AirSprint Fleet Transition

[PT6Lover]

Hi Airsprint,

I have been following your company for quite some time and if my current job was not as good as it is I would be sending you my resume.
I read through your pilot career brochure and noticed one thing that I did find a little bit of a surprise, the amount of the bond is significant, now I imagine that most pilots who come to work for you stay as your conditions are excellent and your employees all seem happy with their jobs. but none the less I find a bond of 49.31 per day for 2 years quite high, for anyone who hasn't done the math yet that's 35,996$. if the idea is to scare people out of leaving I think you have nailed it but that is a large number, have you always had such a large bond? were there issues with pilots getting "jet time" then running to the airlines? I would have thought with the conditions and salaries most would be happy but I guess this is aviation after all isn't it.

I'm not trying to criticize, I'm simply curious about this condition of employment.

Thanks,

[D for Delux]

Hi Airsprint,

I have been following your company for quite some time and if my current job was not as good as it is I would be sending you my resume.
I read through your pilot career brochure and noticed one thing that I did find a little bit of a surprise, the amount of the bond is significant, now I imagine that most pilots who come to work for you stay as your conditions are excellent and your employees all seem happy with their jobs. but none the less I find a bond of 49.31 per day for 2 years quite high, for anyone who hasn't done the math yet that's 35,996$. if the idea is to scare people out of leaving I think you have nailed it but that is a large number, have you always had such a large bond? were there issues with pilots getting "jet time" then running to the airlines? I would have thought with the conditions and salaries most would be happy but I guess this is aviation after all isn't it.

I'm not trying to criticize, I'm simply curious about this condition of employment.

Thanks,

Valid question.
steep bond!
DFD

[cxchd]

When is the deadline for applying in this round of hiring?

There is no official deadline but we are currently reviewing applications and conducting interviews. We have hired one pilot already and interviews should continue for the next week or two. I would recommend getting your resume in today or tomorrow if you would like to be considered for this round of hiring.

Regards,

James - AirSprint HR

Hi James. Have you finished this round of hiring yet? Really like the company outline and I have sent in a resume. If the hiring in finished do you see anymore in the near future? Is there a way to confirm the HR department received my resume?

[AirSprint HR]

Hi Airsprint,

I have been following your company for quite some time and if my current job was not as good as it is I would be sending you my resume.
I read through your pilot career brochure and noticed one thing that I did find a little bit of a surprise, the amount of the bond is significant, now I imagine that most pilots who come to work for you stay as your conditions are excellent and your employees all seem happy with their jobs. but none the less I find a bond of 49.31 per day for 2 years quite high, for anyone who hasn't done the math yet that's 35,996$. if the idea is to scare people out of leaving I think you have nailed it but that is a large number, have you always had such a large bond? were there issues with pilots getting "jet time" then running to the airlines? I would have thought with the conditions and salaries most would be happy but I guess this is aviation after all isn't it.

I'm not trying to criticize, I'm simply curious about this condition of employment.

Thanks,

Hi PT6,

The $36k amount has been in place for the last 12 years and is intended as a retraining cost (all in) should someone leave. It is not meant as a cash grab as we don't require any payment from the pilot unless they leave within two years, and then it is only the prorated amount. We have had a few pilots leave over the years within 6 months of training as the jet experience raised their score at AC or WJ making them attractive for those companies. Our position with the performance agreement is simply that we agree to pay for training and the pilot agrees to stay for 2 years. If they decide to leave to follow their dream of flying something bigger, we are fine with that (and genuinly wish them the best) but they should pay the remaining amount in order to mitigate the consequences to their remaining peers. Every dollar spent on retraining is a dollar that can better be spent on improving wages and benefits. Since 2009 we have increased pilot wages by at least 20%, benefits by a similar amount, and introduced an expensive preferential bidding system in order to improve the quality of life of our pilots and improve retention. Having pilots leave shortly after training without a performance agreement would reduce the amount that can be used for remaining staff.

Hope this helps.

James - AirSprint HR

[AirSprint HR]

When is the deadline for applying in this round of hiring?

There is no official deadline but we are currently reviewing applications and conducting interviews. We have hired one pilot already and interviews should continue for the next week or two. I would recommend getting your resume in today or tomorrow if you would like to be considered for this round of hiring.

Regards,

James - AirSprint HR

Hi James. Have you finished this round of hiring yet? Really like the company outline and I have sent in a resume. If the hiring in finished do you see anymore in the near future? Is there a way to confirm the HR department received my resume?

I know that we recently hired a few people but am not sure if we are done with this round. Give Vesna Hudson (keeper of the resumes) a call (877.588.2344) and she can give you the most recent info and confirm receipt of your resume. If you don't hear back by the end of the week send me a PM with your name and I'll find out.

James - AirSprint HR

[Johnny#5]

$36,000 bond to train on a Citation?!?!?!?!?!?!? C'mon!!!!!!!! It's not a new Sovereign or a Ten....it's an XLS or a CJ!

