How do operators get away with it?

[Merh]

Scratching my head as to how certain operators can legally (and morally) get away with paying Pilots less than award?

I understand the moral aspect more than the legal, seeing there is always some fresh CPL, desperate Pilot willing to work for free, for less etc.

Heard of a little while back of a skydiving mob paying $40 a day, irrespective of the amount of hours worked or in this case, loads taken.

Is the loophole in the private ops classification? Surely then, if one is to be paid, award wage must at least be adhered to?

Flaws me how anyone could live on $40 a day with living expenses, even more so a professional pilot.

Should we start playing the name and shame game? If an operator is reaping reward for their employees hard work, then it is morally :mad: that at least a fair proportion of that be passed on to the employees as renumeration.

[Lasiorhinus]

The Award makes no distinction on the class of operations. If you're employed as a pilot, you must be paid as a pilot.

The thing that really gets me, is when a company is proud of itself for paying only the award. The award is the absolute legal minimum... it is not a target to aim for, it is not the maximum a pilot should earn.

[Fly-by-Desire]

Ive heard of pilots getting a lot less than $40 a day for jump flying! Seeing that you are not really 'employed' as a pilot in most cases, i cant see how the award can be inforced in these situatuons like you mentioned Lasiorhinus.
Also as a private op, is it even legal to pay a (CPL) jump pilot?

[Di_Vosh]

How do operators get away with it?

We let them.

[disturbedone]

Also as a private op, is it even legal to pay a (CPL) jump pilot?
No. When I was a jump pilot I was paid as an aircraft caretaker. My official job was to refuel, wash and load the aeroplane. I just got to fly as well. And there were some days I would have been glad to make $40. I guess it all depends on how busy the drop zone is.

[anonymouspilot]

I for one am somewhat confused by the legal implications of the award. With the changing industrial relations climate, and from what i hear from others, I think I'm not the only one.
Is the award legally enforceable in all states and territories, and if so, by who? The AFAP appear to do little on this front so who can be approached if the terms of the award aren't being met?

I'm aware this issue has been done many times before but rumours and 'my next door neighbour whos a lawyer reckons...' type comments only confuse the subject more. It would be great to have someone in the know post a definitive answer to some of these questions. I'm sure it'd be of value to newbies and not so newbies alike.

(yes, I am paid as per the award but like everywhere there are sometimes issues as to how its applied)

[Josh Cox]

Guys, you've got it quite arse about.

CASA: deal with the aircraft bit, if it is categorised as private, thats fine, what you get paid is a totally different thing and of no interest to CASA.

Industrial relations: each state has a governing body, it deals with workers minimum wages and conditions, it has nothing to do with CASA.

So, if you are being paid as a pilot, that does not make it a commercial (IAW CAR 206 ) operation.

Perhaps try the search function on pprune, this topic has been done to death and the result was quite simple, you must be paid atleast the award ( be that AFAP or miniumum award, as applicable ).

In some states the AFAP award is not common law and in other states, not all companies are signatories to the award.

If your state has made it common law, you must be paid atleast the AFAP award.

If your state has not made it common law, then you must be paid atleast the minimum award wage.

Search it, trust me nothing new is likely to present itself in this thread.

[remoak]

Supply and demand. Just like it's always been, and always will be...

If you don't like it, don't take the job. If you do take the job, stop whining about the pay.

[Cactusjack]

Merh,

Scratching my head as to how certain operators can legally (and morally) get away with paying Pilots less than award?


You must be a young fella straight out of school or Uni ?
A) Legally - Operations/Operators are a business. I have never met a CEO who isn't at least willing to push this boundary. Laws are restrictive, resrictions can mean less revenue.Now before all the 'honest John's' out there start battering me, I am not saying that people are breaking the law, however I have been around long enough and seen enough to know the truth to this matter.
B) Morally - Now that is funny.Sorry Merh,but the last time an honest man walked the earth was 2000 yeras ago and he performed miracles and didnt run an aviation enterprise ! If a CEO/Director these days is morally ethical then he doesn't last more than a week in that role. Doesnt work, never has and never will, no matter how much spin and ****e they preach.

All heil Darth,the finest example.......

[Di_Vosh]

If you don't like it, don't take the job. If you do take the job, stop whining about the pay.

And thus ensure that the situation doesn't change.

[sprocket check]

Because pilots are ruled by the heart and not the brain.

