Leaving with a bond?

[complexintentions]

You guys are all missing what Cessnaguy66 said. He wants to go to a company and commit to the terms of employment knowing he will not stay the term. This is exactly why bonds are in place. I will tell you what you want to hear. However as soon as i get my PPC and hours i am gone.

At minimum PPC should not be transferable. Most companies offering more money is due to stealing people with Current PPC's and saving money on type endoresments and PPC's.

Didn't miss that at all. If his terms of employment include a provision to leave the bond early with a financial penalty, then if he pays the penalty he is most certainly meeting his commitment - that's why the provision is in the bond.

The workings of market dynamics is not "stealing people" lol. It's called competition. Bonds simply mitigate the very risk you describe, of having one employer benefit from another's investment. While I certainly didn't enjoy being bonded, I don't pretend to not understand this.

My current contract has no bond due to coming to it with the type rating and significant experience. The job where I originally obtained the rating had a bond, and I was there far longer than the duration of it. That rating has since paid for itself so many times over it's insignificant. But if I had wanted to leave early, I would have without hesitation, knowing exactly what the consequences were.

If a company implements a bond, it becomes a financial transaction, and things like "honor","commitment" and "be a nice guy" become meaningless.

Honor and commitment are never meaningless. But any paid job, at its core, is always a financial transaction: you are exchanging your time for money.

How about doing a decent cost-benefit analysis before making any decision involving money?! Perhaps if more people ran their career a little more like a business and less like a seeking for fulfillment and a higher calling, it would eliminate a lot of the confusion...

[digits_]

If a company implements a bond, it becomes a financial transaction, and things like "honor","commitment" and "be a nice guy" become meaningless.

Honor and commitment are never meaningless. But any paid job, at its core, is always a financial transaction: you are exchanging your time for money.

Okay, fair enough, let me rephrase and clarify a bit.

If a company hires you, without a bond, they ask you to stay for a year and you agree, then you should honor that. Leaving early would be a dick move.
If a company hires you, makes you sign a bond, and you leave early while paying the bond amount, you are doing nothing wrong. If someone then tries to make you stay by guilting you that you should honor your commitment or be a nice guy and not leave your employer hanging, that becomes meaningless.

How about doing a decent cost-benefit analysis before making any decision involving money?! Perhaps if more people ran their career a little more like a business and less like a seeking for fulfillment and a higher calling, it would eliminate a lot of the confusion...

True true. The only problem with that is that you often don't know exactly what a job is like until you start working at the company.

[rookiepilot]

If a company implements a bond, it becomes a financial transaction, and things like "honor","commitment" and "be a nice guy" become meaningless.

Tell me you're kidding -- right? Duh. Yeah it's a financial transaction, with a real dollars investment by the employer, that they expect to be paid back. In a written agreement. They aren't your best buds.

Want to not have a bond? Cut your wages. Nothing is for free. Learn to negotiate professionally. Should be taught in school, along with basic financial principles----but I digress.

If a roofer does your house, and you don't pay, guess what? He's going to lien your house, and probably immediately. He won't care how much honor you say you have. He's got a business to run!

[digits_]

If a company implements a bond, it becomes a financial transaction, and things like "honor","commitment" and "be a nice guy" become meaningless.

Tell me you're kidding -- right? Duh. Yeah it's a financial transaction, with a real dollars investment by the employer, that they expect to be paid back. In a written agreement. They aren't your best buds.

Exactly. Did you read my previous message?

If you sign a bond, of course you have to follow the terms of the (written) agreement, but in return the company forfeits the right to be upset that you leave. Nobody should try to guilt you into staying anymore, as all the terms have been agreed upon in advance.

Pilots can/should feel the pressure to be a nice guy and commit to work for a company for a while if there is no bond.
If there is a bond, they should honor the bond, but not feel bad at all if they leave soon.

I would be really curious to know what the average employment duration is for a pilot in companies without bonds vs companies with bonds. I for one have worked longer at companies without bonds, than at the companies that made me sign a bond.

[rookiepilot]

If a company implements a bond, it becomes a financial transaction, and things like "honor","commitment" and "be a nice guy" become meaningless.

Tell me you're kidding -- right? Duh. Yeah it's a financial transaction, with a real dollars investment by the employer, that they expect to be paid back. In a written agreement. They aren't your best buds.

Exactly. Did you read my previous message?

If you sign a bond, of course you have to follow the terms of the (written) agreement, but in return the company forfeits the right to be upset that you leave. Nobody should try to guilt you into staying anymore, as all the terms have been agreed upon in advance.

