Why didn't they take the opportunity to use the creating of a modern award to get rid of ambiguity - take for example:
26.
Breaks
26.1
No pilot will be required to be on duty for a period in excess of five hours without a 30 minute break free of duty for a meal.
26.2
The provision of clause 26.1 will not apply where the pilot is reimbursed in full the reasonable cost of a meal or in the alternative is provided with a meal of an acceptable standard.
So when pilot is in the boondocks on a long charter or mail run - they are supposed to walk in to a community or town - buy/wait for a meal, get the reciept, return it to their accounts department then request to be reimbursed that cost?
I know it says be provided a meal 'OR' be reimbursed - however:
- If you walk in to town to get your meal - you've had half an hour off therefore it is not applicable (unscrupulous operators will continue to prey on this)
- If there are no shops available to buy a meal, or the walk is too long (unscrupulous operators will continue to prey on this - and say well you could have walked in to town and we would have reimbursed you which is why we didn't provide a meal)
There have been many complaints about this allowance's ambiguity (among others).
Wouldn't it have been simple enough to add "26.3" and "26.4".....?
26.3
Where 26.1 and 26.2 are not practical (or the operations department can't be bothered ordering a lunch for the pilot) - the pilot shall be paid $15.00 (or what ever amount) to pack their own lunch and eat in enroute (if their autopilot is working).
26.4
Where 26.1 and 26.2 don't apply and the pilot does not have a serviceable autopilot - the pilot shall be rewarded $25.00 for having to go without tucker for an excessive period.
Yes 26.4 is taking the piss.
Some will say - pack your own lunch.
I say - go and further degrade the working conditions in a third world country.
Last edited by MagicalLeoplurodon; 7th Sep 2009 at 16:11.