What costs does/should your employer cover?
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Dog House
Age: 49
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The exact amount of time you agreed on or the full bond period.
* Remember the bond is only a $ value of the actual training - the actual cost is generally much higher.
So even leaving the day after a bond period is a loss to the company (the investment over 3 years, yielded the same as I paid 3 years ago!)
I worked for a scumbag GA operator and on joining, the company wanted a two year commitment which I agreed to I also agreed to reduced salary for the first three months as money was tight. At the end of the probationary period I expected to go onto normal pay but when I asked I was told that reduced pay would be for another three months. I explained that this would have to be in writing and pay would then need to be above award to make up for it.
When this was not forthcoming they received my reduced service in return. After a month of this a pay rise was given, still below award but enough to make me stay while I was applying elsewhere.
After eleven months I finally left with a huge smile on my face. I then discover that no superannuation was paid into my fund and workers comp. wasn't being paid either.
There was no money to chase as debts were piled up left right and centre. About a year later operations ceased. Centrelink were investigating the owners for fraud as well.
Unfortunately twenty years ago this wasn't that unusual and even bigger GA operators expected a freebie from new joiners.
When this was not forthcoming they received my reduced service in return. After a month of this a pay rise was given, still below award but enough to make me stay while I was applying elsewhere.
After eleven months I finally left with a huge smile on my face. I then discover that no superannuation was paid into my fund and workers comp. wasn't being paid either.
There was no money to chase as debts were piled up left right and centre. About a year later operations ceased. Centrelink were investigating the owners for fraud as well.
Unfortunately twenty years ago this wasn't that unusual and even bigger GA operators expected a freebie from new joiners.
You're exactly right Horatio, as was discussed in the other Thread it's undoubtedly one of the biggest reasons why Employers are hesitant to give new guys a go when they need to be trained because of that uncertainty. It's exactly why I think there should be a big push to have an amendment made to the Pilots Award to allow for a Bond that is legally binding and reasonable. Of course the Pilots Award can't tell you exactly what to do but it could include some provisions in there to help both parties decide what is fair and reasonable to include in the costs. There will also be intangible costs that are difficult to allow for, perhaps such a clause would allow for a 10% "Misc" cost that can be added on to allow for this? For example after you add up the costs you know about being required you then tack on the 10% allowance.
TankEngine, that would be because Qantas Pilots operate on an EBA and obviously that wasn't apart of the EBA that is signed and used, little bit different, not to mention if they were on Award chances are they'd be paid "Above Award" which means that with the "Better Off" test that would be applied they'd still come out as earning above the minimum.
IFR Renewals can be tricky I think, it depends if you're required to actually have it or not. I know of at least one large school where they don't pay for people to have their IPCs done (Unless they're designated as an IFR Instructor), but if they get it done then they can try to utilise it with the organisation, basically they say "We don't REQUIRE you to have one....BUT if you do..." definitely sits in a grey area there, I'd be interested to see what they'd say when no one does it off their own back and suddenly they require someone to do some IF Flying, say on a charter or something.
Holding Again, I think what Horatio said really boils down to "How long is a piece of string?". I'd like to see a time when it really comes down to what you and employer would decide on a contract, I'd think something like a King Air Endorsement would take about 2-3years for the Employer to get value for their training so likely a bonding period would be for that long, if you leave before then, then you pay it back Pro rata.
Of course with a Bond there would be people whom would try to take advantage of Pilots by way over charging for it, but then they would be required to have a detailed break down of costs to show to the relevant Authorities if pulled up and asked to "Please explain!".
TankEngine, that would be because Qantas Pilots operate on an EBA and obviously that wasn't apart of the EBA that is signed and used, little bit different, not to mention if they were on Award chances are they'd be paid "Above Award" which means that with the "Better Off" test that would be applied they'd still come out as earning above the minimum.
IFR Renewals can be tricky I think, it depends if you're required to actually have it or not. I know of at least one large school where they don't pay for people to have their IPCs done (Unless they're designated as an IFR Instructor), but if they get it done then they can try to utilise it with the organisation, basically they say "We don't REQUIRE you to have one....BUT if you do..." definitely sits in a grey area there, I'd be interested to see what they'd say when no one does it off their own back and suddenly they require someone to do some IF Flying, say on a charter or something.
