ALL NAC pilots threatened with sack!
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Papua New Guinea
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gotmygearup
I understand that both Hardy's and Ngukkurr's are compliant with the award... as G.A Boy said, there is more to the award than just the pay rate. A full day at work for a casual should attract a minimum of four hours pay.
Hardy's and Ngukkurr do this (as required by law), while the other operators can afford to undercut. How wrong is this?!?
The law may be enforcable now, but who is enforcing it?
"...a minimum of four hours pay."
Nope, you haven't read the Award and don't know what you are talking about, either.
Will some of you please READ the Award before putting mouth into gear!
Woomera
I understand that both Hardy's and Ngukkurr's are compliant with the award... as G.A Boy said, there is more to the award than just the pay rate. A full day at work for a casual should attract a minimum of four hours pay.
Hardy's and Ngukkurr do this (as required by law), while the other operators can afford to undercut. How wrong is this?!?
The law may be enforcable now, but who is enforcing it?
"...a minimum of four hours pay."
Nope, you haven't read the Award and don't know what you are talking about, either.
Will some of you please READ the Award before putting mouth into gear!
Woomera
Last edited by Woomera; 22nd Jul 2004 at 05:27.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: S33 56.8 E151 10.6
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fact!
Im still waiting on my super payment from a Darwin company who are supposedly "compliant with the award".
The ATO is already processing cases like mine from this company!
So dont be so quick to think that NAC are the only ones that may or may not be on the level.
LNO
Im still waiting on my super payment from a Darwin company who are supposedly "compliant with the award".
The ATO is already processing cases like mine from this company!
So dont be so quick to think that NAC are the only ones that may or may not be on the level.
LNO
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: australia
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just read the NT News online version. There is a small article on there about the NAC Family Fun-day which is on tomorrow. We have HA quoted as saying " all our company pilots are volunteering their time" in the name of charity.
I would say that NAC company pilots are volunteering their time every other day of the year as well. The sad thing here is that this guy is advertising himself as some sort of caring community citizen and all round nice guy while the truth is something very different.
Regardless of anything else. We all know that he would be monitoring this thread constantly, reading and taking note of it's development. We all know that HA spends hours a day in the D&G section of pprune and is often voices his opinion about the aussie GA scene and yet, this thread is digging among the very bowels (appropriate turn of phrase I thought) of his company and we have heard nothing from him. Not a single word. That suggests a degree of guilt to me anyway.
Have a nice day of "volunteering" tomorrow guys and the day after that......and after that.........and after that!
I would say that NAC company pilots are volunteering their time every other day of the year as well. The sad thing here is that this guy is advertising himself as some sort of caring community citizen and all round nice guy while the truth is something very different.
Regardless of anything else. We all know that he would be monitoring this thread constantly, reading and taking note of it's development. We all know that HA spends hours a day in the D&G section of pprune and is often voices his opinion about the aussie GA scene and yet, this thread is digging among the very bowels (appropriate turn of phrase I thought) of his company and we have heard nothing from him. Not a single word. That suggests a degree of guilt to me anyway.
Have a nice day of "volunteering" tomorrow guys and the day after that......and after that.........and after that!
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I understand that both Hardy's and Ngukkurr's are compliant with the award... as G.A Boy said, there is more to the award than just the pay rate. A full day at work for a casual should attract a minimum of four hours pay.
So your saying that the above companies pay a phone allowance, Loss of licence insur., all meal allowance.
I dont think so.
And those pilots employed as either part time or casual should read Award - Para 13.2 Casual Employment then try to convince me all operators are complying with the award!
And how would those operators with a CASA approved variation to CAO 48, comply with Award - Para 15.1 Flying hours?
And do you all enjoy your company provided meal, transport to and from work, engineering, night operations, uniform and telephone allowances and loss of license insurance?
Yup, I'm sure you all do!
Woomera
So your saying that the above companies pay a phone allowance, Loss of licence insur., all meal allowance.
