Minimum Wage
 

I read in the paper the other day that people on the minimum wage are going to get a $17 a week pay rise. Not much I thought to myself but every little bit must help. I then read that minimum wage is $731 A WEEK!!!

WHAT THE F@#$
You mean to tell me that after spending $60,000 on training, putting flying first over all other comitments including family and freinds (how many girlfreinds I've lost:{ ) and working sometimes 70 hr weeks, for some mexican in a factory to be earning $10,000 a year more than me !!!

This industry is a disgrace and its about time people knew, sometimes I feel like going to A Current Affair and bursting the bubble!!. There are times where I cant sleep at night from the guilt of taking some poor guys hard earned while his wife and three kids go without. "But don't worry it will be worth it in the end" they tell me, while I'm thinking to myself that even if this guy is lucky enough to snag a job he will only be bringing $25 - 30 k a year home best case scenario after three years of s@#$ kicking on $10,000. God this stuff kills me, I think its time I got out of this industry whilst I still have some shred of dignity and morality left. Are there anyother instructors out there that feel the same way or am I just being tired and emotional??

$731 per week sounds more like Average Weekly Earnings rather than minimum wage. There's a big difference between the two.

Sorry to read about your plight, but it seems the flying training industry (with few exceptions) has remained unchanged industrially for at least the last 20 years :yuk:

You control your destiny mate. If you choose to accept sub-standard conditions, then they'll never change.

It's a tough call. We all know that there are pinheads around that'll happily cut the grass from under you (happened to me). Stand your ground...One door closes, another opens. The job I got as a result not only paid award but was one of the most enjoyable and personally rewarding jobs I've had, both inside and outside of flying.:ok:

Family and friends first. Sometimes difficult to realise until it's too late....

$731? HUH?
 

You're right Hugh. $731 a week for minimum wage? I doubt that would even be without tax taken out.

If it is the minimum wage (and supposing the minimum wage is assigned to 18-27 year old people whose highest level of education is grade 10) then the gap between middle income and minimum wage is jost *wrong*.

I'll be extremely pi5sed if it is the minimum wage too. :*

SixStarAnsett

O.K well this is the quote straight from the paper "Employees on the minimum award wage earning less than the full time equivilant of $731.80 a week will get a $17 a week raise" and "Australias 1.7 million award workers were today granted a pay rise of.."

im confused whats the difference between wage and weekly earnings anyway??

getme
 

It sounds to me that the journo got his words wrong. That makes the minimum wage $38k.

I remember there was a hooha a couple of years ago about bringing in a guaranteed "minimum wage" for workers, but I'm unsure if it ever came to fruition. There was a lot of opposition from the Employers Federation.:mad:

Mrs. Jarse is paid the award in her chosen field, but she does not earn $38k.

Believe 1/2 of what you see, and none of what you hear :E

Think you might have misread somewhere, or the journo is wrong. The min wage is around 450 bucks (a bit less I think) according to an artical I read recently. The average might be $731, and I'm sure that average is brought down by us poor b@stards in GA :mad:

Hugh, I'm happy to hear about your experience getting employed on the award, but it ain't the real world. We all know there are waaay too many pilots compared to the number of jobs, let alone jobs that pay properly. If you take the attitude that you won't accept what the employer is offering unless it's the award (I'm not saying that's wrong) I think you'll miss out cos of all the pinheads. I have been told either directly or indirectly in every flying job I've had (bar one, so that makes 4) that pilots are a dime a dozen and if I don't like it I can leave whenever I want. It's all about supply and demand unfortunately. :ugh:

