ALPA's Position on Training Bonds

[Mach 92]

http://www.rhdcc-hrsdc.gc.ca/eng/labour ... ef11.shtml

[BE20 Driver]

Bonds, in my opinion, are one of the worst things about this industry. Companies that have bonds often are the ones that need bonds. It's the ol' "beatings will continue until the morale improves" mentality. I am glad to see that someone has at least raised the issue. I believe that this is not a new document though.
I do see both sides of the coin. Bonds exist because companies have been screwed in the past. Here's a thought though, why not entice people to stay instead of punishing them for leaving?

Strangely, ALPA might be against it but there are a few ALPA shops who have bonds. Bearskin and Calm Air come to mind.

[Mach 92]

I agree with you, and I am against bonds in ANY form. The problem resides in the fact that pilot/AME training is a cost of doing business for a company, yet the companies treat it as if the training is a source of income for the pilot. Unfortunately, most pilots view this the same way as well - "If I just get a type rating on this aircraft, I will be set........"

In my opinion, this is where government intervention IS warranted in aviation. Training costs should be borne by the companies, not used as a form of slavery to keep employees from moving on (advancing their careers). Abolishing this practice would force the companies to pay more attention when they hire people, and put pressure on training providers (such as Flight Safety) to lower their type rating costs. It's ridiculous that a type rating on a Falcon 2000 is $50,000+, but a type on a B737 is only $15,000 or less.

As a pilot group, we need to organize and pressure the government to change the labour laws against this unfair business practice. JMHO.

[longjon]

you seem to forget why the bond issue came to be in this business. how many low to mid time guys came on board a company and got trained only to get the "CALL" from big red or who ever and even though the person was of high moral standard and didn't like doing the up and run thing it was a chance of a lifetime to achieve the DREAM of flying big iron.
so off they went and the company was out the training be it local time on type or FSI. after this happens more time than you like to think about you implement something like CASH up front to make this less painful on the bottom line.

[The Hammer]

Call from Big red my ASS!! More like walk across the ramp to the competition operating the same a/c type. Some companies even offer a bonus if they come with a current PPC.

Remove the term "bond" and call it an employment contract for 2 years then. A contract is a contract, whether it's a NHL hockey player or a pilot or a lawyer, or a carpenter.

[KK7]

Bonds exist not for only one or two causes. There are a large number of reasons that work together that have necessitated some companies to require bonds. Small companies with small staff and revenue can't afford to send endless number of pilots off to training, yet treat their employees well, but still pilots get the training and take those skills and go elsewhere. I've worked at a place that treated their pilots very well, but a fellow came in with the intent of getting the training, then going to an operator in his home town who wouldn't hire someone with a type rating already, all to save that company some costs.

Yes some companies treat their employees poorly and can't retain them, other companies treat their employees well, yet they get screwed as well... it's a two way street. The way to deal with it is to have some sort of employment contract/bond to ensure they don't go out of business simply for having to train 5 pilots over the course of the year instead of one.

Reducing the costs of training is one possibility, but in my opinion the best way to solve this problem is to remove the portability of PPCs. This requires each company to retrain the pilot in a full initial course regardless of whether that pilot had previously or currently holds a PPC on the same aircraft. These are some of the potential effects of removing this portability:

- A shift will occur in employers looking for PPCed candidates to candidates with the experience on type, ensuring that when pilots get a PPC at once company, they stay to gain the required experience to move on.

- A company would not benefit at all from hiring a PPCed candidate with no experience.

- Each company would be responsible for the training and PPCs on their types, thus training them to their own standards as opposed to another company's potentially lower standard.

In cases where someone needs to come in on contract to train existing company pilots on a new type, an exception can be made subject to TC's approval on a short term basis.

[Mach 92]

If training bonds mean the difference between a company staying alive, and going under, then perhaps they need to re-examine their business model. If your bottom line is that razor thin, then you really need to sharpen your hiring practices and find the right fit for your organization. If your company is being used as a stepping stone, and can't survive as such, then perhaps the company needs to re-examine the reason why it is being used as one.

Don't forget, if the industry frowned upon the practice of guys buggering off with newly minted type ratings, then pilots who do just that would get a less than favourable reference from their employer(s). Like you say, its more than a one-way street. It involves the companies and airlines as well to recognize the problem, and work together towards a viable solution. Right now, companies are working against each other as if the solution rests with the pilot, not the company. If the industry can't do it (and I very much doubt that it could), then legislation is an viable alternative option.