Holding Again, I think what Horatio said really boils down to "How long is a piece of string?". I'd like to see a time when it really comes down to what you and employer would decide on a contract, I'd think something like a King Air Endorsement would take about 2-3years for the Employer to get value for their training so likely a bonding period would be for that long, if you leave before then, then you pay it back Pro rata.
Of course with a Bond there would be people whom would try to take advantage of Pilots by way over charging for it, but then they would be required to have a detailed break down of costs to show to the relevant Authorities if pulled up and asked to "Please explain!".
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Dog House
Age: 49
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I worked for a scumbag GA operator and on joining, the company wanted a two year commitment which I agreed to I also agreed to reduced salary for the first three months as money was tight. At the end of the probationary period I expected to go onto normal pay but when I asked I was told that reduced pay would be for another three months. I explained that this would have to be in writing and pay would then need to be above award to make up for it.
When this was not forthcoming they received my reduced service in return. After a month of this a pay rise was given, still below award but enough to make me stay while I was applying elsewhere.
After eleven months I finally left with a huge smile on my face. I then discover that no superannuation was paid into my fund and workers comp. wasn't being paid either.
There was no money to chase as debts were piled up left right and centre. About a year later operations ceased. Centrelink were investigating the owners for fraud as well.
Unfortunately twenty years ago this wasn't that unusual and even bigger GA operators expected a freebie from new joiners.
When this was not forthcoming they received my reduced service in return. After a month of this a pay rise was given, still below award but enough to make me stay while I was applying elsewhere.
After eleven months I finally left with a huge smile on my face. I then discover that no superannuation was paid into my fund and workers comp. wasn't being paid either.
There was no money to chase as debts were piled up left right and centre. About a year later operations ceased. Centrelink were investigating the owners for fraud as well.
Unfortunately twenty years ago this wasn't that unusual and even bigger GA operators expected a freebie from new joiners.
Sorry you are a problem, will you break minimums just to have a job too? or go 50kg over MTW every flight?
You are honestly saying you worked knowingly below the award? and then renewed that but "wanted it in writing"
Sorry you are a problem, will you break minimums just to have a job too? or go 50kg over MTW every flight?
Sorry you are a problem, will you break minimums just to have a job too? or go 50kg over MTW every flight?
The minimum is the minimum is the minimum. The good guys pay minimum or more. Honour yourself and honour the good guys by insisting on proper pay and conditions.
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Dog House
Age: 49
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Under zero circumstances (except being owner of company) is it with in the LAW to work for below minimum conditions set.
There is no acceptable reason/s or exception I am aware that pass any court in this country - it is simply an illegal agreement to do so. Certainly not a commendable thing in my opinion.
There is no acceptable reason/s or exception I am aware that pass any court in this country - it is simply an illegal agreement to do so. Certainly not a commendable thing in my opinion.
And as I said....
The minimum is the minimum is the minimum. The good guys pay minimum or more. Honour yourself and honour the good guys by insisting on proper pay and conditions.
Since my last post I've been told a KA endorsement in a Aus sim is $20000 plus.
Most GA pilots chase the airlines so they are unlikely to stick around much past say 15/18 months.
Makes it difficult for both parties to resolve the training costs even with a company KA/C441 and 217 in place - Maybe there isn't a workable answer to this unless you pay sufficiently above the award and exercise the bond option
Most GA pilots chase the airlines so they are unlikely to stick around much past say 15/18 months.
Makes it difficult for both parties to resolve the training costs even with a company KA/C441 and 217 in place - Maybe there isn't a workable answer to this unless you pay sufficiently above the award and exercise the bond option
Maybe there isn't a workable answer to this unless you pay sufficiently above the award and exercise the bond option
As for bonding? Good luck chasing that one inFair Work or in Court!
One company, not too far away from the one I worked for, expected pilots to mow the grass at the owners house.
Towards the end of my time with Scumbag Air Services, a pilot joined who was working for nothing.
Regarding covering the cost of renewals, if the qualification is required for the job and used by the operator then he should pay. It would be unreasonable for a pilot doing VFR sightseeing flights for a company operating S/E aircraft only, to expect them to pay for an instrument rating renewal on a twin.
Towards the end of my time with Scumbag Air Services, a pilot joined who was working for nothing.