Think it was people who earn up to $750 a week will get the $17 a week

I was listening to someone on the radio yesterday bemoaning the fact that uni degrees such as medicine and so on are attracting big HECS fees and how sad it all is; got me thinking about the sacrifices that people make to get a CPL and work their way up the ladder - much larger payout and lesser rewards, generally. I can't think of another profession where you have to shell out so much just to get a foot in the door.
I got my training with the military, and while it was no picnic, they were paying me, so I haven't experienced what most of you guys have. My hat's off to the people who put in the hard yards to work their way through the system and keep their motivation up.
That's probably the key to why GA wages are low - pilots want to fly full stop, so the lure of high wages doesn't have to be there to make them put in a lot of work to do so.

getmeoutofga I'm in the same situation, been in GA for too long and every day I'm bending over to take a pineapple up the a##e
and smiling.
Don't get me wrong I luv flying and hav had some experiences but every nite it tears me up the situation I'm in.
I've gone too far with no other qualifications and not a cent in the bank things must improve 4 me soon.
Hang in there don't let them win.
Good luck.

I think you should make a stand, next renewal/endorsement/training you do - offer to pay double the hourly rate to cover the services of the instructor. The sad thing for me is that some people who are now experiencing poor wages in the lower end of the industry were hunting around looking for the lowest training price only a year or so ago.

Good point
 

But how do we make the punters see that you get what you pay for? All they look at is "how much does it cost for a one hour flying lesson" in the early stages, and get fed a load of spin.

I have recently started to work for a company that employes helicopter pilots aswell as fixed wing. My information may be incorrect but I was told that the helicopter guys are paid heaps more than the fixed wing as per the award. Why are fixed wing pilots and instructors being screwed??

For the life of me I cannot understand why after the years of study and the tens of thousands of dollars spent on my aviation career the check out chick at Coles is earning a similar wage to me and I am being paid the award!

How can we get this message accross to the people that set the award for GA pilots that this is unfair?

bitter balance,

I can't see what that will prove - the instructor will still get the same lousy rate, and the flying school will pocket the rest.

Is the problem really that the schools/ charter companies can't afford to pay their pilots properly, or that they simply don't want to or need to.

Besides that, when I come up for renewal each year (the boss kindly letting me use my own time and money for it) I can hardly afford to pay more than the bare minimum. Its not as if I'm earning any more than the guy doing my renewal.

supercharged,

fixed wing guys/gals get shafted cos there is too many of us. It's too easy for a boss to find someone equally qualified who will not only take one pineapple, but two - and enjoy it!

The only answer I can think of is for the government to look at the award and bring it in line with other $50-60K degree jobs (or at least something more realistic), and then enforce it.

How can we make this happen? Would it be possible/ worthwhile starting a petition through pprune?

cheers

grrowler

The min. wage in PNG is 60 kina ($24 AUD) per week !!!!

Sure you don't all live in PNG, but if you think things are bad for a GA pilot in Australia, try living in other parts of the world.

grrowler, I was making a point. The real cost of GA training is about double what the market expects (and wants) to pay. There cannot be a major increase in GA salaries without a major shift in the market. You are part of the market, are you prepared to pay double what you pay now for services?

There is no pot of gold at the end of the GA rainbow. GA operators are not quaffing brandy and lighting their cigars with rolled up (albeit plastic) 20 dollar notes.

bb,

You're trying to tell me a CPL should be worth nearly $80K (I guess BAE would be worth $200K ;) :yuk: )! I have absolutely no idea about the cost of tests, admin, theory, etc, but say you took out 10 grand. On a 150hr course that gives you a fairly tidy $466 per tacho hour for a flogged out 150 and 172/182 maybe! I cannot think of any operator who would pass any of this extra profit on to the pilot. As an example, a colleague and I managed to make an extra $500 above normal profit on a charter. A bonus - no. A 6 pack - no. A "good effort boys" - not even. I guess the cruiser will get paid off quicker!

The fact is operators can afford to pay the award, and could afford to pay better than the award by raising their costs slightly.
Benefits: Motivated crew/ work force has a positive impact on business, crew stay with company for more than 6-12 months (reduced training costs and higher crew experience).