If bonds (or "employment contracts") have to be instituted, then there should at least be a time frame given, after which x number of months/years of service require the removal of and necessity of any further bonds for re-training. The point here being that if bonds are going to become part of the future business practices of all companies, then there needs to be regulation of the bonds to make them fair to both employer and employees.

[planett]

An expense and aggravation bond against the employer in favor of the pilot could be considered in a truly free market. It's just as legit as the other way around. "Pressure to break CARs etc. shall be considered as forfeiture of said training bond and acceptance of alternate bond." Just sayin.

[KK7]

An expense and aggravation bond against the employer in favor of the pilot could be considered in a truly free market. It's just as legit as the other way around. "Pressure to break CARs etc. shall be considered as forfeiture of said training bond and acceptance of alternate bond." Just sayin.

It has been my experience that a truly honest and good operator is more than happy to add stipulations in a training bond/employment contract that protect the employee at the employee's request, so long as it doesn't detract from the purpose of the bond. Those who are inflexible and have a contract that is written as such that is only looking after the company's interest is reason to be suspicious.

But if you were to request and obtain a stipulation in the contract as you suggest such as "Pressure to break the CARs, etc." then the pilotbetter have proof for breaking the bond. Should the company decide to pursue it the courts will need more than just simply one word against another.

[slowstream]

Sadly, there's merit on both sides of the argument. I've had to sign them in the past, not happy about it but reality is I have a family that I need to support.

The bottom line for me at least is this whole situation is a result of a lack of morals and integrity on both sides. If employers treated and paid their people well they would likely stay longer and be more of a positive and productive employee, but employers also need to realize that this is a progressive industry and sometimes shit just happens with no ill intentions!

Some pilots need to stop being freaking scumbags, taking advantage of a companies to get a rating and a little bit of experience with the intention to jump ship ASAP. There should be some sort of recourse against these people, yes?

In an idealistic world people and companies would have a decent level of morals and ethics but I don't see that being possible in a "me world"

[davesok]

Guy's
Been at this for 4 decades. Bonds are in our industry as already stated because pilots leave their employer after said employer has invested $5000, $10,000 or $50,000 in them. If you owned ABC Aviation a bond I am sure would have some appeal.
No one has signed and agreed to the bond without understanding it. Is it the employer's fault someone used them for the endorsement or a place to work until something better came along.
Pilots need to do there homework on an employer before accepting the job, than honor the agreement or pay the price. Nothing wrong with leaving just pay the piper.
I wish we had a training bond at Jazz. I have seen hundreds of 2 week to 10 month guys leave after saying I have always wanted be here bla,bla,bla. This has cost our employees $1,000,000 in lost forever wages. Sadly not enough of us at Jazz feel this way and the union will never allow it.
A lot of good points on this forum, also a lot of you thinking totally one sided me, me, me. Simple just don't take a job with a bond if you don't like them. Leave the bond jobs to guy's that will honor them, they will become unnecessary.

[Doc]

Folks work in all kinds of "professions" for periods of time, only to "jump ship" for a better offer, taking the experience gained with them. It isn't unique to aviation. Training folks, and losing them to "greener pastures" is simply part of the "cost" of doing business. If you think "only aviation" spends big bucks on training, your heads are up your collective asses.

[teacher]

Bonds are bullshit no ifs, ands or buts about it. I've had to sign them, hated doing it but in this day and age you have no choice. Don't wanna sign one, can't be a pilot. I know there are companies out there that don't do it BUT the vast majority do.

Consider this:

1) Training employees is the COST OF DOING BUSINESS

2) Aviation is one of the few industries where employees subsidize their employer with bonds and low pay.

3) Most of all, if employees were treated better both in pay and working conditions they wouldn't leave in such a hurry now would they. Sure eventually they would if flying in the bush for example was not their career goal but this ties into point #1.

Working the dock or ramp, being a flight attendant and bonds are just another way to take advantage of new commercial pilots. Who else would work those hours for that pay if it wasn't for the golden carrot of getting a chance "one day" to fly an airplane, ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooh

[Doc]

ALPA was more than a little "wishy washy" on their stand regarding the subject. ALPA, you have NO right milking pilots out of dues if you can't take a FIRM stand on, at least this one issue.