Every occupation that has a 'Gee, I'd LOVE to do that' factor suffers the very same problem.

Pilots are generally starstruck and consequently easily manipulated. Those that aren't either don't fly or fly recreationally because they have made their money elsewhere.

Mind you a few airline pilots have said to me about recreational GA/RAA "This is the FUN end of flying"

When flying has no more romance attached to it or getting a CPL gets too expensive things might improve...

[scavenger]

Also as a private op, is it even legal to pay a (CPL) jump pilot?

No wonder the pay sucks, you don't own a skydiving op do you?:ugh:

[Hiflow]

How do operators get away with it?
We let them.

and the next question is why?

[Johnny_56]

I was under the impression that the pilot award is now enforceable Australia wide as it is a federal award? Didn't that come in in January when the new "modern" award thingy/workchoices/whatever happened?

And companies no longer have to sign up to it. If they employ pilots they have to pay it.

i think....

[Hiflow]

Johnny_56 you are 100% correct.

[remoak]

And thus ensure that the situation doesn't change.

Correct... as it has never changed in the past, and never will until pilots grow some balls and refuse to work for peanuts.

And that, of course, will NEVER happen. Never has, never will.

[bushy]

PILOTS GET PAID WHAT THEY ARE WORTH
If you are working for peanuts surely that tells you something.

[Hiflow]

quote:
In some states the AFAP award is not common law and in other states, not all companies are signatories to the award.

If your state has made it common law, you must be paid atleast the AFAP award.

If your state has not made it common law, then you must be paid atleast the minimum award wage.

Fact: its not the AFAP award. Lets just get that straight first. The award is set by the industrial relations commission i.e the Federal Government not AFAP. It covers all states and territories as from January this year.

quote:
Search it, trust me nothing new is likely to present itself in this thread.

Fact: it just did

[Nose wheel first]

From the Fair Work Australia website;


What's the right pay?

From 1 January 2010, modern awards and national minimum wage orders set minimum wages for most employees in the national system.
However, a number of modern awards contain a model phasing schedule, which allows wages and penalty rates which are higher or lower than pre-existing conditions to be progressively introduced in 5 annual instalments. This period gives employers and employees who are affected by modern awards enough time to introduce the changes.
If the modern award contains this model phasing schedule between 1 January 2010 and 1 July 2010 the pre-modern award rates (eg. from a pay scale, or State reference transitional award) will continue and must be paid.
If you believe you've been underpaid, you can complain to the Fair Work Ombudsman.
We have the power to enforce the law, ensuring your employer pays you the amount you're supposed to get.
Find out what you should be paid. Call the Fair Work Infoline on 13 13 94 or chat online with our http://www.pprune.org/PublishingImages/Icons/livehelpman.gif Live help (http://www.pprune.org/#) advisor


I know the above talks about the period of time between Jan and July but if you're not getting what you are REQUIRED TO BE PAID BY LAW then submit a complaint to the Ombudsman. They are required to look into it and if they believe you have been shafted they WILL do something about it. I saw it done at a previous company I worked for (no, it wasn't me who did it) and there was some serious back pay etc dished out because of that company's non-compliance with the award.

[Jabawocky]

Cactusjack
If a CEO/Director these days is morally ethical then he doesn't last more than a week in that role. Doesnt work, never has and never will, no matter how much spin and ****e they preach.

I personally take offense at that.....I actually take a morally sound stand when it comes not just to the pay but the overall "family environment" our employees have. And its not all about $$$, mind you, if you are getting paid half what you should be the rest does not matter.........:hmm:

[601]

Also as a private op, is it even legal to pay a (CPL) jump pilot?

If this was the case, a lot of heavy metal crew would be in it for the love.

The requirement to have a CPL before you could be paid for "Hire and reward" went out with the ANRs or there about.

[Fly-by-Desire]

Also as a private op, is it even legal to pay a (CPL) jump pilot? No wonder the pay sucks, you don't own a skydiving op do you?:ugh:


Umm, No.

I was under the impression that to be paid as a pilot (hire or reward) it had to be a commercial op, as you cannot get 'rewarded' for doing a private flight. So are all these pilots paid as aircraft cleaners/loaders whatever, to be within the law?

[ResumeOwnNav]

I was under the impression that to be paid as a pilot (hire or reward) it had to be a commercial op, as you cannot get 'rewarded' for doing a private flight. So are all these pilots paid as aircraft cleaners/loaders whatever, to be within the law?