I dont think so.
And those pilots employed as either part time or casual should read Award - Para 13.2 Casual Employment then try to convince me all operators are complying with the award!
And how would those operators with a CASA approved variation to CAO 48, comply with Award - Para 15.1 Flying hours?
And do you all enjoy your company provided meal, transport to and from work, engineering, night operations, uniform and telephone allowances and loss of license insurance?
Yup, I'm sure you all do!
Woomera
Last edited by Woomera; 22nd Jul 2004 at 05:28.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Dad's Bag
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This thread is a sad indication of the state of the Australian GA industry. IF the events as they have been mentioned ARE true then I honestly feel for the pilots involved, they are not in an enviable position. I am sure I am not alone but I have been fired for standing up to a former employer over conditions and was fired two weeks later for something that I did not do. Subsequently I took the company to the IRC and ended up settling out of "court". All I can say regarding this is how I wish I had been an AFAP member. To those involved, do yourself a favour and join the AFAP. If this scenario gets really nasty your union fees will be a fraction of what a lawyer would cost. Do not mention anything about joining the union to your boss, just do it and THEN if he continues playing unfairly you have the best backing possible.
I personally cannot think of any other industry where the workers are so regularly underpaid as GA. The problem lies as most realise in that there are pilots who will happily accept less, or even worse, nothing for hours. I can quite easily empathise with those who are desperate for experience, working for less than you are entitled to however is not the answer. It does nothing for yourself or the people who come after you.
It is also a travesty that there is no government agency that is prepared to proactively ensure and then protect workers entitlements. Equally shameful is how pilots lose their memories and slip on a pair of rose coloured glasses as soon as they enter a major airline instead of trying to help make a change.
"...there is no government agency that is prepared to proactively ensure and then protect workers entitlements"
Where on earth did you get that idea from????
Children, please pay attention!
The Dept Employment & Workplace Relations and Office of the Employment Advocate are obliged to protect employee rights - on confidential contact.
But they are not mind readers!
Woomera
I personally cannot think of any other industry where the workers are so regularly underpaid as GA. The problem lies as most realise in that there are pilots who will happily accept less, or even worse, nothing for hours. I can quite easily empathise with those who are desperate for experience, working for less than you are entitled to however is not the answer. It does nothing for yourself or the people who come after you.
It is also a travesty that there is no government agency that is prepared to proactively ensure and then protect workers entitlements. Equally shameful is how pilots lose their memories and slip on a pair of rose coloured glasses as soon as they enter a major airline instead of trying to help make a change.
"...there is no government agency that is prepared to proactively ensure and then protect workers entitlements"
Where on earth did you get that idea from????
Children, please pay attention!
The Dept Employment & Workplace Relations and Office of the Employment Advocate are obliged to protect employee rights - on confidential contact.
But they are not mind readers!
Woomera
Last edited by Woomera; 22nd Jul 2004 at 09:31.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: 15DME
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Paying the Award Wage and Compliance with Award Terms and Conditions are two very different things.
So who can say thet they in GA that they get the latter as per Woomeras Post? Not many I would imagine.
I have worked in a number of industries and I can safely say that GA is a disgrace in the area of employment T &C's.
GA Pilots..............P$ssweak.
So who can say thet they in GA that they get the latter as per Woomeras Post? Not many I would imagine.
I have worked in a number of industries and I can safely say that GA is a disgrace in the area of employment T &C's.
GA Pilots..............P$ssweak.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
to all you NAC pilots. Don't sign the agreement that you have at the moment. It's a sham. I've seen it. It's no different to the agreement that was drummed up a couple of years ago. You won't benifit anymore from what you have now. Just HA's way of stalling of what you are entitled to. Remember it's one big game for him and you are his pawns.
GinJockey check PM.
GinJockey check PM.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 725
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This thread reflects as badly on the pilots that work at NAC, as it does on HA.
