Compressor Stall, my (limited) understanding of quality assurance and ISO 9000 (ISO = International Standards Organisation) is that certification is based on compliance with a standardised set of practices.
These standards are derived from consultation between the end users (customers) and the suppliers of the goods or services. ISO 9000 covers practices not products. This means that ISO is directly concerned with how a company does what it does, and not directly involved in its' product (although there are going to be indirect repercussions on the product offered).
ISO standards are very well recognised, and, in my experience, well monitored. But they are only as good as the consultation between the user and the supplier allows.
If consultation between aviation companies and customers led to a requirement that pilots be paid the award rate, then compliance with the quality assurance standard would require pilots to be paid at, or above that rate. Things such as morale of the pilots, fatigue, overall safety levels, ongoing training, and minimum rest periods might be taken into consideration when influencing a consideration of payrates.
Other requirements might be timely maintenance of aircraft and systems, possibly above and beyond CASA minimum standards, consistent measuring of the companies' adherance to the standards, and general consistancy of services.
To the best of my knowledge, there are no GA companies on the ISO 9000 register. Nor is there any standard tabled for GA. Qantas have ISO 9000 certification, and possibly some ag companies (cropdusters etc.) may be certified to ISO 14000 standard (which covers environmentally sensitive industries).
The customers who would most likely use ISO certified companies, would be the government agencies, and larger corporations (FIFO for example).
There would be little in it for the average punter to choose an ISO company over a cheaper non-ISO company.
This fact, combined with a cost of around $20,000 to be certified would make it difficult to justify economically, especially now.
ISO isn't the only Standards certification available, though.
With flying schools becoming Registered Training Organisations (RTO's), they are tying in with the Australian Qualifications Framework.
This means that a PPL trained by an RTO holds a Cetificate III, and a CPL a Certificate IV. (Correct me if I'm wrong...)
Loosely, what this means is that these flying schools/RTO's have followed a stringent set of guidelines in the application of their training methodology, so that PPL's and CPL's have been trained in a uniform way, and that their skillsets are comparable across the country.
When I say"loosely", I mean that RTO's are generally not very well monitored for compliance (and this is not only the aviation industry - it costs money for the Govt. to keep on the backs of RTO's, TAFE's, Tech schools, and Flying schools alike).
I couldn't tell you if the standards now, are any better or worse than any previous standards - I'll leave that to other posts.
So what does this mean for the payrates of pilots? Not much aparently, but it SHOULD mean something.
If pilots are being trained to a uniform standard, shouldn't that be reflected in a standardisation of payrates? Or at the very least, an ombudsman for pilots to refer to in the case of a pay dispute?
IMHO since the effective scrapping of the award system when the Govt. introduced enterprise bargaining, and the workplace agreement, it has all gone to sh!t, with little recourse to arbitration. A bully mentality has been promoted, where a worker, professional or otherwise, across most industries, can be treated like scum, and told "if you don't like it, there are a thousand others who will take your place".
And the sad part is that an employer who does the right thing, is effectively putting themselves out of the race.
I'll put the problem another way; While there are an overabundance of pilots, and limited work, many pilots are understandably tempted to work for reduced, or nonexistant levels of pay.
While there are an overabundance of Flying Companies, and schools, and limited work, many companies are understandably tempted to cut their profits (and overheads) to get the job.
It's a classic Catch 22.
Maybe the double-edged sword of government regulation is worth looking into.