No. Wrong way around. To be paid as a pilot you have to have a commercial licence. Many many pilots are employed as commercial pilots and operate privately.

Nav.

[tail wheel]

I don't understand why threads of this nature repetitiously occur in Dunnunda Forum every few weeks. :confused:

Whinging here will get you nothing!

CASA has no interest or control in respect to pilot wages!

Over the years there has been significant advice given in previous threads. Use the SEARCH function!

Two choices:

AFAP (http://www.afap.org.au/html/s01_home/home.asp)

Fair Work Australia (http://www.fwa.gov.au/)

In most States the Award regulatory function has been delegated to the State Department responsible for (or previously responsible for) industrial relations.

Debate over relevent Award is unnecessary - there is a National Minimum Wage if you are not covered by an Award.

A word of advice; if you believe you are not being paid correctly, maintain a daily diary including work start and finish times (duty time), sectors flown (flight time), hours worked and wages paid, make sure it reconciles with your Pilot Log Book and take that to the Industrial Inspector.

Please, if you are not prepared to take your issue up with the appropriate authorities, don't bother to whinge here on PPRuNe as the thread will probably be closed!!!

:mad:

[notmyC150v2]

Taily,

Just a minor correction.

In most States the Award regulatory function has been delegated to the State Department responsible for (or previously responsible for) industrial relations.


Since 1 January 2010 all Industrial Relations in Australia (with the exception of WA, but who cares about them anyway) was placed in the loving care and tender mercies of the Federal Government.

The address for any complaints regarding wages and conditions is Fair Work Ombudsman (http://fwo.gov.au). These guys won't charge you a cent.

The address to find your award is Fair Work Australia (http://www.fwa.gov.au)

If you want to pay someone to fix your woes, then call me.

If you just want to complain and never intend to do anything about it, then go here Agony Aunt - Relationship Advice, Teenage Agony Aunt, Agony Aunt letters (http://www.myagonyaunt.com)

[tail wheel]

Since 1 January 2010 all Industrial Relations in Australia (with the exception of WA, but who cares about them anyway) was placed in the loving care and tender mercies of the Federal Government.

Legislative responsibility now rests with the Federal Government.

In Queensland at least, the delegation and authority to investigate is held by the Industrial and Workplace Inspectors employed by the Queensland Dept of Justice. I have no idea what occurs in other States.

[scavenger]

I was under the impression that to be paid as a pilot (hire or reward) it had to be a commercial op, as you cannot get 'rewarded' for doing a private flight.

fbd - Can you provide any sort of legislative reference for that statement?

CAR 2 (7) & (7A) list specific types of private operations that may not renumerated - like aerial spotting and aerial photography. If remuneration is received for those specific operations, they become aerial work.

However, and this is the important point, anything else in the list of private operations may be remunerated. Personal transportation of the ower of the aircraft, carriage of persons without a charge for the carriage being made and so on.

No. Wrong way around. To be paid as a pilot you have to have a commercial licence. Many many pilots are employed as commercial pilots and operate privately.


ron - again, you may be paid for certain types of private operations, see CAR 2 (7). A PPL holder may act as PIC of any private operation. Who says I, as the owner of an aircraft, cannot pay whomever i choose to fly me around in it?

The requirement to have a CPL before you could be paid for "Hire and reward" went out with the ANRs or there about.

correct:ok:

[ResumeOwnNav]

Gday Scavenger,

During a employ as a commercial pilot you will conduct private operations for the company. That is what I meant through my bad wording. Ferrying of aeroplanes, transport of company employees etc. It's a PVT op, but I am still employed as a Pilot (Holding a CPL.)

Who says I, as the owner of an aircraft, cannot pay whomever i choose to fly me around in it? Correct. If that person holds a CPL. <<< WRONG [May hold PPL re: CAR 2 (7)(d)]

Otherwise they can still fly you around, you just have to pay them under a different job description or for other services. <<< WRONG ALSO. Aircraft is considered employed in private operations therefore pilot only has to hold a PPL.



Nav.

[Josh Cox]

Correct. If that person holds a CPL

Otherwise they can still fly you around, you just have to pay them under a different job description or for other services.


Incorrect, read the post above and you'll see that is not the case, if your mind is made up and nothing anybody puts on this thread will change your mind, good luck with that, but you'll still be wrong.


