AirSprint Fleet Transition

[flyinhigh]

Guys,

If you go to a company and say your going to stay for a period of 1 year and the bond is a 100K, who cares as long as you stay. The only reason anyone should question the amount is if you have an intention of leaving, in which case they should not hire you anyway.

As James stated, EVERY company has different costs for training. Again, your not putting money up front so who cares if it is a 100K, unless your word is not what you say it is.

[loopa]

Guys,

If you go to a company and say your going to stay for a period of 1 year and the bond is a 100K, who cares as long as you stay. The only reason anyone should question the amount is if you have an intention of leaving, in which case they should not hire you anyway.

As James stated, EVERY company has different costs for training. Again, your not putting money up front so who cares if it is a 100K, unless your word is not what you say it is.

You're correct. Except time over we as a pilot group have been over-promised and under-delivered at certain jobs. Usually jobs that have bonds under deliver by a massive margin. Why? Because they can and unless you're going stop eating KD, you can't afford to pay it off. What happens now? You're stuck.

There's no paper work that they have to sign - outlining their promises to you. But you do have to sign legal documents outlining that if you leave, you owe them money. In some cases, you even sign away your legal rights to go after them in the court of law when signing the bond. So out of the two parties in said agreement, who has the greater chance of being lied to and still have to do their part of the deal and pay a bond? (rhetorical question). Therefore, it doesn't surprise me when someone asks about the validity of a bond simply to protect oneself.

I believe the trade off for signing a bond that steep and the company advocating that it's a good place to work should be their acceptance of signing an equally binding contract outlining their promises, and if their part fails, the bond is void. Now could you imagine an industry where pilot's were equally protected as the bond protects the company? And if the said company doesn't sign such document, then you can evaluate the credibility of their promises. This doesn't just apply to AS, but any company that makes you sign a bond. How come insurance is one way, but not the other? (rhetorical question).

So it's not necessarily the intentions of leaving that makes people curious about the steep bond. I would say the majority of pilot's are leary that they are going to commit to something, and have the company not do their part. This happens a lot. So experience dictates to question the bond. Then you have the guys that will peace off regardless of conditions. These are the guys that will be sour at a company because they bid for London in November, and got a Paris trip instead.

I'm not behind the desk so I can't fully comment on this, but one would think that in the interview process, the company can get a rather good feel for what kind of candidate they are hiring. There's a reason HR gets training to read between the lines when evaluating a candidates response to commitment-type-of-questions. If someone has the goals of flying a passenger jet in the next 10 years, then there should be no question that this individual will leave at some point if they went to Air Sprint.

It certainly seems like Air Sprint is doing their part to improve the working conditions; having such a transparent company presence on here is also a good sign. So perhaps one can overlook the bond if their intention is to in fact stay when going there. I don't know what the right answer is, because that bond is definitely steeper than it has to be - but the best of luck to all of you that apply! It looks like a good gig.

[Diadem]

There's no paper work that they have to sign - outlining their promises to you. But you do have to sign legal documents outlining that if you leave, you owe them money. In some cases, you even sign away your legal rights to go after them in the court of law when signing the bond. So out of the two parties in said agreement, who has the greater chance of being lied to and still have to do their part of the deal and pay a bond? (rhetorical question). Therefore, it doesn't surprise me when someone asks about the validity of a bond simply to protect oneself.

I believe the trade off for signing a bond that steep and the company advocating that it's a good place to work should be their acceptance of signing an equally binding contract outlining their promises, and if their part fails, the bond is void. Now could you imagine an industry where pilot's were equally protected as the bond protects the company? And if the said company doesn't sign such document, then you can evaluate the credibility of their promises. This doesn't just apply to AS, but any company that makes you sign a bond. How come insurance is one way, but not the other? (rhetorical question).

Of course the company has to sign paperwork, and their promise to you is that you get a free type rating in exchange for staying for two years. You get the type rating and they get a guarantee of continued employment, so it's a two-way street. If you leave before your two years are up, or you're fired, you still have a type rating and they have nothing. I can't imagine a court enforcing a bond in which the pilot wasn't actually provided with any training.
The implication I'm getting from this post is that because the pilot agrees to work for the company for two years, the company should be signing a contract guaranteeing employment under certain conditions for two years, but that's a totally separate issue. The employment contract that the pilot signs should cover WAWCON, and if the company breaches that contract then the employee is free to sue, but the bond contract would still be valid so long as the training had been provided. You receive money and benefits in exchange for providing labour, and you receive a free type rating in exchange for providing labour for a certain period of time; these are two separate issues covered by two separate contracts. If the type rating couldn't be used at any other company, then I could see the argument that it would provide no benefit to the pilot, but since that training can be used elsewhere both parties are benefiting. If you don't want to sign a bond, you could simply pay for your type rating yourself, and shell out however many tens of thousands of dollars it actually costs for the training; then you'd have the freedom to go to whatever company you wanted, because you would have effectively paid for the bond up-front. It seems like a travesty that we now have to sign bonds to get training that pilots used to get for free, but in reality they were getting something for nothing and the employers bore all the risk.

