ask for anything illegal, it would be binding. Just because pilots hate it doesn't mean it isn't valid. Now if your bond required you to break the CARS in some way, or to commit some other illegal act, it might be found to be void, but I doubt many training bonds require anything of the sort.

If you don't want to sign a training bond, don't. Find a job where your employer doesn't require one, or put yourself through the required training yourself.

[Bede]

The key thing is that you should be signing an employment contract with a clause dealing with the trainnig bond aspect. This way the employer cannot get your bond and then change woring conditions on you.

[sarg]

The key thing is that you should be signing an employment contract with a clause dealing with the trainnig bond aspect. This way the employer cannot get your bond and then change woring conditions on you.

That's the secret. An employment contract has conditions that both parties must meet or the contract is void. Scheduling, working conditions, raises, and promotions can all be covered a fair employer should have no problems putting what they're promising in writing.

There are many types of training bonds none should require you to go get cash and hand it over to the company. ie Jetsgo With the exception of 705 aircraft and bisjets that require you to go to Flightsafety or similar your bond should not require a commitment of more 12 months.

For those that think that bonds exist because of poor companies, give your head a shake. The company can only do so much, you can have the best paying company, with a great schedule, flying the best equipment and no pressure to fly overweight or below limits. Pilots will leave because they want to live closer to home, girlfriend, mother, friends: have an extra day off, or the next bigger (better) aircraft.

This guy is why training bonds exist he's already looking for ways to get out of a job he hasn't even taken yet. Any company has a fair expection of getting a return on investment in the good old days it was a hand shake and done, unfortunately for far too many people that means nothing hence training bond.

[Hawkerflyer]

Hi everyone,

I'm just about to sign up a training bound and I was wondering if there ever been a case law on that matter.I remember something about it in Quebec, maybe jetblue...Everybody in the industry say that those papers have no legal value but i'd like to make sure before I sign for an underpaid job (lol) . If anyone as info on that please let me know.

cheers,

R82.

Hey roam82,

Can you send me your real info. I want to make sure I never hire you.

[roam82]

hey Hawkerflyer, havnt you read this :

[quote="roam82"]I wasn't looking for personal opinions. I'm not that much of a douche bag, I just wanted to know if I had a way out in case the shit hit the fan. I've been with the cie for over a year now and we're looking at serious changes in the near futur. Unfortunately the training bond comes right before we know what exacly is coming...
[/quote]

Just trying to cover my ass...

the cie made it clear, no neg possible. I'm afraid they're just trying to tie our hands so we cant leave after they signed the shitty contracts.

anyways , you have no idea the situatino we're in.

R.

[RenegadeAV8R]

"]I wasn't looking for personal opinions. I'm not that much of a douche bag, I just wanted to know if I had a way out in case the shit hit the fan. I've been with the cie for over a year now and we're looking at serious changes in the near futur. Unfortunately the training bond comes right before we know what exacly is coming...

I've been with the cie for over a year now and ...

Since you are *already* an employee there, what happen if you do not sign? Could they terminate your employment? Would they have the right to do this?

[outsider]

Training bonds are unethical and a way for operators to get you the pilot to help offset their training cost. They are in my opinion wrong and should be deemed by the law as illegal. It equates to a new form of slave labor. And we as pilots are weak and gullible enough to sign them without blinking. You go to flight school and finish owing 50 to 60 thousand dollars. Then maybe you work as a rampy for a year or more. Then you finally get your break and have to finance your own type rating. Not to mention the starting salary of an average Canadian pilot is so low its laughable. I would like to hear an Air Operator come on here and defend it. Please no more air crew defending bonds. Your boss or manager is big and ugly enough to defend their despicable labor practices. Ok bring on the insults.

[Hawkerflyer]

Training bonds are unethical and a way for operators to get you the pilot to help offset their training cost. They are in my opinion wrong and should be deemed by the law as illegal. It equates to a new form of slave labor. And we as pilots are weak and gullible enough to sign them without blinking. You go to flight school and finish owing 50 to 60 thousand dollars. Then maybe you work as a rampy for a year or more. Then you finally get your break and have to finance your own type rating. Not to mention the starting salary of an average Canadian pilot is so low its laughable. I would like to hear an Air Operator come on here and defend it. Please no more air crew defending bonds. Your boss or manager is big and ugly enough to defend their despicable labor practices. Ok bring on the insults.

Slave labor??? Yikes!! I think you are in the wrong business bud.
Lets say a company hires you to fly their Falcon 2000LX, the initial pilot course is 65k plus all the other misc courses to get you ready to work. The company wants to sign you to a 2 year contract/training bond before proceeding with the training. Would you sign?
The basic fact is there are a lot of guys out there that would have no issues about screwing a company out of their money for apparent greener pastures. That said, there are a lot of companies out there that really make it tough on young pilots. Let's not forget though, that miserable company to work for gave you your break and hired you with lots of fish in the sea.
I'm no greenhorn to contracts, I have had my share of contract rumblings along the way but this industry is to small to burn bridges.
I would like to add, the companies that require a pilot to pay his own training with no pay back plan can go fukc themselves, THAT is wrong.