[iflyforpie]

I've never signed a bond in seven years of commercial flying. Never jumped ship without plenty of notice given.

Just remember too that loyalty goes both ways. What does an employer provide if they decide they no longer need you?

[Doc]

I've never signed a bond in seven years of commercial flying. Never jumped ship without plenty of notice given.

Just remember too that loyalty goes both ways. What does an employer provide if they decide they no longer need you?

Wise words. Bonds are a "one way" street. It's all about the company. If a company is really WORTH working for, they don't need bonds.

[Mach 92]

Just remember too that loyalty goes both ways. What does an employer provide if they decide they no longer need you?

Simple, and Elegant. You hit the nail on the head. Ask same employer to sign a "pilot bond," protecting the pilot against unnecessary hardship, and you will find yourself being escorted out of the hangar without a job. They'll say something like "this is a business, not a free lunch", but ultimately, training costs are THEIR COST OF DOING BUSINESS - plain and simple. It's not the pilots' cost of being a pilot, unless we concede and consent to the practice (which the majority of pilots are doing by accepting and signing them to get the type).

I'm with ALPA on points 10 and 11, taking a stand that:

10. It is generally understood that employees unhappy with their terms and conditions of employment have two options: “exit” (seeking alternate employment with more favourable terms) or “voice” (seeking mechanisms to articulate their interests, such as union representation). Effectively, pilots subject to training bonds have neither the real option of “exit” or “voice”.

11. Effectively, training bonds undermine the interests articulated in the Canada Labour Code, Part III. They typically contain terms which no employee would willingly enter into. Further, they perpetuate this dynamic for the duration of the bond.

I think we can all agree, NO pilots LIKE training bonds, but we are NONETHELESS COMPELLED to sign them in order to move forward with our careers. This simply isn't right. As a dysfunctional group of individuals, we are willingly driving our working conditions and salaries down each year. Now I'm not in any way suggesting that we form a union, but rather work towards legislation banning the practice of bonds in our profession.

Indifference to the issue(s) affecting pilots (us) will just make the race to the bottom that much faster. Once we all get there, then we'll have plenty to complain about, and a rougher, uphill road from which to claw our way back.

[FlowPack]

It's their 'cost of doing business'. I especially like this one. How exactly do you design a business model when you cannot determine (reasonably) the cost of a major component of the operation. Do you run the numbers for training 2 pilots a year for one required position? Do you plan to train 4 pilots for the one required position? How about 8 pilots? Maybe 10? Are you saying this is a reasonable 'cost of doing business'? Some of you seem to think that this constitues a 'razor thin' profit margin. This can quickly destabilize any business. The employer needs to have some control over their costs, it's very simple.
Now the comments geared towards companies treating their employees better would yield more committment. In short, that's ridiculous. I can't say I've met too many content pilots in my life. Always looking for something else (not even necessarily better). The moneys good but oh the schedule, or the schedule's great but I need a second job so I can pay for my new car, or the schedule and the money is great but I'm tired of these noisy turbo props, or I'm tired of flying into the same 5 airports, I want to go somewhere nice for a change.... Sound familiar?
Not to mention other factors that play a role - lifestyle changes after getting married or strating a family, wanting to get to airlines (which demand pilots get experience on over 12,500, glass, jet etc - which most pilots can't get at just one operator) and all sorts of other things.
Pilots are always going to end up incurring unpredictable costs on to operators and thus the bond is here to stay.

FP

[Donald]

I wish we had a training bond at Jazz.

You do have one, it's called "Year one and two salary."

[Doc]

It's their 'cost of doing business'. I especially like this one. How exactly do you design a business model when you cannot determine (reasonably) the cost of a major component of the operation. Do you run the numbers for training 2 pilots a year for one required position? Do you plan to train 4 pilots for the one required position? How about 8 pilots? Maybe 10? Are you saying this is a reasonable 'cost of doing business'? Some of you seem to think that this constitues a 'razor thin' profit margin. This can quickly destabilize any business. The employer needs to have some control over their costs, it's very simple.
Now the comments geared towards companies treating their employees better would yield more committment. In short, that's ridiculous. I can't say I've met too many content pilots in my life. Always looking for something else (not even necessarily better). The moneys good but oh the schedule, or the schedule's great but I need a second job so I can pay for my new car, or the schedule and the money is great but I'm tired of these noisy turbo props, or I'm tired of flying into the same 5 airports, I want to go somewhere nice for a change.... Sound familiar?
Not to mention other factors that play a role - lifestyle changes after getting married or strating a family, wanting to get to airlines (which demand pilots get experience on over 12,500, glass, jet etc - which most pilots can't get at just one operator) and all sorts of other things.
Pilots are always going to end up incurring unpredictable costs on to operators and thus the bond is here to stay.

