sunwest training bond

Airspeed · Post by **Airspeed** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 11:25 am

Anyone know if Sunwest has a training bond for the Metro 23?

like2fly · Post by **like2fly** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 1:38 pm

2 year / $18,000

. . · Post by **. .** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 2:03 pm

please tell me you're kidding.

Rudder Bug · Post by **Rudder Bug** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 3:40 pm

Oh shit!

arctic navigator · Post by **arctic navigator** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 3:47 pm

Is it a "jetsgo" bond or is it a sign this and if you stay the time your clear?? is it pro rated or full amount to the end???

like2fly · Post by **like2fly** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 3:50 pm

"sign this and if you stay the time your clear" kinda bond.

bater · Post by **bater** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 4:10 pm

A question I have regarding bonds.. what happens if you sign a bond, and shortly after being trained, you lose your medical for something like a skiing/car accident, or whatever?? Obviously you're no good to the company without a medical....

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 6:31 pm

If you lost your medical for an accident, you'd be out of your bond...but read the fine print!

bandit1 · Post by **bandit1** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 7:06 pm

for 18 grand does it come with a right seat space shuttle PPC too?

Can you imagine in other industries:

"OK, thanks for applying to QUIK E MART. I will have you work fucked up hours and pay you shit. Now for me to train you to work here, you will have to sign this peice of paper that if you quit, you owe me 18,000$"

Thank you come again

Ralliart · Post by **Ralliart** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 9:54 pm

What does it cost a company to provide the suitable candidate with a Metro PPC these days?

F-16 · Post by **F-16** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 10:47 pm

Personally, I don't think a bond like this would even hold up in court - not that i am advocating going back on your word, however, if a company is going to have a bond - it has to simply cover the actual cost of whatever is forming the basis for the agreement - ie. The training.

It's simple contract law. You can't have one side come out way ahead, with the other side way behind the 8 ball - at the very least, come out to similar positions as when the agreement was struck.

So, if it costs $5,000 to train someone in the metro, and the candidate runs off after a year, well they should only owe a portion of the original training costs - $2500 to $3000.

This $18K is bulls--t. Given the short and curlies the company would have you for with an 18K bond, and the low pay - it would put the candidate in an almost impossible spot trying to pay it back, thus in a way preventing them from looking for other work, etc. and basically is illegal.

It's unfortuntate to see operators charge largely disproportionate amounts for bonds - I've heard/seen of $3000 to $10000 for a King Air 200. Actual cost, depening on fuel cost, probably about $3000-$3500 for the 5 hours and ride.

A far cry from 18K - don't do it!

Liftdumper · Post by **Liftdumper** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 11:19 pm

runaway,runawayyyyyyyyyy

prop2jet · Post by **prop2jet** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 7:00 am

The term "training bond" should really be categorized as an "employment retention agreement" because that is what they really are. Any company that institutes a training bond is simply trying to ensure that you are going to pay a hefty price for leaving. In some cases, companies with poor working conditions would rather put the bond in place rather than improve on the working conditions. While it is true that there will always be turnover, the fact remains, it is ridiculous to institute a hefty bond that does not represent the true cost of the training. Given that training is a cost of doing business, these companies must surely be writing off the expenditure against their income.

tsgas · Post by **tsgas** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 8:11 am

I agree if a company has to force you to stay,then more than likey, its not a dreat place to work.
They seem to be looking for people all the time. ,also very negative.

TFTMB heavy · Post by **TFTMB heavy** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 8:59 am

Here's a bit of info for those interested, take it or leave it, I don't care. It applies to most companies out there.

Cost involved in training a new pilot, partically in a sim in the US:

Fingerprinting application fee,
Cost of going to the US for the fingertprinting,
Sim cost,
Accomodations for 1-3 weeks,
Meals for 1-3 weeks,
Cost of flying the CCP or TC to the training facility for the ride,
Cost of accomodations for the CCP or TC,
Cost of meals for the CCP or TC,
Cost of two hours in the actual airplane in some cases.
And more that I can't think of right now.