Regarding covering the cost of renewals, if the qualification is required for the job and used by the operator then he should pay. It would be unreasonable for a pilot doing VFR sightseeing flights for a company operating S/E aircraft only, to expect them to pay for an instrument rating renewal on a twin.
HL, I accept the commercial reallities.
My bond point was if the pay was high enough it would pass the fair test if it all went pear shape. The pilot would not be receiving less than the award after the bond was exercised ( others have mentioned this as a limiting factor )
My bond point was if the pay was high enough it would pass the fair test if it all went pear shape. The pilot would not be receiving less than the award after the bond was exercised ( others have mentioned this as a limiting factor )
Metro Man, this does raise an interesting point that I've discussed with friends before. Let's say there as an operator, whom at the time of you applying had no jobs available as they simply weren't hiring. If a Pilot was to offer to work a couple of days a week helping out behind the counter, doing the lawns, clean the hangar etc... in return perhaps for some ICUS, exposure to their operations and therefore being first in line for a Full-Time job when it comes up, how would you view that?
Personally I think this wouldn't be such a bad idea. You haven't taken a job off anyone and the choice is entirely yours without screwing anyone else?
A lot of people say that "Working for free is the worst thing you can do" which I find to be a very sweeping statement that doesn't take into account all variables.
My first hours were with a Skydiving Operator, I didn't get paid for it, but I got some flying hours, met some awesome people and didn't regret anything about it and certainly don't feel bad at all, it was also a very small operation compared to most that operated weekends only, reinvested its money back into itself and no one was really making any money.
Personally I think this wouldn't be such a bad idea. You haven't taken a job off anyone and the choice is entirely yours without screwing anyone else?
A lot of people say that "Working for free is the worst thing you can do" which I find to be a very sweeping statement that doesn't take into account all variables.
My first hours were with a Skydiving Operator, I didn't get paid for it, but I got some flying hours, met some awesome people and didn't regret anything about it and certainly don't feel bad at all, it was also a very small operation compared to most that operated weekends only, reinvested its money back into itself and no one was really making any money.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 51
Posts: 931
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Going back in the topic a little bit...
ASIC's, medicals, and required charts could be considered as fixed cost tools of trade. This is the same way my own trade background required i had certain 'tools' of my own to use.
These required constant replacement due wear and tear, so we were paid a Tool allowance each week in our pay (not subject to super or leave loading etc)
Instead of flat out paying for a pilots ASIC etc, you can say, you arrive with current credentials, and we will pay you a 'Compliance Allowance', of X dollars per week, to be used to renew those credentials. That way if they nick off after 4 months, you have only paid 4 months 'value' on those items.
It also works well tax wise as both sides can claim a deduction. (it's also not subject to payroll tax)
I come from an industry that struggles to train their workers in the latest technology outside of their apprenticeship, but i have been bonded to an employer once before for my LPG fitters ticket. They paid for the course and initial licence issue, I agreed to stay for 12 months. It was done correctly and pro-rata'd. After the first 12 months, my tool allowance was increased and i was expected to pay for my own licence renewals.
The new company, that i sub-contract too, have agreed to pay for my ASIC renewal.....no bonding, but my investment to have the contract ensures i am not going anywhere in a hurry.
ASIC's, medicals, and required charts could be considered as fixed cost tools of trade. This is the same way my own trade background required i had certain 'tools' of my own to use.
These required constant replacement due wear and tear, so we were paid a Tool allowance each week in our pay (not subject to super or leave loading etc)
Instead of flat out paying for a pilots ASIC etc, you can say, you arrive with current credentials, and we will pay you a 'Compliance Allowance', of X dollars per week, to be used to renew those credentials. That way if they nick off after 4 months, you have only paid 4 months 'value' on those items.
It also works well tax wise as both sides can claim a deduction. (it's also not subject to payroll tax)
I come from an industry that struggles to train their workers in the latest technology outside of their apprenticeship, but i have been bonded to an employer once before for my LPG fitters ticket. They paid for the course and initial licence issue, I agreed to stay for 12 months. It was done correctly and pro-rata'd. After the first 12 months, my tool allowance was increased and i was expected to pay for my own licence renewals.
The new company, that i sub-contract too, have agreed to pay for my ASIC renewal.....no bonding, but my investment to have the contract ensures i am not going anywhere in a hurry.
