The whole Jetsgo thing has got me thinking.
I'm not sure what CAAP-APAC has in mind for the near future but here is a suggestion.
I understand a need for training bonds (something we as pilots have brought upon ourselves by company hopping). What I would like to see is federal legislation governing these "contracts". These rules should include the following:
1. Training bond must be a realistic amount to cover training should a pilot leave before the time period specified in the contract is over. There may also be a way to make the size of the bond a function of the pilots salary (guaranteed not including things like mileage that fluctuate) although I and others will have to put more thought into how that would work. This might prevent large bonds for low/mediocre paying jobs.
2. The bond is NOT used to train the pilot but is held in trust should he/she leave before the contract is up.
3. The bond should be pro-rated. Paid back on a weekly, bi-weekly or monthly basis and should include interest. Just putting this money in a high interest account would pay over 2%/year without cost to the company.
4. A limit for the maximum time a bond may be in force.
This would prevent companies financing themselves on the backs of pilots and would still provide protection to the company from training someone initially who "jumps ship" just a few weeks/months down the road.
I hope CAAP-APAC will look into this and come up with a set of rules we, as an industry, can lobby for.
Any feedback is always appreciated!
Training Bonds
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, North Shore
-
Flying Low
- Rank 8
- Posts: 928
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 7:22 pm
- Location: Northern Ontario...why change now?
Training Bonds
"The ability to ditch an airplane in the Hudson does not qualify a pilot for a pay raise. The ability to get the pilots, with this ability, to work for 30% or 40% pay cuts qualifies those in management for millions in bonuses."
-
master switch
- Rank 3
- Posts: 132
- Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2004 8:37 am
Just like any other company that is going bankrupt, they were spending tomorrow's income to pay the current bills. No company is going to let money sit around "in trust" while the company is sinking. They will even be so low as to take money right up until the last moment, knowing full well the people they are taking it from will never see it again. It's a legal way to steal driven by greed. Leblanc was taking money up until the last hour to minimize his losses, screwing employees and customers. Shame on him and any other owner who has done this. Saying Leblanc actually likes being around airplanes is like saying hockey players and owners are in the game for fun.
-
Flying Low
- Rank 8
- Posts: 928
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 7:22 pm
- Location: Northern Ontario...why change now?
Thus the need for federal laws governing these contracts. The money would have to be held by a third party so that the company can't dip into these funds.
The one and only reason for a bond is so that the company can recoup initial training costs if a pilot bails on them early. If the company goes under or lays off the pilot then the remaining money (after what has already been paid back to the pilot) is returned to the pilot. If the pilot leaves before the time stipulated in the contract the employer gets the money remaining. Unfortunately there are way too many stories of pilots doing their training and leaving for another job within months or even weeks.
I am not a big fan of bonds but I do see why a lot of companies require them. That aside, the only risk to the pilots money should be his/her decision to leave before the time agreed.
I have been in situations where employers have informed me that they require me to stay for a certain amount of time if I accept the job. I have ALWAYS honoured my word. If everyone had done this then I doubt these bonds would be so prevalent today.
The company I work for now requires a bond up front and I made sure I looked into the company before accepting. Is it a risk? Yes! Do I like it? No! Do I understand why companies do it? Yes. In an ideal world all pilots would say no and these companies couldn't operate while requiring a bond. Unlike some on this board, I'm a realist (maybe even a cynic) and I know this will never happen. Therefore if this is going to be a required "evil" in our industry lets lobby for some rules to govern these contracts and protect ourselves.
The one and only reason for a bond is so that the company can recoup initial training costs if a pilot bails on them early. If the company goes under or lays off the pilot then the remaining money (after what has already been paid back to the pilot) is returned to the pilot. If the pilot leaves before the time stipulated in the contract the employer gets the money remaining. Unfortunately there are way too many stories of pilots doing their training and leaving for another job within months or even weeks.
I am not a big fan of bonds but I do see why a lot of companies require them. That aside, the only risk to the pilots money should be his/her decision to leave before the time agreed.
I have been in situations where employers have informed me that they require me to stay for a certain amount of time if I accept the job. I have ALWAYS honoured my word. If everyone had done this then I doubt these bonds would be so prevalent today.
The company I work for now requires a bond up front and I made sure I looked into the company before accepting. Is it a risk? Yes! Do I like it? No! Do I understand why companies do it? Yes. In an ideal world all pilots would say no and these companies couldn't operate while requiring a bond. Unlike some on this board, I'm a realist (maybe even a cynic) and I know this will never happen. Therefore if this is going to be a required "evil" in our industry lets lobby for some rules to govern these contracts and protect ourselves.