I had an operator tell me once he wouldn't get out of bed for less than $100 profit an hour. Multiply that by 4 or 5 aircraft doing 5-600 hours a year. Geez he must be struggling, my heart bleeds.

How much impact could it have on the operator to throw an extra 10 or 15 bucks an hour to the pilot, even if it meant raising their rates? I know it would make a big difference to my livelihood and my motivation.

grrowler, you are consistently missing my point. Market pressures are holding prices at unrealistic (and unsustainable) levels. You want payrises for pilots to above award rates. Yet you are also part of the market and you don't want to pay more.

Bigger Threat to G.A. Pilots
 

Any G.A. Pilot who is concerned about pay and conditions should add their comments to the two PPL Instructor threads on D & G General Aviation.

Imagine this for a future senario:

Citizen PPL Instructor works M-F 9-5 in a job outside Aviation and brings home a comfortable salary that supports home & 2.5 kids.

On weekends, P/H & RDO's - works for free at the local Aero Club as a PPL Instructor ("Hey what a life. Build networks during the week and fly for free on weekends"!).

CPL Instructor works at another Flying School. Business drops due to popularity of free lessons. Rare Full-Time Instructing Job changes to Casual Position.

Further drop in business means that the job disappears or re-appears as an unpaid position due to Aero Club competition.

Concerned? - I am.

This idea is just nutty enough to get some Lobby.

bb,

I am not missing your point - I would be happy to pay more if it would benefit the pilot/ instructor.

However, my counter-point, which perhaps you are missing, was and is that operators look at pilots/ instructors as extremely expendable, and it wouldn't matter how much I handed over to the company, the pilot/ instructor would still get the same lousy pay packet. Please don't try to tell me it wouldn't be so.

Your reasoning that market pressures have kept the rates too low is ridiculous. All other industries are competitive, some moreso, bosses have to pay their workforce the award, and yet they still manage to make money :ooh: shock horror! The difference with aviation is a great surplus of pilots who love what they do, which Mr/s Operator realise and take advantage of.

If you carefully reread my previous post, I didn't say companies should pay above award wages, I said the companies (at current rates) could afford to pay award, and above award by raising their rates modestly. As an example, two similar rival companies have very similar rates (due to the competition), one pays the award, the other well below. Why? One operator is greedier than the other, and realises how easy it is to get replacement pilots?
The point I was trying to make was that there is enough money in GA to give your workforce a fair share, and your company will benefit in the ways I listed.

So, if we had an enforceable award, then all companies would be on an equal footing from the wages aspect, they would have an excuse to raise their rates to cover the increase in cost, and Joe Bloggs and myself would have to pay an extra whatever bucks an hour.
You get your rate increase, I get my pay rise and we're all happy :ok: sweet!

Ah grrowler, if only it were that simple, and aviation was liike other industries. How many other industries have to compete with businesses who are deliberately running at or below cost just to get the business? Not just occasionally but all the time?You are often competing with people with little or no management experience who will trade profit for cash flow and then wonder why they can't pay their bills and nobody will give them any credit.

You say:
"The difference with aviation is a great surplus of pilots who love what they do, which Mr/s Operator realise and take advantage of."

Please may I rephrase that a little:
"The difference with aviation is a great surplus of pilots who will bend over and allow Mr/s Operator to take advantage of them. "

or
"The difference in aviation is a great surplus of operators who will bend over and let the customer take advantage of them"

By doing so they all contribute to the problem. Did anyone hold a gun to your head and force you to accept the remuneration package you are on? You could have said "no", and still can. So how come you are grumbling now? If operator A pays the award, and operator B doesn't, then who should you work for? By accepting less you will be valued less.

If you want to petition someone, try the parts suppliers, the compo people, the chaps in Singapore who set the fuel rates, the currency markets....try getting the government to subsidise the industry.

Any idea what 500 bucks will buy? Maybe ten hours of a LAMEs time, or half an alternator, or 2.5% of a propeller, or reupholster a couple of seats, or a magneto, or about 2.5 tyres, and that's just for a little Cherokee....Not much in the grand scheme of things, is it.