Pilots can/should feel the pressure to be a nice guy and commit to work for a company for a while if there is no bond.
If there is a bond, they should honor the bond, but not feel bad at all if they leave soon.

I would be really curious to know what the average employment duration is for a pilot in companies without bonds vs companies with bonds. I for one have worked longer at companies without bonds, than at the companies that made me sign a bond.

I think leaving after fulfilling the written agreement is fine. I would if it was me -- or negotiate; to offer my employer the chance to match a superior offer.

When I did have an employer back in the day, after I established myself, I negotiated new contracts quite assertively. But had to sign a tough non-compete agreement, in return.

[7ECA]

I think leaving after fulfilling the written agreement is fine. I would if it was me -- or negotiate; to offer my employer the chance to match a superior offer.

If the company has a bond in place, the agreement is; work for X time period or pay X amount of money if you leave early. If the fellow knows the company has a training bond in place, and is willing to work there and *MAY* leave prior to the end of the period under which he is bonded; but is willing to pay off the remainder of the bond - what's the issue?

[valleyboy]

Why are there "training bonds" in the first place. Like most things there is always at least 2 sides to the argument. The majority here argue from the career climbing group who feel it's their right to chase the metal with hopes of the dream job. The environment for the last several years has fed this and the small operator who operates 703 needs to find some way of recovering training costs. The cash flow and profit margin on a "HO" in a cut throat biz can be significantly reduced to a negative number with popup training happening several more times a year than normally required.

Having said all that I think the term "bond" should disappear and a proper contract replace it. The contract should cover all aspects of employment from training to company commitment with an emphasis on what the company expects for your commitment and how you are expected to conduct the missions. Here is where loads and wx can be defined, what a concept The trouble with most of "Bonds" of today are totally one sided and this is wrong.

I have personally witnessed on several occasions where people have received training, a left seat PPC and resign 2 to 4 weeks later. How do small companies deal with this unless they have some mechanism to recover this kind of expense.

[Bede]

Does anyone know if it’s legal or at least “okayish” to offer to pay the company back in a few monthly payments? If I have to leave and can’t afford the entire amount but offer to pay it in monthly payments, is the company still allowed to sue me?

Happens all the time. Let's say the company sues you and you agree to the liability but propose paying back in installments. There us not a chance they will go to trial only for the judge to agree and order you to pay...in installments.

First off, it's a sellers market. You don't need to pay a bond to get a decent job.

Second, you can negotiate your bond exit. I leave now you chase me for the money. I give you 50 cents on the dollar now and we'll call it even and you give me a good reference. This happens all the time- even after there is a court judgement. (As an aside, this happened in the million dollar McDonald's coffee case).

[ayseven]

Don't mean to derail, but when did this 'bond' thing come about? I thought this sort of thing went out with the serfs.

And all these people flying off the handle about PTF: what do you think this is? I fully understand the business point of view: I ran a successful business for around 20 years, and staffing was a constant issue. Pay, although certainly very important, is not the only consideration for workers' happiness, but money is the ONLY thing that matters in running a business properly. It is why you are there in the first place, but it does involve a lot of smiling when you do not want to, and is rewarding in other ways too. I am sure the employers who send people off to fly for Air Canada are quite proud of their training. I would be.

[valleyboy]

What really impacted the 703/704 and even small 705 operators was when the level 2 guys dropped their basic qualification for holding an ATP and grabbing guys with 700 hours. Prior to that you could hire a person into the right seat and upgrade on look at close to 2 years of service out of that candidate. No bonds need just treat people well and keep them happy even with a slightly lower salary. As stated money isn't everything and a reasonable schedule with time off and not trying to push people out with heavy aircraft and poor wx. Most get it and are happy to build time but now that has been undermined and we see the present shit show. It will be interesting to see all the back tracking when the industry starts heading for the trough in this cycle.

[digits_]

What really impacted the 703/704 and even small 705 operators was when the level 2 guys dropped their basic qualification for holding an ATP and grabbing guys with 700 hours. Prior to that you could hire a person into the right seat and upgrade on look at close to 2 years of service out of that candidate. No bonds need just treat people well and keep them happy even with a slightly lower salary. As stated money isn't everything and a reasonable schedule with time off and not trying to push people out with heavy aircraft and poor wx. Most get it and are happy to build time but now that has been undermined and we see the present shit show. It will be interesting to see all the back tracking when the industry starts heading for the trough in this cycle.

