This case shows how important it is for team members to stay professional in their work environment. not only during flight time, but also when flight crew members are dealing with the flight operator`s management team. All flight crew members who sign a training commitment must comply with their contractual obligations. Training bonds are legally binding and enforceable documents. Training obligations are interesting legal tools for pilots who are willing to improve their aviation qualifications in order to advance in their careers, but pilots must recognize that such agreements represent a significant amount of money and can therefore entail serious personal liabilities in the event of a breach of contract. Flight training is expensive, and liability in the event of a breach of contract could jeopardize your career in aviation. Training requirements are often used by flight operators to recruit and/or retain their flight crew. This legal agreement is quite simple; The aircraft operator pays for the flight training of the newly hired pilot (i.e., verification of the pilot`s qualifications) and requires a period of employment, taking into account that the pilot usually agrees to a period of employment under a formal employment contract. If the pilot terminates the contract before the end of the term agreed in the employment contract, he must reimburse the costs of flight training on a pro rata basis. Unfortunately, the answer is not always as simple as we would like.
Companies can, of course, get an employee to sign a binding agreement and feel completely protected by it, but the test is really whether that agreement is enforceable when it is reviewed by the courts, and it`s always a case-by-case decision. To remedy this situation, many airlines have set up a “training link”. A training bond is a contract between the pilot employee and the employer that shows that the pilot pays for his training (and pays for accommodation during training), but only if he stays with the employer for a minimum period of time. Bonds can take different forms, with some pilots requiring them to pay for training in advance and then be reimbursed on a pro rata basis, while others do not require the pilot to pay money in advance, but require the pilot to reimburse the airline on a pro rata basis if they leave their employment before the minimum period. These obligations are highly controversial. In 2005, the Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) submitted a request to the Federal Commission for the Review of Labour Standards proposing that training obligations be prohibited or that specific restrictions apply. A February 2009 discussion paper on the review of labour standards in the Canada Labour Code recommends that training obligations be permitted but regulated. Courts have generally concluded that training surety contracts are enforceable legal contracts and will be guided by the specific terms of the actual contract to determine the amounts due.
In one case, the terms of a training contract meant that an operator claimed only pure training costs and no travel, hotel and uniform costs. As with any contract, air carriers and pilots must carefully review the specific terms of the contract to ensure they have an accurate understanding of the possible future consequences. For the vast majority of airlines and aircraft operators in Canada, pilots must undergo aircraft type-specific training to be qualified to operate that aircraft. .