Joe Bloggs et al will generally only be inerested in the cheapest hourly rate, which is usually accompanied by the most bullsh1t about the service they will get for it.

grrowler, your posts indicate that the GA award is not sufficient. Certainly your reply to SuPeRcHaRgEd indicates that. I am not arguing for below GA award rates, I think the award should be the min.

It is my understanding that if a company is not a respondent to the award and pays above the "safety net" wage, then there is nothing technically wrong with this. The award is legally enforceable, if your employer is a respondent.

From your posts you have (at least 4 times) agreed to be employed at below the GA award rate. I assume the companies were not respondents as you have not sought redress. I also assume you agreed to the terms of your employment. Why is the operator's problem? Aren't you part of the problem?

As to my comments on market forces - when you did your initial training how did you determine which training school you attended? I am sure price was one of the determining factors. Would you have paid $10K more for your training for salaried "happy" instructors? I assume you will answer "no" as the greedy flying school owner would have just pocketed it on his/her way to the BRW Top 10 Rich list.

Could we ask that an organisation such as AOPA publish lists of companies (lfying schools charter mobs) that pay their instructors the award?

Might make companies think twice about shafting employees.

Comments Snarek??

CS

CS That sounds good to me, but I don't think Joe Public would give a sh*t, they would still take the cheapest price. Q

CS:

I very much doubt that AOPA would support such a list as there seems to be some sympathy towards PPL Instructors in that organisation.

IF it was ever approved, PPL Instructors would increase competition for Instructing Jobs and therefore lower the pay rates as they will have to work for free.

I think a Pilot's organisation would be better politically to publish such a list (I don't know how they would legally do it though).

Does anyone know of such a list being published in other Industries outside of Aviation?.

The award itself has a list of respondents at the back.

People not on the list do not necessarily pay less than the award. Many have their own workplace agreements based on the award, but better and more apropriate than the award for their organisations. The award has some crazy elements eg the casual instructor who comes in for a half hour TIF has to be paid for four hours work. Flying schools simply can't afford that. The whole point of employing casuals is that they are a variable, not an overhead cost, and that is what their 25% loading is for. So where is the money for the other 3 1/2 hours going to come from?

If the award was more reasonable in things like this maybe more people would pay it.

And yes elements in AOPA seem to think that instructors wages are one of these "unnecessary costs" that they dislike so much. Wicked, greedy instructors who want to earn a living should be stamped out so that PPLs can do it for the love of it, apparently, this is well covered in other threads.

Getmeout,
I got my first job in GA in 1974 as an instructor. My pay was approximately half of the minimum wage at the time. The usual story " the club can't afford to pay any more, so if you want a job...................." Not much bargaining power with stuff all hours in the logbook, so if you want your first job you accept the terms and hope for better later. Sounds like things haven't changed much.

bb,
1. Yes I do think the award is too low, considering the outlay, risk, etc, and it should be looked at. I accept there isn't much money in the industry, but that aside, and compared to other industries, surely you must agree.

2. Has anyone bothered looking at the list of respondents to the award recently? I haven't for about a year, I'll admit, but it was about a handful. So saying it is legally enforceable is yep, true but means 2/5 of nothing.

3. I'm sorry if you got the impression that I only work below the award. I have worked below, on and above the award (none were actual respondents). What I did say was that my bosses in all those jobs (bar one) told anyone who wanted to listen that pilots were worthless and expendable.

4. Let's keep it real - when I looked to do my training, I, like a lot of others I presume, had no idea about the state of the industry. I had glossy brochures jammed in my face, highlighting world wide pilot shortages, etc. Why would I even consider that the instructors weren't getting paid properly? I looked for the best quality/ cost ratio. And I reiterate that if I did pay more, the instructor would not see it because of the queue of unemployed instructors waiting at the bosses door.