That is an inflated amount that is completely out-to-lunch. Brutal.

[fish4life]

It's probably accurate to represent the all in cost including hotels and training pay

[cxchd]

40K at another corporate/ charter operation. This does include accommodations, and training. 2 year no pro-rating.

[Krimson]

42k at another, prorated 2 years.

[riaz6668]

Ok so is it just me or has no one else received a response after submitting a resume? Just curious. Thanks guys

[flyinhigh]

$36,000 bond to train on a Citation?!?!?!?!?!?!? C'mon!!!!!!!! It's not a new Sovereign or a Ten....it's an XLS or a CJ.

You should perhaps call FSI and get a cost of this training, than add the cost of hotels, airfares, perdiems, car rentals, etc.

You will soon see that you are completely out to lunch in your expectation of what a bond should be.

[Johnny#5]

Sure, I'll call FSI and just some random person out-of-the-blue will get a ridiculous quote...I'm sure Air Sprint gets a much better deal.

I know someone who did a Challenger course recently and their bond isn't as steep. Air Sprint isn't the only culprit, bonds are generally too high in this country.

[scopiton]

I heard training expenses are tax deductible for the employer, not sure.

[PT6Lover]

Hi Airsprint HR,

thank you for your reply, I can understand having a bond but I still can't get my head around the amount, It seems inflated. From my experience, the training costs just are not that high. My issue is not the bond itself but the amount.

I currently fly a jet similar in size to the CJ2 and I book and reserve everything, the initial was Closer to 20k all in per person.
Initial 17 day course 15k
Flight (to/from) 1100$
Hotel 1700$
Per diems (100$ per day) 1700$
Rental car 600$ /2 300$

Where I work they have a 2 year bond pro rated for 20k, I didn't like it and I'm no fan of bonds but I understand why they exist and frankly it's insurance for the employer, I felt this one was fair and the conditions are great with good pay so I have no intention of leaving. (I would have preferred no bond, but there were a thousand pros to outweigh this one negative) which I'm sure most at airSprint feel as well.

I appreciate your transparency and being so open to discussing this with everyone. I genuinely like your company i think you have made great moves to improve pilot conditions and thereby retain your valued employees. I only ask the question to inquire if the conditions are that good and you position yoursefl as a career job company trying to create the best possible conditions for your pilots then why have such a steep bond? it seems, in my humble opinion, Unnecessary.

One last question, do require a new bond everytime someone upgrades or changes equipment?

Just a thought,
Thanks,

[AirSprint HR]

Hi Airsprint HR,

thank you for your reply, I can understand having a bond but I still can't get my head around the amount, It seems inflated. From my experience, the training costs just are not that high. My issue is not the bond itself but the amount.

I currently fly a jet similar in size to the CJ2 and I book and reserve everything, the initial was Closer to 20k all in per person.
Initial 17 day course 15k
Flight (to/from) 1100$
Hotel 1700$
Per diems (100$ per day) 1700$
Rental car 600$ /2 300$

Where I work they have a 2 year bond pro rated for 20k, I didn't like it and I'm no fan of bonds but I understand why they exist and frankly it's insurance for the employer, I felt this one was fair and the conditions are great with good pay so I have no intention of leaving. (I would have preferred no bond, but there were a thousand pros to outweigh this one negative) which I'm sure most at airSprint feel as well.

I appreciate your transparency and being so open to discussing this with everyone. I genuinely like your company i think you have made great moves to improve pilot conditions and thereby retain your valued employees. I only ask the question to inquire if the conditions are that good and you position yoursefl as a career job company trying to create the best possible conditions for your pilots then why have such a steep bond? it seems, in my humble opinion, Unnecessary.

One last question, do require a new bond everytime someone upgrades or changes equipment?

Just a thought,
Thanks,

PT6,

There are many costs associated with new employees that AirSprint incurs that maybe other companies don't (although my research shows that 36k is comparable or lower than most comparable companies). These costs include, among others:

iPad
Custom fit leather jacket
Other uniform items
3rd party training software subscription
Company indoc training hotel and transportation (as required), per diems, and wages (7+ days)
Pilot wages during training
Training captain pay (our indoc process is much longer than the TC minimum required)
Hiring costs
Inefficiencies due to being down a pilot during the transition period

The real costs are greater than 36k, and the recovery for someone 11 months in is around 19k (pro rated amount). In regards to the question about additional bonds, we require a performance agreement for changing aircraft type only. When a pilot achieves 5 years of employment, any existing performance agreement or future one is reduced by half.

I wish that the performance agreement was not necessary, but the reality is that there will always be pilots who leave shortly after training as even a little jet time can be a huge career benefit. The common feeling by many pilots is that this hurts the company. The reality is that this hurts their fellow pilots as it reduces the amount that can be made available as improvements to wages/benefits/schedule. Pilots who leave shortly after training makes it harder for me to improve the lives of those who want to stay long term and it is for this reason why the performance agreement exists. Hope this provides some insight.

Regards,

James - AirSprint HR

[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.