That is only part of the reason. The other side, is that the samller 703/704 operators keep clinging to the 700 hours mark. If they would drop their hour requirements to 250, they would still get about 2 years of service out of their employees. Instead they bond 700 hour pilots who leave after 6 months anyway.

Occasionally you see them hiring 250 hour pilots, but it is still fairly uncommon.

[goldeneagle]

Why are there "training bonds" in the first place. Like most things there is always at least 2 sides to the argument.

In 2000 I was the CP at a 703 startup, took two youngsters that had done nothing but instruct and gave them a PPC on an aircraft on the understanding they would be around to fly it for some time. Got exactly one revenue trip from one of them, none from the other. The buggered off with a 'thanks for the ppc, it helped me get the next job'. Not surprisingly, they went out east and did the same trick again, were back in the west two months later with yet another PPC.

The company out east introduced bonds right after they left with ink almost dry on a KingAir ppc.

Folks like that pissed in the pickles for everybody behind them. Over the years talking to other folks hiring for other companies, lots of others had a similar story.

[digits_]

Why are there "training bonds" in the first place. Like most things there is always at least 2 sides to the argument.

In 2000 I was the CP at a 703 startup, took two youngsters that had done nothing but instruct and gave them a PPC on an aircraft on the understanding they would be around to fly it for some time. Got exactly one revenue trip from one of them, none from the other. The buggered off with a 'thanks for the ppc, it helped me get the next job'. Not surprisingly, they went out east and did the same trick again, were back in the west two months later with yet another PPC.

The company out east introduced bonds right after they left with ink almost dry on a KingAir ppc.

Folks like that pissed in the pickles for everybody behind them. Over the years talking to other folks hiring for other companies, lots of others had a similar story.

Couldn't this have been prevented by the company out east with a thorough reference check?

[goldeneagle]

Couldn't this have been prevented by the company out east with a thorough reference check?

Guess that depends on who they gave as references.

[digits_]

Couldn't this have been prevented by the company out east with a thorough reference check?

Guess that depends on who they gave as references.

I'm just bringing this up because I am often surprised by the lack of reference checks companies do.
In your example, with Pilot Asshole. If he applied at your company, the only thing you could do was call the flight school where he instructed. That probably wouldn't have helped. Now he leaves your company after getting his PPC. That means he must have mentioned it on his resume. You'd think that the eastern company would have asked where he got his PPC. The date would also have been on his license, right? That would indicate it was a very recent PPC. That means the eastern company either didn't care that the PPC was recent, and that he was a job hopper, or they didn't do their homework.

If eastern company hired Pilot Asshole after he left your company within a couple of months just because of the PPC, I would put part of the blame on the eastern company as well. If you know he is an extreme job hopper, what do you expect? After all, the eastern company elected to steal a pilot from another company instead of training a new guy themselves...

There are more solutions available than just implementing bonds.

[rookiepilot]

That's why the concept of "honour" on this thread is hilarious.

I run a small company and know other who do too. THE worst issue is employees, bar none. It's not even close, and irrelevant how they are treated. There are a lot of irresponsible employees out there who simply don't care, and that is the fact.

When I hire another small business, I always also try to deal with the owner, because they care about customer service. The employees (often) don't, and the drones at a big company are (often) brutal, besides being brain - dead.

Edit. There are lots of very NICE folks out there. It's rare in my experience, to find those that treat their employer's company, with the same care they would their own.

[ayseven]

Mr Rookie, you are so right, although I wouldn't have worded it that way. Employees can be nice people, but they do show their colours eventually. I ain't starting another business anytime soon...

[Bede]

I run a small company and know other who do too. THE worst issue is employees, bar none.

But it was you that did hire them, no?

A friend of mine has a 702/703 outfit with only pistons. For some reason, he has very low turnover. Rumour has it that he's very good to work for.

[rookiepilot]

I run a small company and know other who do too. THE worst issue is employees, bar none.

But it was you that did hire them, no?

A friend of mine has a 702/703 outfit with only pistons. For some reason, he has very low turnover. Rumour has it that he's very good to work for.

That's true, Bede. A good company starts at the top.

Now if it was your small -- 703, would you enforce a bond?

If you so, then you're not a nice employer, any more.

If not, how do you financially survive and recoup training costs, if multiple people get a PPC and then leave?

I get, it would be great to be a "nice guy" -- and being nice to work for, you wouldn't have that problem. Everyone would stay for years, no bonds, and the cash would roll in.