FP

Boo Hoo. Poor companies. Training IS one of the costs of doing business. "Bonds are here to stay" because pilots keep signing them. It's indentured servitude. Removes "freedom of choice" from pilots.
You keep drinking that kool aide there mate.

[Mach 92]

It's their 'cost of doing business'. I especially like this one. How exactly do you design a business model when you cannot determine (reasonably) the cost of a major component of the operation. Do you run the numbers for training 2 pilots a year for one required position? Do you plan to train 4 pilots for the one required position? How about 8 pilots? Maybe 10? Are you saying this is a reasonable 'cost of doing business'? Some of you seem to think that this constitues a 'razor thin' profit margin. This can quickly destabilize any business. The employer needs to have some control over their costs, it's very simple.

This statement would be true were it not for the fact that it affects ALL companies. It is not an isolated event that is special to just one particular operation. You seem to think it is a lose-lose proposition, and that the company loses money in type ratings, but never gains it back. Don't forget, the company who gives type ratings also stands to benefit by receiving type ratings. When they receive one, I don't exactly see the company reducing the training bonds of the other pilots in order to "even it out." - a sort of type rating training pool if you will. No, sadly, the company pockets the difference and makes the next guy sign on the dotted line, all the while, telling everyone what a great entrepreneur they are.

I just don't agree with passing the buck to the weakest link in the chain.

[Mach 92]

DOC wrote: "It's indentured servitude. Removes "freedom of choice" from pilots."

It's totally a form of indentured servitude. That's why it needs to be legislated out. If you don't see this aspect of the practice, then why don't we just do away with all labour laws and let the companies do with their employees as they see fit to improve their business acumen? Afterall, what's more important?

[Mach 92]

And, as if bonds aren't enough:

http://www.gapan.org/press-pages/press- ... al-pilots/

[BE20 Driver]

We could argue all day about why companies do it. We could all agree that they offer a good place to work that people might stick around longer etc. The reality is that there are 8 sides to this argument. Companies have had problems in the past and the solution that they have implemented is a bond system. Some companies try to dress it up as a Training agreement or something similar. I personally think it's a lazy, piss-poor solution.

Bonds and employment contracts are different creatures though. Bonds only cover a company. Employment contracts are a two way street protecting both parties.

I have seen my old company bond an employee at 60% of their salary and then lay the guy off a few weeks or months later. I was railroaded into signing a bond there. They promised me the world in order to get me to sign. The ink wasn't even dry when their tune changed and things were all of a sudden "different now". What recourse did I have - none.

I am currently working under an employment contract. Both the company and I are protected. I don't think there was any provision for early termination of the contract written into this one. That said, if I walked half way through the contract period, the company could, in theory, come after me for lost revenue and or training costs in getting a replacement worker in place. On the flip side, my contract guarantees me employment and benefits for a specified period of time. If they lay me off, I could also in theory go after them for my salary and benefits for the rest of the contract period.

I'm still working my way up the ladder. If I have any choice on where I go next, I will, at all costs, avoid any company that has a bond. I am much more comfortable signing an employment contract that also covers my needs.

[davesok]

Wow
Some of you gut's really have your heads up your a____. One guy says " it should work both ways, the pilot should have employment protection" bla bla, who is the one paying the training cost DA!!!. Some point of views are so stupid they are funny. Some are right on the mark. Bottom line if you don't like bonds go and drive a bus until you find a job without one. Pay the guy that put up the bucks to teach your dumb ass something if you leave early, SIMPLE!!! Nobody owes anyone anything it's a fare trade work for me for x # of months and I will spend X # of $ teaching you something you don't know. If that doesn't sound fare to you simpletons drive a bus!!!