Then you can add all the other cost involved in training someone like line indoc with a training captain and all the time spent on exams required by TC.... All the cost of doing business of course but it still cost someone

Before you get all wound up and start typing in upper case read it twice and do some math please.

Once again it's just info, not a lecture!

Martin

. . · Post by **. .** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 9:31 am

Martin: I don't disagree that there are a lot of costs associated with training. However, many companies fly jets or 705 turboprops and bond their people for far less money. I just can't possibly see how any combination of _direct_ costs add up to damn near 20k. You can't add in the cost of the CP's time filing out paperwork, or the cost of a line-indoc captains time. Those costs should never be paid by a new trainee.

pistonbroke · Post by **pistonbroke** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 10:19 am

I have lived and worked as a pilot my entire life in CYYC. I have never worked for Sunwest, but they have been around for a long time and are a very stable company. If your going right seat on a metro you probably dont have a lot of time under your belt and need the experience. You will be living in a good city and making a salary you can live on. If you meet the requirments jump at it boys. If you have lots of time and dont want to be comitted for two years if Westjet or your dream job calls that is a different story.

Lurch · Post by **Lurch** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 11:43 am

$18,000 is a lot of money but you have a job thats not in the freezing North with a very decent company that you will probaly spend more then 2 years working for them anyway so who cares how much the bond is. I personally would sign a $40,000/4 year contract with Sunwest because I would have no doubt I would work for them long past any length requirements they could put on me.

Does it cost $18,000 to train you on a Metro?
No!

So why the high bond?
They are protecting their investment in you as a pilot, if they knew you wouldn't work for a year and then runaway to another company where they can benefit from SWs investment, they wouldn't have a training bond.

If it weren't for dis-respectful pilots or companies we wouldn't need this training bond BS.

Lurch

TFTMB heavy · Post by **TFTMB heavy** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 12:43 pm

I forgot the cost of the recurrent training, double the airfare add some more nights in a hotel and meals plus the sim time and I bet you are ball park $18 000.

As for the fixed costs I realise the new hire can't be held resposible for it but when you spend a bunch of time and money training someone and they leave you hanging you cover your but the next time. Pilot's brought bonds upon themselves.

Doesn't matter what the amount of the bond is if you're going to stick around. If you're worried something better is going to be offered to you and you can't afford the bond you're about to sign then don't sign it and wait.

Here's some friendly advise: Never give money up front and hold your end of the bargain. There are some very specific cases where a bond won't hold up in court, a lawyer can help with that.

That's the way I see it. I've on both sides of the fence and this side of it has opened my eyes to some stuff I never thought of before.

Martin

. . · Post by **. .** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 12:48 pm

Lurch wrote:
Does it cost $18,000 to train you on a Metro?
No!

So why the high bond?
They are protecting their investment in you as a pilot, if they knew you wouldn't work for a year and then runaway to another company where they can benefit from SWs investment, they wouldn't have a training bond.

Lurch

So now you're paying to protect their investment. What a messed up industry we're in.

CAL · Post by **CAL** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 2:09 pm

holy f--k....that would buy you an old metro....
where do they attach the shackles...

godsrcrazy · Post by **godsrcrazy** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 2:37 pm

This subject has been beat to death. I have said this before and I will say it again. This is a fact of life brought on by our peers. As much as I hate bonds I can understand why they are here. Unfortunately its not just the direct training costs it is also all the hidden costs you cannot put a number on to train someone. What about all the controlled crash landings were new pilots try and drive the gear thru the wing especially on a stiff B____ like the Metro. Then there is FOD from bad prop management on gravel, extended approaches that cannot be charged to customers. Pre-flight checks that take 2 or 3 times longer with new crew that nobody pays while engines are running and fuel is going out the stack.

Lets not forget the good old insurance company that just loves to hear a company tell them how they have pilots flying there aircraft with under 1000 hrs on type.

It is some of the narrow thinking here like direct costs should only be fuel, what is Direct cost. If you honestly believe the only cost to train a pilot is Fuel and whatever hours it takes until you get your PPC you are a fool. As I have also said in the past every time you watch someone leave or damage a plane you need to keep 1 thought in mind. There goes any chance of a raise.