CFI, So if companies are running at cost or below, what difference is it going to make if the wages are uniform across the board? Won't that help level the playing field for the operators?

I guess I need to clarify that I don't have a problem with operators trying to maximise profits - thats the whole point of business. We are after all the silly gooses who accept the conditions.

Why? Well put yourself in the boots of someone who has been unemployed (flying) for a long time, who loves flying, wants to make a long term career out of it, and sees the security(?) of an airline job at the end of it. I get toey if I don't fly for 2 weeks! After 6 months I would be prepared to do a lot to get my hands on an aircraft! It's an addiction and is a part of the industry that won't change.

So, if 10 jobs were going between 100 equally desperate applicants, and say 2 paid the award, would you honestly only apply for those 2?

Now lets try to look for some answers rather than bemoan the lack of money, for either operators or pilots.

I propose an (properly) enforceable award for pilots. This would provide greater job security, increase industry safety levels by reducing the pressure on pilots to "get the job done at all costs or get out" and encouraging more experienced pilots to stay in GA, and give operators a more level playing field from which to set their rates.

cheers
grrowler

Can you get one of them ISO 9001 quality assurance thingys if you dont pay the award?

In my flying career I have been lucky enough to work for companies that do pay the award which in itself is terrible. My question is why are we as professionals remunerated so poorly when the award salary is compared to say a primary school teacher or check out chick at coles.
Our Salaries should at least be on par with the School Teacher and not with the dumb 18 yr old high school drop out at coles!!
I don't think the arguement is to pay the award or not but why is the award set so low?
This baffles me... It is as if our Skills, Qualifications and Experience is being taken for granted!
I know we have all accepted jobs knowing full well what the money was like but how do we do something about changing it?

It is as simple as this guys and girls.

As wrong as it is, it has always been this way and always will be and with the huge over supply of drivers which is probably at it's worst ever, and is likely to stay that way.

The aviation industry is dying. Unfortunately, most of us will probably still be working for the same ****ty conditions years from now.

At the last company I work for up north, we had a never ending amount of 19 yr. old rich kids from Syd. and Melb. offering the boss to work for free. Even though we were all paid at least 25% below the award, the boss would try and make us feel guilty for being paid at all.

The company I now work for are great. The pay is still 15% below the award but the boss is great. A carton of beer randomly turns up next to my car every month or two. Called me in to work the other week, took me out for lunch, prawns and coldies, and he picked up the bill.

However, I am now seriously considering a career change. Don't want to be a "pesso", but I think the dream is over.

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.

I guess it really comes down to the cost of operation.

I mean, can we really be expecting to make money out of this industry when the bulk of us are flying equipment which is in most cases 30 or so years older than today's dollar? That is, the dollar we are using to operate the equipment.

I suppose until the industry 'revolutionises' a little we're all going to continue doing our hard yards. I have a feeling it's going to get worse before it gets better, too.

Anyhow, better get back to sanding corrosion out of the panels on the C172 unpaid...


520.

G'day all,

I have to concur on the relevance of the "Supply & Demand" issue here. But Correct me if I'm wrong lads........by my reckoning, if there were more paid work about for pilots we would improve this aspect of things at least for the pilots!

So, on that note, can anyone explain why PJE ops are categorized as PVT/AWK when the customers/jumpers have just forked hard-earned cabbage leaves to ride in & then jump out of an aircraft which can be poled about by a PPL holder???

Yet at the very same dropzone the turbine drivers are getting paid while they too don't always hold a CPL. It would seem that the level playing field concept went out the window as the Wright Bros. landed??

While I'm not sure that glider ops get the same concessions, I am sure that more commercial ops would undoubtably mean more work for those with fresh ink on thier CPL's.

It all remind me of an saying of mine....."Another day, another 50 cents!!!"