What sort of future aviation professionals do we have here? The pilots have the full backing of a federal industrial award. Their employer doesn't like it. Their employer asks them to sign their rights away. They don't want to. Employer says he will sack the lot!
Who said NO! at that meeting?
So we have a mudslinging competition on Pprune instead.
Ladies, HA has brought a knife to a gunfight. You pilots have cast-iron protection.
Yet you are afraid! Afraid for your careers! Until some of you lads and lasses get some bottle, methinks we are better off with the grasscutting kiwis you threaten us with!
What is wrong with the NO word?
Bust minima? NO
Fly overloaded? NO
Bust duty limits? NO
Knife your mate in the back?NO
Sign my legal rights away? NO!
Get used to saying NO. Its what grownups are required to say every now and then.
"Their employer asks them to sign their rights away."
We are either talking:
A registered AWA, in which case acceptance and signing is discretionary for existing employees but mandatory for new employees; or
An "agreement" which has no merit or status at law.
If the latter, it doesn't matter whether the employees sign or not - in Australia one has no power to "sign away one's rights".
I'm still not seeing any posts or emails from the subject operator's staff, thus assume they are satisfied with whatever arrangements are being made - if alternate employment arrangements are being made.
Woomera
What sort of future aviation professionals do we have here? The pilots have the full backing of a federal industrial award. Their employer doesn't like it. Their employer asks them to sign their rights away. They don't want to. Employer says he will sack the lot!
Who said NO! at that meeting?
So we have a mudslinging competition on Pprune instead.
Ladies, HA has brought a knife to a gunfight. You pilots have cast-iron protection.
Yet you are afraid! Afraid for your careers! Until some of you lads and lasses get some bottle, methinks we are better off with the grasscutting kiwis you threaten us with!
What is wrong with the NO word?
Bust minima? NO
Fly overloaded? NO
Bust duty limits? NO
Knife your mate in the back?NO
Sign my legal rights away? NO!
Get used to saying NO. Its what grownups are required to say every now and then.
"Their employer asks them to sign their rights away."
We are either talking:
A registered AWA, in which case acceptance and signing is discretionary for existing employees but mandatory for new employees; or
An "agreement" which has no merit or status at law.
If the latter, it doesn't matter whether the employees sign or not - in Australia one has no power to "sign away one's rights".
I'm still not seeing any posts or emails from the subject operator's staff, thus assume they are satisfied with whatever arrangements are being made - if alternate employment arrangements are being made.
Woomera
Last edited by Woomera; 22nd Jul 2004 at 23:45.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Papua New Guinea
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
13.2.4(b) A tour of duty or stand by away from the airport exceeding four hours, a minimum of four hours pay.
...to me that sounds like "a minimum of four hours pay" for a full day at work. How do you read It?
Stars Jewel
You may be right, all operators might not pay all those allowances, but we're talking about the difference between logs and splinters here. If they pay the correct rate and the correct minimums, then that is a damn good start. No excuse for not paying uniforms, phone, etc but they've got the lions share covered.
That depends:
13.2.4(a) for a tour of duty or stand by away from the airport up to four hours, a minimum of two hours pay; and
The Award, like most Federal & State Awards, is far too complex for the average GA employer or employee to comprehend and comply with. Indeed, employees and employers would be far better served if many of the complex provisions and allowances were replaced with an equivalent monetary benefit.
My two cents worth - it seems irrelevant the AFAP and the IRC would not agree with my opinion, when virtually no GA operator in Australia is complying 100% with all Award provisions.
Woomera
Last edited by Woomera; 22nd Jul 2004 at 23:51.