Yes I know some companies need to do this because they have bad moral and it is the only way they can keep pilots from leaving. This to is just straight BS in todays day of email and forums. Come on how many times on this forum have you seen anyone that can tell me about wages and woring conditions PM me. Or Some one asking about a company and see a reply of check your PM. Most companies do it because they just cannot afford to watch people leave because someone offered them a few cents a mile more if you have a fresh PPC. Most of this crap would go away if Transport banned a transferable PPC unfortunately there are still those that will join companies and leave 2 months later not because of the PPC but big Red or West jet called.

Here is a suggestion we should post the names of everyone that left a company after they got their PPC. Or those that have backed out on there verbal commitment to stay for 2 years. You can come up with all kinds of lame excuses and reasons for leaving a company. What truly amazes me is those that only come up with these reasons after they have a better offer else were. Or because they finally have enough time or a PPC and some company back home will hire them.

I personelly dont think a 2 year commitment is a big deal if the money is not comming out of your pocket unless you leave.

chu me · Post by **chu me** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 4:28 pm

All of you have made some interesting points. I can see the reasons for and against. I myself do not believe in training bonds, but I also know that small companies have a tough time recovering actual training costs if their pilots do not stay with them for a year. I recently turned down a CL604 position because I had given my word to the small company I was with, (that I would stay for at least a year) and my time was not yet up! There is a good argument against training bonds made by ALPA if you follow this link. http://www.fls-ntf.gc.ca/doc/sub_fb_61.pdf . There I'm done have at er boys!!!!

goldeneagle · Post by **goldeneagle** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 4:35 pm

Ralliart wrote:What does it cost a company to provide the suitable candidate with a Metro PPC these days?

For those that are operationally challenged, or, have just never seen the invoices and expenses in the 'big picture', there are a few simple rules of thumb that you can use to ballpark what it costs to operate an airplane.

One thing that pilots do see directly, fuel burn. If you are flying around and picking up the stuff regularily away from 'big airport', with todays prices, it's pretty easy to figure out the overall cost of fuel, it's roughly a dollar a pound. For a 'normal' airplane, the cost of fuel is going to be roughly 1/3 of your direct operating expense in launching the machine. By the time you tally up inspections, time life component reserves, navcan fees, airport fees, ramp fees, and all the other shit that nickels and dimes you to death, it's gonna tally up to about double the fuel bill. Then again, that's for a _normal_ airplane.

A metro is a bit of a special case, they are horribly expensive to maintain, which makes them relatively cheap to buy. If you have paid attention over the last 25 years on the south side of the airport in vancouver, there is a sure way to tell when a new up and coming operator is 6 months out from going bankrupt, just watch for the metro to show up. When talking about a metro, fuel will run about 1/4 of the direct operating cost when it launches. A big chunk of that direct cost will be deferred out a few months because it comes in the form of time life components, ads, and just plain old snags, but, it's gonna come, and operators that try price a metro like any other airplane, survive 6 months till the bankers come knocking.

If you are gonna blast around in a metro for 4 hours training (which means a lot of that time at low altitude), and then a ride, add to it all the cost of running the groundschool (you dont think the CP comes in to teach it for free do you ?), there is no way on gods green earth you can do a metro ppc and invest only 3500 in the process. That will require a significant amount of help from the parker pen company to achieve.

Lurch · Post by **Lurch** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 8:46 pm

endless wrote:
Lurch wrote:
Does it cost $18,000 to train you on a Metro?
No!

So why the high bond?
They are protecting their investment in you as a pilot, if they knew you wouldn't work for a year and then runaway to another company where they can benefit from SWs investment, they wouldn't have a training bond.

Lurch
So now you're paying to protect their investment. What a messed up industry we're in.

Your not paying a penny as long as you fulfil your contactual obligations. Are we starting to get so spoiled that somebody can't stay with a company for 2 years, This is the messed up part.

If you don't like the idea of a traing bond or its length go work for a company that doesn't have them.