"The ability to ditch an airplane in the Hudson does not qualify a pilot for a pay raise. The ability to get the pilots, with this ability, to work for 30% or 40% pay cuts qualifies those in management for millions in bonuses."
That group paid for some fuel or something 
-
fingersmac
- Rank 7
- Posts: 606
- Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 4:17 pm
i dont understand why the amount has to be upfront.
why cant they write up a contract that states if the pilot decides to leave the company before they have finished their term, 'x' amount of money is owed in relation to time remaining on contract.
make it a legally binding contract. that would seem fair to me.
i understand that operators need to protect their investment. why should a company have to pay thousands of dollars to train a pilot just to have him leave less than a year later resulting in paying the training of another pilot.
why cant they write up a contract that states if the pilot decides to leave the company before they have finished their term, 'x' amount of money is owed in relation to time remaining on contract.
make it a legally binding contract. that would seem fair to me.
i understand that operators need to protect their investment. why should a company have to pay thousands of dollars to train a pilot just to have him leave less than a year later resulting in paying the training of another pilot.
fingersmac wrote:i dont understand why the amount has to be upfront.
why cant they write up a contract that states if the pilot decides to leave the company before they have finished their term, 'x' amount of money is owed in relation to time remaining on contract.
make it a legally binding contract. that would seem fair to me.
i understand that operators need to protect their investment. why should a company have to pay thousands of dollars to train a pilot just to have him leave less than a year later resulting in paying the training of another pilot.
AKA Promisary Note
Pilot Training Bonds
Yikes, I feel for the "Jets no more guys" I know a couple of them. The company I work for sent me to Europe to do a type rating on a new aircraft. The expense to the company up front was huge. From the time I left my home till I returned, the company paid my wages, all airfare, hotels, meals, ten days of factory ground school, and seven days of very expensive full motion simulator training. The bill was all in Euro, and exceeded the bond requirement. I did not have to pay or finance anything up front, it was all on the company. I only had to promise to stay for three years.
Sure why not, I plan to stay a lot longer; what with stock options, a great pension plan, full medical + extended medical, more than full dental, my dentist couldn’t possibly bill as much as I am covered in a year, loss of pilot medical coverage………….and on and on, not to mention the pay scale is first rate, the company treats it’s pilots very well.
I had no problem with my bond, but then again I don’t work for a weak company like Jetsgo was, and others are!
Sure why not, I plan to stay a lot longer; what with stock options, a great pension plan, full medical + extended medical, more than full dental, my dentist couldn’t possibly bill as much as I am covered in a year, loss of pilot medical coverage………….and on and on, not to mention the pay scale is first rate, the company treats it’s pilots very well.
I had no problem with my bond, but then again I don’t work for a weak company like Jetsgo was, and others are!
Training Bonds
Yikes, I feel for the "Jets no more guys" I know a couple of them. The company I work for sent me to Europe to do a type rating on a new aircraft. The expense to the company up front was huge. From the time I left my home till I returned, the company paid my wages, all airfare, hotels, meals, ten days of factory ground school, and seven days of very expensive full motion simulator training. The bill was all in Euro, and exceeded the bond requirement. I did not have to pay or finance anything up front, it was all on the company. I only had to promise to stay for three years.
Sure why not, I plan to stay a lot longer; what with stock options, a great pension plan, full medical + extended medical, more than full dental, my dentist couldn’t possibly bill as much as I am covered in a year, loss of pilot medical coverage………….and on and on, not to mention the pay scale is first rate, the company treats it’s pilots very well.
I had no problem with my bond, but then again I don’t work for a weak company like Jetsgo was, and others are!
Sure why not, I plan to stay a lot longer; what with stock options, a great pension plan, full medical + extended medical, more than full dental, my dentist couldn’t possibly bill as much as I am covered in a year, loss of pilot medical coverage………….and on and on, not to mention the pay scale is first rate, the company treats it’s pilots very well.
I had no problem with my bond, but then again I don’t work for a weak company like Jetsgo was, and others are!
-
Cool Rythms!
- Rank 6
- Posts: 435
- Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:29 pm
- Location: Montreal
Same deal with me. My company hired me and sent me and another collegue to Flightsafety in Paris for two weeks, all expenses paid. We were required to sign a training bond, but not one penny had to come out of our pockets. If that were the case, I would have just walked away.
"When the power of love overcomes the love for power, only then will this world know peace"
- Jimi Hendrix
- Jimi Hendrix