The AFAP are well aware about NAC not complying with the award ever since it was mandatory on the 24th March, 2004, and have done nothing, even though they have many union members on staff. Their pilots have been contacting the AFAP on a regular basis and so far to no avail.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Dad's Bag
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Woomera
W,
If you reread the statement of mine which you quoted the key word is "proactively". To spell it out I mean an agency that does not require any whistleblowing but instead ensures companies have suitable legal contracts in place for their employees. As I posted regarding myself this would save unscrupulous employers from intimidating and legally abusing employees and their rights. After all we do live in a 1st world civilised country don't we, not 19th century America?
Blown Seal.
I noted your use of the word "proactively" and appreciate the point you were trying to make, however in reality, it would be impossible for the limited number of State and Federal Industrial Relations authorities to audit all employers on a regular basis - akin to having a policeman on every street corner to catch you everytime you exceed the speed limit!
In the state in which I live, the State Industrial Relations inspectors carry out random checks of employers, in a relatively random manner - i.e. by employer type, by area or region or simply in a random manner. I am aware in a recent audit of the hotel industry for example, seven hotels (out of eight audited) were found to be not in compliance with relative Award conditions, mostly in regard to hourly pay rates and over time penalty rates.
There is a little known legal "loop hole" to avoid compliance with the Pilots (General Aviation) Award upon which I am not prepared to elaborate. I doubt many AOC holders would have discovered that "loop hole", however some may be using that avenue to avoid the more onerous aspects of the Award. I sincerely hope no AOC holder would be using that "loop hole" to deny pilots their fair and just remuneration.
Woomera
If you reread the statement of mine which you quoted the key word is "proactively". To spell it out I mean an agency that does not require any whistleblowing but instead ensures companies have suitable legal contracts in place for their employees. As I posted regarding myself this would save unscrupulous employers from intimidating and legally abusing employees and their rights. After all we do live in a 1st world civilised country don't we, not 19th century America?
Blown Seal.
I noted your use of the word "proactively" and appreciate the point you were trying to make, however in reality, it would be impossible for the limited number of State and Federal Industrial Relations authorities to audit all employers on a regular basis - akin to having a policeman on every street corner to catch you everytime you exceed the speed limit!
In the state in which I live, the State Industrial Relations inspectors carry out random checks of employers, in a relatively random manner - i.e. by employer type, by area or region or simply in a random manner. I am aware in a recent audit of the hotel industry for example, seven hotels (out of eight audited) were found to be not in compliance with relative Award conditions, mostly in regard to hourly pay rates and over time penalty rates.
There is a little known legal "loop hole" to avoid compliance with the Pilots (General Aviation) Award upon which I am not prepared to elaborate. I doubt many AOC holders would have discovered that "loop hole", however some may be using that avenue to avoid the more onerous aspects of the Award. I sincerely hope no AOC holder would be using that "loop hole" to deny pilots their fair and just remuneration.
Woomera
Last edited by Woomera; 23rd Jul 2004 at 08:10.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 725
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
G A Boy,
It should be clear to anyone that has read any of the forums in Dunnunda and Godzone on industrial issues in the last four years, that the AFAP CANNOT make a move until a member makes a complaint
I will say it again, the Pilots Award we are talking about is a Federal Award.
For almost a hundred years now, the way a Federal Award works is -- NOTHING HAPPENS UNTIL PARTIES ARE IN DISPUTE.
You cannot ask a policeman to arrest someone until they have committed an offense. You cannot buy a house until the owner is prepared to sell it. The 'third umpire' can have all the run-out and stumped opinions he wants but it doesn't count for anything unless the on field umpire asks for his opinion.
Similarly, it is no use sitting back and thinking the AFAP is doing nothing. They are hamstrung by the fact that they cannot act until a member is officially in dispute with his/her employer and has asked them to act.
GA Boy, get your mates to come out from behind their mothers' skirts and make a complaint, if they have grounds.