[outsider]

Your right it is to small to burn bridges , thats why Pilots , especially new pilots should have protection and guidance from bad labor practices like bonds. If we as a collective group fought against this and at the same time as a group frowned upon jumping ship for greener pastures as you say then we might have a fighting chance of getting rid of bonds. I seriously doubt that will happen. A pilot without a job will bend over backwards to get one. Employers know this and have been using it to their advantage for a long time. We are the joke of professional trades when to comes to what we accept in concessions. Its one of the main reasons I tried hard to get away from flying commercially. I make my living as a contract pilot part time and most of the time flying for a Government Operator. I am not saying its perfect , nothing is , but I am protected from the sharks in this business. And as for burning bridges. How about the reputation of an operator who treats his crew like slaves with bonds and intimidation. Is that not burning a bridge as well , funny how no one on here go's out of their way to condemn that kind of thing , but are quick to jump on the idea of quiting a shit flying job to try for something better. I been around as well and there a many things in this industry that need to reevaluated , bonds being one of them.

[teacher]

Training bonds are unethical and a way for operators to get you the pilot to help offset their training cost. They are in my opinion wrong and should be deemed by the law as illegal. It equates to a new form of slave labor. And we as pilots are weak and gullible enough to sign them without blinking. You go to flight school and finish owing 50 to 60 thousand dollars. Then maybe you work as a rampy for a year or more. Then you finally get your break and have to finance your own type rating. Not to mention the starting salary of an average Canadian pilot is so low its laughable. I would like to hear an Air Operator come on here and defend it. Please no more air crew defending bonds. Your boss or manager is big and ugly enough to defend their despicable labor practices. Ok bring on the insults.

AGREDD 100%

Lets say a company hires you to fly their Falcon 2000LX, the initial pilot course is 65k plus all the other misc courses to get you ready to work.

If you can't afford to buy the gas and pay and train the crew than you can't afford the plane. Simple math. If you can't make money doing what you're doing than you're not charging enough for your services. Businesss 101. Air operators should be concerned on not how to lock employees into working for shit wages BUT make employees happy so that they'll stay. Operators are always concerned about being screwed but 99 times out of 100 they're the ones doing the screwing.

I would also like to add that the ONLY reason this has become common place is that there are more pilots looking for work than jobs out there. Same reason why companies hire pilots to "learn the ropes" and "pay your dues" on the ramp doing a job nobody in their "F'n" mind would do for the money they pay folks to do it. Too many pilots look'n for work and a dangling carrot to keep you there. What do you learn on the ramp? How to take it up the ass for shit money while waiting for a golden chance to fly a navajo. If we as pilots had any pride in our profession we would have told operators to go "somewhere" years ago. But there goes the supply and demand curve, it's just not in our favour and we're all jsut not willing to change the status quo.

[Redstar1]

Most bonds, training agreements are written pretty vague. Ie, job title, pay, and working conditions. What happens if the employer fails to hold up their end of the deal. And who is going to protect the employee?
And for sending collections to get money for bonds with 100% success is hard to believe. Ask Transport Canada.

[jump154]

OK, I'm confused now... I'm fairly new around here but just don't see the problem...

is this correct:

The training bonds referred to are a contract you sign that says

"Company x will train me on y aeroplane. If I leave company x within z years, I owe company x $q to compensate for the cost of the training"

If this is correct, then it's pretty common place in other industries as well. Take the company I work for (Engineering) - 15 years ago they hired me from the UK, and financed my immigration, the move etc. I signed a contract that said if I left within 2 year, I paid them back those costs (pro-rated). After 2 years, they were forgiven.

They also run an educational assistance program, so we can go to night school to upgrade skills. Again, you sign a contract saying if you leave within 2 years you pay 100% of that money back.

Seems pretty straight forward, and above board to me. As has been said, you should read before you sign...

If, however the bonds are a case of "Give me $60K to pay for training and you get it back after 2 years, or else no job" then I agree that's pretty dismal.

So, which is it?

[outsider]

You as a pilot already paid for your training when you went to flight school and financed you comm/multi-IFR. You should not be required to finance an Operators bottom line. Operators need your Pilot skills and experience to fly aircraft. If you are hired as a pilot it is assumed you have the legal qualifications to fly your aircraft i.e. your Crew Licence that you already had to pay for some how or other. You should not be required to spend any more of your own capital on "training expenses". That is part of the operators cost of doing business. Sadly in Canada this is not often the case. As as a previous posted so rightly put , everyone on here is concerned with a pilot screwing an operator by leaving for a better job , when in reality is the operator who does the screwing 99 times out of 100. Try and get a bond that goes the other way round. Like if an operator can't fulfill their part of the two year agreement then they have to compensate you the pilot for loss of employment. We as aircrew should collectively fight this bond nonsense.