[Darth]

Hiring and training costs (at any company) are simply a cost of doing business that should paid by the end user, not the employees.

[fish4life]

Agreed and if air sprint had sub par wages and working conditions then it would be acceptable to not have the bond, but in this case the pilot group probably sees the bond as a good thing since it will allow for higher pay. I wouldn't be surprised if at most companies with let's just say 60% of pilots making a career at the airline and the other 40% just coming to build time then jump ship to something different would have the support of a bond from their pilot group.

[loopa]

There's no paper work that they have to sign - outlining their promises to you. But you do have to sign legal documents outlining that if you leave, you owe them money. In some cases, you even sign away your legal rights to go after them in the court of law when signing the bond. So out of the two parties in said agreement, who has the greater chance of being lied to and still have to do their part of the deal and pay a bond? (rhetorical question). Therefore, it doesn't surprise me when someone asks about the validity of a bond simply to protect oneself.

I believe the trade off for signing a bond that steep and the company advocating that it's a good place to work should be their acceptance of signing an equally binding contract outlining their promises, and if their part fails, the bond is void. Now could you imagine an industry where pilot's were equally protected as the bond protects the company? And if the said company doesn't sign such document, then you can evaluate the credibility of their promises. This doesn't just apply to AS, but any company that makes you sign a bond. How come insurance is one way, but not the other? (rhetorical question).

Of course the company has to sign paperwork, and their promise to you is that you get a free type rating in exchange for staying for two years. You get the type rating and they get a guarantee of continued employment, so it's a two-way street. If you leave before your two years are up, or you're fired, you still have a type rating and they have nothing. I can't imagine a court enforcing a bond in which the pilot wasn't actually provided with any training.
The implication I'm getting from this post is that because the pilot agrees to work for the company for two years, the company should be signing a contract guaranteeing employment under certain conditions for two years, but that's a totally separate issue. The employment contract that the pilot signs should cover WAWCON, and if the company breaches that contract then the employee is free to sue, but the bond contract would still be valid so long as the training had been provided. You receive money and benefits in exchange for providing labour, and you receive a free type rating in exchange for providing labour for a certain period of time; these are two separate issues covered by two separate contracts. If the type rating couldn't be used at any other company, then I could see the argument that it would provide no benefit to the pilot, but since that training can be used elsewhere both parties are benefiting. If you don't want to sign a bond, you could simply pay for your type rating yourself, and shell out however many tens of thousands of dollars it actually costs for the training; then you'd have the freedom to go to whatever company you wanted, because you would have effectively paid for the bond up-front. It seems like a travesty that we now have to sign bonds to get training that pilots used to get for free, but in reality they were getting something for nothing and the employers bore all the risk.

I see what you are saying and I agree with the most of it except one part.

When somebody signs up to work at a company, they are signing up for a lot more than a job and a type rating. Because people that actually care about the place they sign up to work for are shifting lives, moving families across however x miles, and making a commitment to the company and in most cases, pilots need the same commitment in return from the employer they are making all these sacrifices for.

I'm assuming you've seen a fair share of the industry by now Diadem, and know exactly what I'm talking about when I say that there are WAWCON's, and then there's reality of how that WAWCON actually plays out in the context of how the company is run. Too many times, WAWCON's are written in such sleek ways protecting the companies best interest, that unless you go and seek legal advice on what's actually written there, the implications that the said WAWCON has is often invisible to the naked eye.

So now you potentially have a situation where the pilot is committing to what they think is going to be a gig worth signing a 36k bond for, and quickly finding out how screwed they really got. This happens time over at many different companies across the country.

My favourite is one of the companies in this country that makes you sign a training bond before they actually employ you. They invite you to initial ground school, make you sign the bond, and if you don't pass their training (even line checks), they make you waive your rights to fight them in the court of law, and they require the money from you.

While some call that stupidity (in the case of the individual that signs it), that is really how a lot of companies get away with crime. They expect you to go 100% commitment, and they will only meet you 20% of the way.