Woomera,
I appreciate your addition in regards to what contractual devices are officially recognised, but that has never stopped two-bit aviation (and other industry) employers attempting to muddy the waters by introducing 'contractor' type relationships in what are by definition employer-employee relationships. The fact that a proposed 'contract' is illegal at common law let alone current australian IR law has never stopped some employers trying to get employees to sign them. They rely on the fact that most employees are too naive to even think that they might be tested in court. For an employee to think that 'it doesn't matter if i sign this coz it is an illegal contract' does not result in a back to the beginning scenario if such a dud contract be tested in court -- the fact that the contract was signed could be used as an argument by the employer that, illegal though it was, it might indicate that the employee as an informed adult was willing to enter into a contract that varied his/her rights under the award.
Much better to not sign anything that you do not like or that you do not understand.
So with all respect for your intent to clarify, unless Woomera's major in industrial relations is more current than my 1985-87 course, I say that the following advice still stands....
Your signature is a powerful thing. If you want award protection, don't sign anything else.
Don't sign away your rights.
It should be clear to anyone that has read any of the forums in Dunnunda and Godzone on industrial issues in the last four years, that the AFAP CANNOT make a move until a member makes a complaint
I will say it again, the Pilots Award we are talking about is a Federal Award.
For almost a hundred years now, the way a Federal Award works is -- NOTHING HAPPENS UNTIL PARTIES ARE IN DISPUTE.
You cannot ask a policeman to arrest someone until they have committed an offense. You cannot buy a house until the owner is prepared to sell it. The 'third umpire' can have all the run-out and stumped opinions he wants but it doesn't count for anything unless the on field umpire asks for his opinion.
Similarly, it is no use sitting back and thinking the AFAP is doing nothing. They are hamstrung by the fact that they cannot act until a member is officially in dispute with his/her employer and has asked them to act.
GA Boy, get your mates to come out from behind their mothers' skirts and make a complaint, if they have grounds.
Woomera,
I appreciate your addition in regards to what contractual devices are officially recognised, but that has never stopped two-bit aviation (and other industry) employers attempting to muddy the waters by introducing 'contractor' type relationships in what are by definition employer-employee relationships. The fact that a proposed 'contract' is illegal at common law let alone current australian IR law has never stopped some employers trying to get employees to sign them. They rely on the fact that most employees are too naive to even think that they might be tested in court. For an employee to think that 'it doesn't matter if i sign this coz it is an illegal contract' does not result in a back to the beginning scenario if such a dud contract be tested in court -- the fact that the contract was signed could be used as an argument by the employer that, illegal though it was, it might indicate that the employee as an informed adult was willing to enter into a contract that varied his/her rights under the award.
Much better to not sign anything that you do not like or that you do not understand.
So with all respect for your intent to clarify, unless Woomera's major in industrial relations is more current than my 1985-87 course, I say that the following advice still stands....
Your signature is a powerful thing. If you want award protection, don't sign anything else.
Don't sign away your rights.
ITCZ. As I said the AFAP are well aware of NAC. And its members are speaking regulary to AFAP from NAC. But, they are afraid to come out from their mothers skirts due to HA. They have been approached, and even been offered a job at the opposition, but to no avail My main concern is that Darwin is not an even playing field, we can't compete with NAC on quotes with pilots' wages being the only difference, and are losing out, and some of you will think that that's a good thing. However, there's another company in DN that is in the same boat as NAC, but hasn't been mentioned, as they are small fry really.
Anyway, NAC had a great family fun day. This thread has stirred the pot.
Hopefully things will change at NAC soon.
Had about 10 beers when I typed this, hope its OK!
Anyway, NAC had a great family fun day. This thread has stirred the pot.
Hopefully things will change at NAC soon.
Had about 10 beers when I typed this, hope its OK!
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: I wish I knew
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(Poking a toe in the bloodied water and can see the fins around, but...)
Is the Award not a statutory right and therefore something that you can not "sign away"? Is there not the ability to take an employer to court on leaving/after you've left their employ, if they have failed to comply with the said Award, regardless of what you've signed?