Goodness gracious.
This is a very un-PPRuNe thread. Civil. Helpful. Thoughtful. Very strange.
Metro Man:
We had a (relatively) quiet period during which one of my ex-tradie pilots assembled a 6x6 steel shed at my place, with the help of a couple of others.
All of them were paid full salary throughout.
When I was in Kunnunurra it was common to pick Mangos on Craig and Gail's farm.
If you're being paid and you're being useful and working within the scope of your abilities, I don't see the problem.
This is a very un-PPRuNe thread. Civil. Helpful. Thoughtful. Very strange.
Metro Man:
We had a (relatively) quiet period during which one of my ex-tradie pilots assembled a 6x6 steel shed at my place, with the help of a couple of others.
All of them were paid full salary throughout.
When I was in Kunnunurra it was common to pick Mangos on Craig and Gail's farm.
If you're being paid and you're being useful and working within the scope of your abilities, I don't see the problem.
There was an article in the May issue of that magazine, Australian Aviation, about the Pilots Award and employer paid expenses.
Seems to have been on the same track as the thread of this topic.
For pilots on a low wage the expenses for kit are considerable and only sometimes covered by the employer.
Seems to have been on the same track as the thread of this topic.
For pilots on a low wage the expenses for kit are considerable and only sometimes covered by the employer.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: elsewhere
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Instead of flat out paying for a pilots ASIC etc, you can say, you arrive with current credentials, and we will pay you a 'Compliance Allowance', of X dollars per week, to be used to renew those credentials. That way if they nick off after 4 months, you have only paid 4 months 'value' on those items.
It also works well tax wise as both sides can claim a deduction. (it's also not subject to payroll tax
It also works well tax wise as both sides can claim a deduction. (it's also not subject to payroll tax
For most of the guys out remote, our total cost of a medical, asic, charts, ersa etc would come to around $1000 assuming the medical
Is straight forward, turns out to be $20 a week, hardly unreasonable?
None of us bashing around in a bug smasher are expecting a large income, but it would be nice to work hard, which we do, and at the end of the week be able to put a little bit away.
A couple hundred bucks for an asic may not sound like much, but it hits hard when there may be a few bills at or around the same time.
Flyboy, anytime that a Full Time Employed Professional who uses their money responsibly finds themselves in a situation where $200-$300 expenses a couple times a year is hitting them hard, really says something about their pay level!
Horatio - you make some very good points and as an employee opened my eyes as to what it must be like for my employer.
Band a lot - I totally understand your apparent hatred of pilots who work for less then the award. However, you have to understand that most of these guys don't really have a choice, behind them there are a 100 other desperate pilots keen to work for even less, and employers love to remind them of that.
What I want to know is why arnt these employers getting audited by the appropriate authorities? Does that happen?
Maybe Horatio can answer that question.
If only we as pilots could stand together, we wouldn't have this problem, I have seen situations where this has happened and the employer was left with no choice but to pay up.
The problem with GA is it's unsustainable for the majority of pilots, you just can't live the kind of life that lives up to most pilots ambitions. I would say the ratio of average/bad to good operators who treat their pilots with respect and pride are heavily biased toward the former.
Band a lot - I totally understand your apparent hatred of pilots who work for less then the award. However, you have to understand that most of these guys don't really have a choice, behind them there are a 100 other desperate pilots keen to work for even less, and employers love to remind them of that.
What I want to know is why arnt these employers getting audited by the appropriate authorities? Does that happen?
Maybe Horatio can answer that question.
If only we as pilots could stand together, we wouldn't have this problem, I have seen situations where this has happened and the employer was left with no choice but to pay up.
The problem with GA is it's unsustainable for the majority of pilots, you just can't live the kind of life that lives up to most pilots ambitions. I would say the ratio of average/bad to good operators who treat their pilots with respect and pride are heavily biased toward the former.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: elsewhere
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't want this thread to be "what we deserve to get paid", I think we can all agree the award pay scale isn't great, but it is what it is.
I understand operators not wanting to pay upfront costs on the chance of a pilot soon leaving, but this is what our industry is. Most of us, myself included, loves flying, and I really do enjoy GA, to the point where I wouldn't chase an airline job if I could make a similar income in ga.