I'm curious if those saying so, would risk BK, potentially their family's security, on that assumption.

[valleyboy]

That is only part of the reason. The other side, is that the samller 703/704 operators keep clinging to the 700 hours mark. If they

This was the policy - hire at 250 or less even and have them progress to left seat. Doing the math it took between 18 and 24 months to aquire an ATP so with that rate of turn over life was tolerable. Guys come due for upgrade and the bolt as soon at jazz or encour called. The hiring process was painful because of having to supply aberration days leave more than once. It truly put a scheduling load on others because it was usually short notice after schedules were already published. Funny thing - the rest of the pilot body (small company) weren't happy filling in either.

[derateNO]

What really impacted the 703/704 and even small 705 operators was when the level 2 guys dropped their basic qualification for holding an ATP and grabbing guys with 700 hours. Prior to that you could hire a person into the right seat and upgrade on look at close to 2 years of service out of that candidate. No bonds need just treat people well and keep them happy even with a slightly lower salary. As stated money isn't everything and a reasonable schedule with time off and not trying to push people out with heavy aircraft and poor wx. Most get it and are happy to build time but now that has been undermined and we see the present shit show. It will be interesting to see all the back tracking when the industry starts heading for the trough in this cycle.

That is only part of the reason. The other side, is that the samller 703/704 operators keep clinging to the 700 hours mark. If they would drop their hour requirements to 250, they would still get about 2 years of service out of their employees. Instead they bond 700 hour pilots who leave after 6 months anyway.

Occasionally you see them hiring 250 hour pilots, but it is still fairly uncommon.

Agreed. When I got my first job, I had 210 hours and had no plans on going anywhere until I had my ATPL. And that was at least two years. I didn't have to sign a bond, but I would have if they asked. If companies treated their pilots better, and dropped the requirements a bit they would get people happy to stay two years without much fuss.

If I was a 1000 hour pilot just shy of getting on at say Jazz, and a 703 wanted me to sign a two year bond I'd say hell no.

[derateNO]

THE worst issue is employees, bar none.

You sound like a terrible boss. I too ran a company for a while, and found that it was really down to me for choosing the right people in the first place.

Maybe you just don't have a knack for hiring.

[Bede]

I run a small company and know other who do too. THE worst issue is employees, bar none.

But it was you that did hire them, no?

A friend of mine has a 702/703 outfit with only pistons. For some reason, he has very low turnover. Rumour has it that he's very good to work for.

That's true, Bede. A good company starts at the top.

Now if it was your small -- 703, would you enforce a bond?

If you so, then you're not a nice employer, any more.

If not, how do you financially survive and recoup training costs, if multiple people get a PPC and then leave?

I get, it would be great to be a "nice guy" -- and being nice to work for, you wouldn't have that problem. Everyone would stay for years, no bonds, and the cash would roll in.

I'm curious if those saying so, would risk BK, potentially their family's security, on that assumption.

I’ll be honest- I’m not a business guy. But here’s what I notice, there seems to be companies that pay well and have no bond and low turnover. Then there are the crappy operators with predatory bonds and for some reason they can’t keep employees. If I was an owner I know what kind of business I’d strive to have.

[GRK2]

It's all well and good to talk about the company who gets left holding the bag when someone leaves after a training and how shitty it might be. How about the other side of the story? What if a pilot signed on for a specific set of advertised working conditions? After training it changed and the job description was altered to the point that it no longer represents what was described at the beginning? Can a pilot leave and challenge not paying the remainder of the bond? After all he or she took the job as described or advertised and if they had known it was not going to be anything close to those conditions, wouldn't have taken the job. If the company misrepresented the position and misled the new pilot, would that be grounds to walk and challenge a bond? Anyone out there with that experience?

[digits_]

It's all well and good to talk about the company who gets left holding the bag when someone leaves after a training and how shitty it might be. How about the other side of the story? What if a pilot signed on for a specific set of advertised working conditions? After training it changed and the job description was altered to the point that it no longer represents what was described at the beginning? Can a pilot leave and challenge not paying the remainder of the bond? After all he or she took the job as described or advertised and if they had known it was not going to be anything close to those conditions, wouldn't have taken the job. If the company misrepresented the position and misled the new pilot, would that be grounds to walk and challenge a bond? Anyone out there with that experience?

Theoretically, yes, but you have to prove that the conditions changed. Most bonds don't list the working conditions. So it is hard to do.