Cheers,
LP
LP
You are correct, however ITCZ may also be correct under certain circumstances. Certain mediation forums, in particular the IRC and AAT, have become rather subjective with the Commissioner having (or taking) discretionary powers. As a result, the IRC may well give some credance to a signed agreement.
Woomera
Is the Award not a statutory right and therefore something that you can not "sign away"? Is there not the ability to take an employer to court on leaving/after you've left their employ, if they have failed to comply with the said Award, regardless of what you've signed?
Cheers,
LP
LP
You are correct, however ITCZ may also be correct under certain circumstances. Certain mediation forums, in particular the IRC and AAT, have become rather subjective with the Commissioner having (or taking) discretionary powers. As a result, the IRC may well give some credance to a signed agreement.
Woomera
Last edited by Woomera; 23rd Jul 2004 at 23:26.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: www.e-jets.org
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One cant just become a contractor for a business because the business no longer wants to pay what is required under an award.
The ATO defines a the difference between whether staff are Employees, or contractors.
http://www.ato.gov.au/businesses/con...tent/35887.htm
May sound easy for an employer to simply say that all his staff are sub-contractors, however there are still obligations
THis document may be helpfull to those pilots, if these rumours are reality.
Being a contractor can open up the pilots to litigation if they become involved in an incident.
Quote "Just because a worker quotes an ABN doesn’t mean that they’re a contract worker. Whether a worker is an employee or contractor depends on all the facts and circumstances of how you engage them"
The ATO defines a the difference between whether staff are Employees, or contractors.
http://www.ato.gov.au/businesses/con...tent/35887.htm
May sound easy for an employer to simply say that all his staff are sub-contractors, however there are still obligations
THis document may be helpfull to those pilots, if these rumours are reality.
Being a contractor can open up the pilots to litigation if they become involved in an incident.
Quote "Just because a worker quotes an ABN doesn’t mean that they’re a contract worker. Whether a worker is an employee or contractor depends on all the facts and circumstances of how you engage them"
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stars Jewel
You may be right, all operators might not pay all those allowances, but we're talking about the difference between logs and splinters here. If they pay the correct rate and the correct minimums, then that is a damn good start. No excuse for not paying uniforms, phone, etc but they've got the lions share covered.
...Still single You ar right about me being right.
Yes we are Talking about GETTING the AWARD. Not some of the AWARD. Why wouldn't we want the AWARD. Not bits of the AWARD the WHOLE lot.
Have you sighned an agrreement so you dont get the whole award?? Are you Happy not getting the whole AWARD?
A Damn good start is still Not the AWARD. Fight for it. Make the Companies that say they are paying the award pay the whole damn lot.
Not just the things that suit them.
As far as I'm concerned the companies that SAY theu are paying the AWARD but are not paying the lot are just as bad as HA.
Here is the bit out of the AWARD that works against us......
8. ENTERPRISE FLEXIBILITY PROVISIONS
(See ss.113A and 113B of the Act)
Where an employer or pilots wish to pursue an agreement at the enterprise or workplace about how the award should be varied so as to make the enterprise or workplace operate more efficiently according to its particular needs the following process will apply:
8.1 A consultative mechanism and procedures appropriate to the size, structure and needs of the enterprise or workplace will be established.
8.2 For the purpose of the consultative process the pilots may nominate the Federation or another to represent them.
8.3 Where agreement is reached an application will be made to the Commission.
This is the bit that makes the Award less powerful. Only if we are week.
...Still single You ar right about me being right.
Yes we are Talking about GETTING the AWARD. Not some of the AWARD. Why wouldn't we want the AWARD. Not bits of the AWARD the WHOLE lot.
Have you sighned an agrreement so you dont get the whole award?? Are you Happy not getting the whole AWARD?
A Damn good start is still Not the AWARD. Fight for it. Make the Companies that say they are paying the award pay the whole damn lot.
Not just the things that suit them.