I was a tradesperson in my previous career, my company never kept apprentices on after training, never. The first 12 months of an apprenticeship I was basically carrying around the tradesmen's tool bag, adding absolutely no value to the business for the first 2 years, in that 2 years maybe made 50k.
So I guess that was 50K down the drain for my boss, which he sees no return as no apprentices were retained? Different industry, but investing money into kids and possibly seeing no return is the norm?
Last edited by Flyboy1987; 23rd May 2017 at 22:49.
Opening statement: "It was the unions understanding, that as per the award, the company/employer must cover all costs associated with operation of the aircraft, this SHOULD include the pilots medical, asic, charts, ersa etc."
The award has never covered medicals and the union should know this as the union is responsible for never putting it into the award in the first place back when unions had sway. Also, back when unions had power the union did nothing to stop those that took advantage of new pilots looking for a way in at any cost. In other industries it used to be nearly impossible to work for less than the award even if you were willing.
There has been a fair bit of comparison to the carpenter earning his 100k but no mention of the four year apprenticeship that he did in order to get that pay rate. As an apprentice, he was paid a percentage of a tradesman's wage, increasing each year as his skill level and so ability to make money for the boss also increased. During those four years, he was indentured. He could neither quit or be sacked without great difficulty. He was considered staff so could not strike or take part in other industrial action. He did have his tools and other needs met by the employer.
Now this was all a long time ago and I'm sure that an apprentice is paid a lot more percentage wise than he was paid in the past. I'm also sure that there are a lot less apprenticeships available now than in the past, maybe not actual numbers but openings relative to the number of tradesmen employed. Join the dots.
If you wish to make comparisons between pilots and other trades or professions, first you have to find another comparable position but there simply is no other profession that makes for a good comparison. Tradesmen do apprenticeships, professionals go to university, pilots do neither at present.
Nurses turned their career into a recognised profession by introducing the need for a degree to take part. Nursing used to be on the job training, now it requires university. There used to be plenty of nurses and their pay was not great. Now they are in short supply and despite what they say, they are on a reasonable wicket. Perhaps the status of professional pilot needs to raised in the same way. At present it is going backwards to the point where pilots pay to be interviewed and airlines have high jacked the term cadetship and turned it into another revenue stream instead. A cadetship should describe a situation where a company provides training and opportunity to an individual with the expected return coming by way of return of service in the years that follow that training. The airline industry's idea of a cadetship is not even close.
If you choose to take part in this industry, do it with your eyes open.
The award has never covered medicals and the union should know this as the union is responsible for never putting it into the award in the first place back when unions had sway. Also, back when unions had power the union did nothing to stop those that took advantage of new pilots looking for a way in at any cost. In other industries it used to be nearly impossible to work for less than the award even if you were willing.
There has been a fair bit of comparison to the carpenter earning his 100k but no mention of the four year apprenticeship that he did in order to get that pay rate. As an apprentice, he was paid a percentage of a tradesman's wage, increasing each year as his skill level and so ability to make money for the boss also increased. During those four years, he was indentured. He could neither quit or be sacked without great difficulty. He was considered staff so could not strike or take part in other industrial action. He did have his tools and other needs met by the employer.
Now this was all a long time ago and I'm sure that an apprentice is paid a lot more percentage wise than he was paid in the past. I'm also sure that there are a lot less apprenticeships available now than in the past, maybe not actual numbers but openings relative to the number of tradesmen employed. Join the dots.
If you wish to make comparisons between pilots and other trades or professions, first you have to find another comparable position but there simply is no other profession that makes for a good comparison. Tradesmen do apprenticeships, professionals go to university, pilots do neither at present.
Nurses turned their career into a recognised profession by introducing the need for a degree to take part. Nursing used to be on the job training, now it requires university. There used to be plenty of nurses and their pay was not great. Now they are in short supply and despite what they say, they are on a reasonable wicket. Perhaps the status of professional pilot needs to raised in the same way. At present it is going backwards to the point where pilots pay to be interviewed and airlines have high jacked the term cadetship and turned it into another revenue stream instead. A cadetship should describe a situation where a company provides training and opportunity to an individual with the expected return coming by way of return of service in the years that follow that training. The airline industry's idea of a cadetship is not even close.
If you choose to take part in this industry, do it with your eyes open.