Where I was coming from with my suggestion is that since taking a job has more implications than simply the type rating, there should be a higher level of protection for the pilot signing a training bond confirming that the company meets their end of the deal as well - not in such sly way that WAWCON's are written sometimes, but a more defined and clear document about what the implications of the training bond is if the company does not meet their commitment in the entire job package that they are offering.

Because if there isn't such protection for a pilot, they will commit to the company assuming the WAWCON works for them, and the company can screw them over left right and centre. Now you have a situation where an individual was lied to (or not given enough information so to speak), is stuck, and probably is miserable because they can't afford to pay out the bond and leave.

If it's a random case where ONE individual is unahppy, then sure, that's not the company's fault. But if every body going to a company get the same generic feeling after a few months of employment, then it is my opinion that something is wrong with how the bond and the WAWCON go hand in hand in the job package that is offered.

[OD-MEA]

Hi James,

Thank you for all the updates and your transparent style.

I'm a Canadian pilot now working overseas for a 704 operator; approaching my 1000th hour on the Falcon 900EASy as F/O but my total time is only 1,200.

Do you think I should submit my resume or is it a bit too soon now?

Thanks,

[Liftdump]

Wow you got on a Falcoln 900 with 200 hrs? fuckin awsome

[AirSprint HR]

Hi James,

Thank you for all the updates and your transparent style.

I'm a Canadian pilot now working overseas for a 704 operator; approaching my 1000th hour on the Falcon 900EASy as F/O but my total time is only 1,200.

Do you think I should submit my resume or is it a bit too soon now?

Thanks,

Your experience is different than most for the amount of total time that you have and that would be taken into consideration. I would say apply if you have interest and the worst response that you would likely get is to keep in touch and let us know when you have #### hours. I look at hiring as more than a single interaction and there are a number of people that I keep in touch with who don't currently meet the minimum requirements.

Best of luck,

James

[FlyingClimber]

Hi James,

Couple questions for you. What is the average flight time per year, for pilots? And is there some plans for a bigger aircraft than a CJ2 in Montreal in the future?

Thanks for your time.

[AirSprint HR]

Hi James,

Couple questions for you. What is the average flight time per year, for pilots? And is there some plans for a bigger aircraft than a CJ2 in Montreal in the future?

Thanks for your time.

The average flight time per year right now is 380 hours. Our pilots are on reserve 234 days per year and of this they average 146 days flying/training/on layover. Our planes don't really have bases and XL/S pilots are able to be based in Montreal as well.

Regards,

James

[FlyingClimber]

Thank you very much for the info and the reply that quick, it all sounds really good.

[Avcanades]

Hi to all,

Any info on the hiring status by this time @ AirSprint ?

Thank you

[AirSprint HR]

Hi to all,

Any info on the hiring status by this time @ AirSprint ?

Thank you

Just hired one Captain for the CJ2+. Expect to hire 3 to 5 pilots (Captains/First Officers) over next 4-5 months.

Regards,

AirSprint HR

[Avcanades]

Oh thanks to Airsprint HR for this quick info.

little more precision : Somthing expected in YUL ?

[AirSprint HR]

Oh thanks to Airsprint HR for this quick info.

little more precision : Somthing expected in YUL ?

Don't know right now where future positions will be required.

Regards,

AirSprint HR

[Avcanades]

Dear Airsprint HR member,

I'm wondering what is the best way to be informed when a pilot position will pop-up @ Airsprint ?

thank you very much.

[AirSprint HR]

Dear Airsprint HR member,

I'm wondering what is the best way to be informed when a pilot position will pop-up @ Airsprint ?

thank you very much.

Good question. My quick answer is to monitor Avcanada once a week or so and that way you will see when we post. That seems kind of inadequate though considering the technology that is available today. We'll do something with social media in addition to Avcanada... Don't know what yet but you will have the ability to subscribe to our page and we'll post updates when we are hiring. LinkedIn is probably the place. Timeline? Sometime in the next few months.

AirSprint HR

[AirSprint HR]

We are hiring a Director of Business Development to be based in Toronto and cover the Ontario region. Ad is in the job posting section and career guide is attached (compensation etc).

AirSprint HR

[AirSprint HR]

We will be interviewing for Captain/FO spots for Calgary/Toronto/Montreal over the next 4 to 6 weeks. These spots are for expected fall positions. The ad is up in the jobs section and I'll post it on LinkedIn. If you follow AirSprint on LinkedIn you can see updates going forward (in addition to Avcanada).

AirSprint HR