For the vast majority of Canadian airlines and airlines, pilots must undergo flight type-specific training to qualify for the operation of this aircraft. This training can be an expensive proposition that often requires floor school pilot hours and simulator training. If the pilot finds another job, the company is obliged to find another pilot and pay additional training costs. Training obligations are often used by air carriers to recruit and/or retain their flight crew. This legal agreement is quite simple; the air transport operator pays for the flight training of the newly recruited pilot (i.e. pilot proficiency check) and requires, given that the pilot generally provides for a period of employment under a formal employment contract. If the pilot resigns before the expiry of the agreed term in the employment contract, the pilot must reimburse the flight training costs on a pro-rata basis defined in the agreement. And the employee has agreed to take the service loan for the five-month period that the company will offer from September 12, 2016 under the terms discussed and agreed upon. We make 2 bonding agreements available to members free of charge in the Employers Toolbox Library section. These can also be purchased separately on our website for non-members. Contract items that were taken and exported on August 25, 2016.
With respect to borrowing, Ms. Langford`s training outstanding was $23,408.64. She argued that the court should not give effect to Bond because she was jet-lagged and was not comfortable when she signed it. He was asked to sign the Bond with other new pilots. She suggested that her signature on the Bond was not voluntary (which she signed under duress) because, under these conditions, she was put under pressure to sign it. However, the loan contained a term in which Ms. Langford accepted that she had been given the opportunity to be advised on her terms. She was not trying to communicate with anyone or talk to them about her concerns.
As a result, it did not identify the elements of the defence of duress, and the court admitted the counter-action and ordered that they re-award the amount of $23,408.64. At Chartright Air Inc. vs. De Paoli, a pilot (the “captain”) was hired by an air operator (the “employer”) to captain a Challenger 601. Despite his extensive experience, the master was not qualified to fly on the 601. So he had to catch up with his Proficiency Check driver. The employer agreed to pay for the master`s training. In return, the master had to work 24 months for the employer at the end of the training. The training was valued at USD 31,265.00. The master passed the examinations and obtained his pilot proficiency control on the 601.
At the same time, the employer hired another pilot (the “first officer”) to complete the flight crew. The first officer failed his pilot Proficiency Check. The employer asked the master to assist the second officer in his training. The master assisted the second officer, but soon realized that the first officer was not ready for the assessment. The captain advised the employer accordingly. Despite the communication, the first officer successfully completed his training on the second attempt. The master and first officer flew and worked together several times at the end of their training. The work environment was difficult. The master complained verbally to the employer`s general manager about the first officer`s unseeding professionalism. The master asked his employer to act; According to him, the ill-treatment of the officer-in-command led to safety problems in their lives and on the aircraft.