I think these sorts of issues are very regional. Around here, if you have a conviction for failure to appear, it means that the Crown went to the trouble of laying a separate charge, and you were convicted on that charge - sometimes after a separate trial.
Having that conviction on your record does communicate to the court that you are a flight risk, which makes it more difficult to obtain a release pending trial for any future charges.
Even if the Crown doesn't want to lay the charge, they will usually ask for an arrest warrant, and will usually get one. If the accused shows up later, with a plausible explanation, or after the arrest is effected, provides information that might indicate there was either a good excuse or the accused just screwed up on the scheduling, the Crown may request that the warrant be vacated.
Otherwise, the accused's failure to attend will form part of a sort of record, in that it will be available in the future for the court to consider when questions of Judicial Interim Release come up.
By the way, we don't have bail bondsman up here. They are illegal. If the court decides that it is appropriate that there be a money consequence to failing to appear in court in the future, the court is required to choose an amount that the accused can raise, as well as to determine whether that amount is payable up front or just due upon failure to appear. The court may also require a surety for the bail order -someone else willing to sign saying if the accused doesn't show, the surety will pay.
Where there are financial terms to a no-deposit bail order, the court will usually require that the parties who might be liable under the order establish ahead of the time their ability to make good on monies that may become due.
It is much more usual to have the court either order detention, or release on conditions (curfews, no go areas, reporting, maintain school or employment, etc.). They are seen to be much more effective than financial orders.