[Cat Driver]

We as aircrew should collectively fight this bond nonsense.

And how do you get pilots " collectively " to change this issue?

By the way if I were to ever own another air service you can bet your life new hires would have to sign a training bond.

[sarg]

You as a pilot already paid for your training when you went to flight school and financed you comm/multi-IFR. You should not be required to finance an Operators bottom line. Operators need your Pilot skills and experience to fly aircraft. If you are hired as a pilot it is assumed you have the legal qualifications to fly your aircraft i.e. your Crew Licence that you already had to pay for some how or other. You should not be required to spend any more of your own capital on "training expenses". That is part of the operators cost of doing business. Sadly in Canada this is not often the case. As as a previous posted so rightly put , everyone on here is concerned with a pilot screwing an operator by leaving for a better job , when in reality is the operator who does the screwing 99 times out of 100. Try and get a bond that goes the other way round. Like if an operator can't fulfill their part of the two year agreement then they have to compensate you the pilot for loss of employment. We as aircrew should collectively fight this bond nonsense.

That's just it if the aircraft requires a PPC and you don't have one then you're not qualified to fly it.

OK, I'm confused now... I'm fairly new around here but just don't see the problem...

is this correct:

The training bonds referred to are a contract you sign that says

"Company x will train me on y aeroplane. If I leave company x within z years, I owe company x $q to compensate for the cost of the training"

If this is correct, then it's pretty common place in other industries as well. Take the company I work for (Engineering) - 15 years ago they hired me from the UK, and financed my immigration, the move etc. I signed a contract that said if I left within 2 year, I paid them back those costs (pro-rated). After 2 years, they were forgiven.

They also run an educational assistance program, so we can go to night school to upgrade skills. Again, you sign a contract saying if you leave within 2 years you pay 100% of that money back.

Seems pretty straight forward, and above board to me. As has been said, you should read before you sign...

If, however the bonds are a case of "Give me $60K to pay for training and you get it back after 2 years, or else no job" then I agree that's pretty dismal.

So, which is it?

There are both, the better are the former which cost the pilot nothing but a time comitment. The later exist and should be boycotted.

goes the supply and demand curve, it's just not in our favour and we're all jsut not willing to change the status quo.

We could try the European way close 3/4's of the FTU's make it so expensive to get a license that the supply dries up.

[trey kule]

If you can't afford to buy the gas and pay and train the crew than you can't afford the plane. Simple math.

It is not that figures lie, but that liers figure.....

companies can afford to pay for crew training. But it has to be reflected in the overall cost of the pilot..You simply cannot afford to be paying it out over and over. And that is, unfotunately what happens. The treat your pilots well and they wont leave, is simply not true.
I have seen pilots take a job, and literally be applying for thier next job during training. And that type of scenario is unfortunately not the exception to the rule.
On the other hand, there are companies who simply offer a new pilot more money (say 1/2 of what it would cost them to train the pilot) if they have received the training or PPC somewhere else...The original companies simply cannot match that initially.

As to the bond. It should be a contractual agreement. No money up front. That is truely BS.
And it should stipulate all the terms of employment as specifically as possible. Stupid pilot that signs something different than that. If I can give new pilots a hint.
Simply add in a clause that covers the company's responsabilities..Initial it, and have someone from the company who is authoriized to sign on their behalf , initial it.

As a bit of a divegence on the topic; A few years ago we did a survey regarding pilot wages terms of employment etc. The results are only available to those who participated in the survey, but I can talk abit about employer practices. The creativity some employers put into screwing pilots over is amazing. Monthly wages that require the pilot to work everyday of the month to earn it (impossible). Weekly wages quoted based on working 7 days a week,
bonuse offered that can never be earned..the list goes on and on. maybe a good topic for a thread warning pilots.

[Bushav8er]

Roam82 wrote

the cie made it clear, no neg possible.

Are you sure? Want to bet on it. Companies are always changing their policies. Think of the flight schools that got everything 'upfront, on account' then went out of business.

[outsider]

If you cave a comm\multi-IFR/IATRA/ATPL you are qualified to be checked out on that A/C. In my opinion that should be the operators expense. You as a pilot already financed the cost of the comm/multi-IFR/IATRA/ATPL. Bonds are close to making air crew indentured servants. In my opinion its an unethical business practice an I disagree with it on principle. I don't want to argue the point any further. But I would like to express one final thought. Bonds are part of everything wrong with getting to flying as career. It makes our industry look like a cheap racket. Its unprofessional and will drive many out and steer potential newcomers away. So in the end supply and demand will drive the idea of bonds away , now imagine getting a signing bonus with your job.

[Beefitarian]

You're right, one simple solution to avoid signing the training bond would be to pay for the training yourself then go work for one of these guys instead.

On the other hand, there are companies who simply offer a new pilot more money (say 1/2 of what it would cost them to train the pilot) if they have received the training or PPC somewhere else...