206 Commercial purposes (Act, s 27 (9))
(1)For the purposes of subsection 27 (9) of the Act, the following commercial purposes are prescribed:

(a) aerial work purposes, being purposes of the following kinds (except when carried out by means of a UAV):
(i) aerial surveying;
(ii) aerial spotting;
(iii) agricultural operations;
(iv) aerial photography;
(v) advertising;
(vi) flying training, other than conversion training or training carried out under an experimental certificate issued under regulation 21.195A of CASR or under a permission to fly in force under subregulation 317 (1);
(vii) ambulance functions;
(viii) carriage, for the purposes of trade, of goods being the property of the pilot, the owner or the hirer of the aircraft (not being a carriage of goods in accordance with fixed schedules to and from fixed terminals);
(ix) any other purpose that is substantially similar to any of those specified in subparagraphs (i) to (vii) (inclusive);

(b) charter purposes, being purposes of the following kinds:
(i) the carriage of passengers or cargo for hire or reward to or from any place, other than carriage in accordance with fixed schedules to and from fixed terminals or carriage for an operation mentioned in subregulation 262AM (7) or under a permission to fly in force under subregulation 317 (1);
(ii) the carriage, in accordance with fixed schedules to and from fixed terminals, of passengers or cargo or passengers and cargo in circumstances in which the accommodation in the aircraft is not available for use by persons generally;

(c) the purpose of transporting persons generally (Josh note: read RPT), or transporting cargo for persons generally, for hire or reward in accordance with fixed schedules to and from fixed terminals over specific routes with or without intermediate stopping places between terminals.
(1A) However, the commercial purposes prescribed by subregulation (1) do not include:
(a) carrying passengers for hire or reward in accordance with subregulation 262AM (7); or
(b) carrying out an activity under paragraph 262AM (2) (g) or 262AP (2) (d).
(2)In this regulation:
aircraft endorsement has the same meaning as in regulation 5.01.
conversion training means flying training for the purpose of qualifying for the issue of an aircraft endorsement.

[scavenger]

Hello to you as well, resumeown nav,

Correct. If that person holds a CPL.

Otherwise they can still fly you around, you just have to pay them under a different job description or for other services.



No, a PPL holder can conduct some types of private operation and be paid for them. See CAR 2 (7), which only prohibits remuneration for aerial spotting and aerial photography, and CAR 2 (7A), which prohibits remuneration when costs are shared equally among persons on board.

Do you have any sort of legislative reference that supports your contention that only CPL holders may be paid for private operations? In my view this is a very common misconception.

But hey, i've been wrong before and will be again - but will need a reference to change my mind on this one. Cheers:ok:

[Josh Cox]

Scavenger, just to split hairs,

Aerial photo and spotting is airwork, a PPL holder can not do it because it is airwork (aerialwork/AWK).

So a PPL holder can do anything (assuming endorsement/current etc etc)that is not deemed a commercial operation (AWK, CHTR and RPT), i.e. Private operation/PVT.

As a CPL/ATPL holder, you can conduct, Private, Airwork, Charter and RPT (assuming endorsed. current etc etc).

[ResumeOwnNav]

Gday Josh & scavenger,

Sorry guys I originally commented on the comment you cannot get 'rewarded' for doing a private flight. which I didn't agree with... which pulled me into this current conversation which has found me now over my head.

I'm happy to admit that I was wrong and was caught out with a PPL holder can conduct some types of private operation and be paid for them. It was a fair time ago I referenced PPL limitations. I will be looking that and the others up tomorrow at work as my Regs have just lately been boxed by the removalists. My computer is not co operating with the electronic version either. I'm always happy to learn something new.

I'm not that stubborn Josh...

[scavenger]

Not wanting to flog a dead horse but as i said, this is a very commonly misinterpreted area.

Aerial photo and spotting is airwork, a PPL holder can not do it because it is airwork (aerialwork/AWK).



This is incorrect, provided the pilot is not remunerated. If remuneration is received, it becomes aerial work and as you say, a PPL holder could not act as PIC.

The main point i was trying to make is that aerial spotting and aerial photography are types of private operation which may not be remunerated. There are other private operations, however, which may be remunerated.