As far as I'm concerned the companies that SAY theu are paying the AWARD but are not paying the lot are just as bad as HA.
Here is the bit out of the AWARD that works against us......
8. ENTERPRISE FLEXIBILITY PROVISIONS
(See ss.113A and 113B of the Act)
Where an employer or pilots wish to pursue an agreement at the enterprise or workplace about how the award should be varied so as to make the enterprise or workplace operate more efficiently according to its particular needs the following process will apply:
8.1 A consultative mechanism and procedures appropriate to the size, structure and needs of the enterprise or workplace will be established.
8.2 For the purpose of the consultative process the pilots may nominate the Federation or another to represent them.
8.3 Where agreement is reached an application will be made to the Commission.
This is the bit that makes the Award less powerful. Only if we are week.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Space
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The bottom line is simple. There will always be pilots that are prepared to fly for less than the award. Some will even fly for free! Some will even PAY to fly!
If the current pilots stand up, they may be tarnished forever. If they remain compliant, they can build their hours and move onto bigger and better things.
Do the math
G'day,
DA
If the current pilots stand up, they may be tarnished forever. If they remain compliant, they can build their hours and move onto bigger and better things.
Do the math
G'day,
DA
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 725
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dizzy,
You could not be more wrong. You should be bloody ashamed of yourself for pumping up that hoary old chestnut "be a good little boy and play my game or you will never work in this industry again...."
Because it is just not true.
Sure, the industry works on reputation. We have heard a thousand times how it is not what you know, but who you know.
Most of the times that you use a 'contact' or a mate to give you the good oil on how to get a job, or to recommend you to the boss, you are talking pilot-to-pilot.
Your worth as an individual will be judged by your peers. The employer will mainly be concerned whether you meet minimum requirements.
EVERY aviation job I have had from C210 to jet, I was interviewed by pilots, recommended by pilots, assessed by pilots. The decision had to be run past the accountants and managers, but that was after another pilot decided that I was worth a go.
Some of the pilots that are recognised by most of their peers as "a solid guy" have at times been at absolute loggerheads with their employers. These 'first call' guys are highly regarded for their technical skill and knowledge, their high personal standards, and their refusal to be pushed around by mercurial management whims.
I'd say that you are on the completely wrong track, Dizzy. A pilot that wants a good reputation has to know when it is time to say No. A small setback today could be repaid many times over by those that remembered the time you showed a little character.
You could not be more wrong. You should be bloody ashamed of yourself for pumping up that hoary old chestnut "be a good little boy and play my game or you will never work in this industry again...."
Because it is just not true.
Sure, the industry works on reputation. We have heard a thousand times how it is not what you know, but who you know.
Most of the times that you use a 'contact' or a mate to give you the good oil on how to get a job, or to recommend you to the boss, you are talking pilot-to-pilot.
Your worth as an individual will be judged by your peers. The employer will mainly be concerned whether you meet minimum requirements.
EVERY aviation job I have had from C210 to jet, I was interviewed by pilots, recommended by pilots, assessed by pilots. The decision had to be run past the accountants and managers, but that was after another pilot decided that I was worth a go.
Some of the pilots that are recognised by most of their peers as "a solid guy" have at times been at absolute loggerheads with their employers. These 'first call' guys are highly regarded for their technical skill and knowledge, their high personal standards, and their refusal to be pushed around by mercurial management whims.
I'd say that you are on the completely wrong track, Dizzy. A pilot that wants a good reputation has to know when it is time to say No. A small setback today could be repaid many times over by those that remembered the time you showed a little character.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Dad's Bag
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ITCZ,
Spot on.
Dizzy,
it is because of complacent defeatist attitudes like yours that employers do and will continue to get away with abusing pilots. Grow a spine and stand up and be counted.
Spot on.
Dizzy,
it is because of complacent defeatist attitudes like yours that employers do and will continue to get away with abusing pilots. Grow a spine and stand up and be counted.