Here is the text of CAR 2(7)(d):

(d) an aircraft that is flying or operating for the purpose of, or in the course of:

(i) the personal transportation of the owner of the aircraft;

(ii) aerial spotting where no remuneration is received by the pilot or the owner of the aircraft or by any person or organisation on whose behalf the spotting is conducted;

(iii) agricultural operations on land owned and occupied by the owner of the aircraft;

(iv) aerial photography where no remuneration is received by the pilot or the owner of the aircraft or by any person or organisation on whose behalf the photography is conducted;

(v) the carriage of persons or the carriage of goods without a charge for the carriage being made other than the carriage, for the purposes of trade, of goods being the property of the pilot, the owner or the hirer of the aircraft;

(va) the carriage of persons in accordance with subregulation (7A);

(vi) the carriage of goods otherwise than for the purposes of trade;

(vii) conversion training for the purpose of endorsement of an additional type or category of aircraft in a pilot licence; or

(viii) any other activity of a kind substantially similar to any of those specified in subparagraphs (i) to (vi) (inclusive);

shall be taken to be employed in private operations.



You will notice that subparagraphs (ii) and (iv), which refer to aerial spotting and aerial photography, expressly prohibit remuneration; however the other subparagraphs do not (except for 7A, which deals with cost sharing flights).

So, and i am happy to be proven wrong by provision of a superceding reference, aerial photography and aerial spotting can be private if no remuneration is received.

Maybe i have sadly misinterpreted all this, not uncommon for me, if so i will hang my head...

I have even heard it said that any private peration must not have more than 6 POB, this is utter rubbish as well. Cheers

[Josh Cox]

Resume,

Its about sharing knowledge, not measuring Johnsons, glad I could add to the conversation.

Scavenger,

I have even heard it said that any private operation must not have more than 6 POB, this is utter rubbish as well.

Like most things, this has been discussed on the prune, see post 3:

http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-general-aviation-questions/389612-6-pob-restriction-ppl-private-ops.html

[bushy]

I think you can fly a Cessna Citation with a private licence. Maybe a Boeing, as long as you don't get paid. (Boeing pilots are usually too smart to work for nothing.)
The idea that GA is only a place for trainee airline pilots is incorect. Many of the flying schools and ICUS sellers have promoted that idea. GA provides essential air services to about 80% of our country where there is very little infrastructure, and many pilots do this as a long term career. A flood of newly qualified CPL holders who only intend to stay a short time and are prepared "do the hard yards" for a short time, for low weages is damaging to the industry and the CPL holders. And the rewards may not be there, except for the flying schools and ICUS sellers.

[Horatio Leafblower]

It's not about the size of the aircraft or the amount you get paid.

A private licence allows you to be PIC in private ops. A Commercial Licence allows you to be PIC on Commercial Ops (except big commercial ops, which require an ATPL).

Is it that fckn hard to understand? :ugh:

What about the bloke who owns a Gazelle - trailers it around the country and gets local Aero Club guys to fly it while he takes photos, which he subsequently sells. :ugh:

[Torres]

This is incorrect, provided the pilot is not remunerated. If remuneration is received, it becomes aerial work and as you say, a PPL holder could not act as PIC.

Maybe a Boeing, as long as you don't get paid.

I disagree with the line of reasoning.


CASA have no jurisdiction in respect to pilot wages.

I am not aware of any reference in the Act or CARs to pilot wages.

The reference to "hire and reward" in CAR 206 (and other legislation) refers to the aircraft, not the pilot's remuneration.

I can not see why a private pilot can not be paid to fly an aircraft in a private operation. (e.g. PPL holder paid to fly an aircraft owner's family on vacation etc.)

Many corporate, Government and Police flying operations are conducted in the private category. Is the RAAF BBJ's civil registered as were the Falcon 900's? The pilot may hold an ATPL, but whilst operating a corporate aircraft in private operations, he is exercising the privileges of his private license.

I have not read the Pilot's Award for some time, but I doubt it excludes a private pilot from it's jurisdiction.

[Josh Cox]

Found a link to this on another pilot website, very funny:

Young Idiots (http://www.unionpilot.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=68&Itemid=59)

[superdimona]

Hrm. I'd rather sit next to the enthusiastic but naive kid then the grumpy old abusive prick anyday.

"I do not believe that I am better then any other pilot" - does anyone really think that? And I'd love to see what would happen if the pilot in a para-dropping operation actually played the award card.

Actually that whole comic probably harms the concept of unions more then it helps.