Boney

You're not a "Pesso" mate, by virtue of the very fact that you got into aviation you're an Optimist!! Good luck.:ok:

Charlie foxtrot india,

How perfecet a buisness scenario do operators want?? They have got countless employees who work for nothing!! The only time the operators have to pay the employee's is when they fly which might be 3 hrs a day. What about the other seven hours when they are answering phones, doing admin, mowing lawns, washing planes, ferrying/taxing A.C, cleaning toilets, dealing with customers, organising maintainence/instructors and students alike, picking up supplies all for the princely sum of NOTHING!!. Talk about having minimal overheads, I bet every other buisness out in 'the real world' would love to operate like that. If owners cant make enough money from a company which primarily operates on charity labour then that is really saying something sad but true about our much beloved industry.

"They have got countless employees who work for nothing!! ...blah blah... all for the princely sum of NOTHING!!"

Exactly my point.

These "countless employees" have created the situation by AGREEING to be treated this way.

Not all operators treat their staff this way. Many employ full time ground crew to run admin etc, and let the instructors get on with instructing. It seems you have a fairly limited experience of the industry if you see the job description you have just given as normal.


The ideal business scenario would be to be able to make the sorts of margins that other small businees do. But for as long as some operators can undercut others because their staff allow themselves to be exploited that will never happen.

So what's the solution? It lies with the employees to not AGREE to working as slaves, then the operators would have to change their ways. And we all know that ain't going to happen because some are so desperate for every flying hour that they will put up with anything. That's always been the way and it won't change until the supply of instructors meets the demand, why oh why do people spend a fortune on CPLs and instructor ratings without doing a bit of market research first?

If thats the case CFI, its not a very good solution, is it? :=

What an absolute load of crap! I know of several companies who pay award, and still have the lowest rates in the area.

This debate is just going in circles, pilots say they don't want big (or small as the case may be :) ) things put in their bot-bots, and operators say they only do it cos pilots allow it and agree to it.

As CFI said, as long as it lies in the hands of the pilots and operators, nothing is going to change. So take it out of our hands, and let the government enforce an award.

Thanks Louie! :ok:

There are two separate problems posed on this thread:

1) That far too many pilots in GA are currently working for less than the award.

2) That the GA pilot's award pay is hopelessly inadequate given the skills, responsibilities and qualifications required.

We can not hope to address issue (2) unless issue (1) is first taken care of.
What use is there in having an award saying a 210 driver must be paid $35 000, when half the 210 drivers in country are currently getting nowhere near the award pay of $28 000 (approx)? Only when award pay rates are universally accepted by (or forced upon) employers will there be any point in looking at the inadequacies of award pay itself. This is also the principal behind low award rates themselves, which tend to follow market expectations based on supply/demand for pilots and the strength of our negotiating position.

So, how can we pilots attempt to tackle problem no 1?

a) Pilot's responsibility- Don't work for less than the award and employers will have to lift their game and pay award rates.

b) Petition the government bodies responsible to crackdown on operators who underpay.

c) Collective action- don’t expect individuals to martyr themselves in an impossible struggle against the status quo. Join or form a union that is prepared and able to take action.

Option a) is unrealistic. Unless you have very good contacts it is almost impossible to find an entry level commercial job that pays the award. In my state of the five or so ‘entry level’ operators only one pays award - and you need to have trained there to get the job. Trying to turn the whole problem around onto the blokes right down the bottom struggling to find that ‘first job’ is deferring the problem to those least empowered to act.

Option b) GA is as I understand it covered by a federal award which means that the government body responsible is under the control of none other than the Federal Liberal Party. The Liberals have consistently taken every measure possible to divest workers of their rights since holding power. It would be naive of any of us to expect assistance for our cause here (given Fed. Labor’s track record I doubt they would be much more helpful).
Cracking down on individual operators may work when the operator is financially robust, otherwise he’ll simply be put out of business and replaced by another under award paying operator.
Incidentally, an award does apply to all workers whose job function is substantially similar to that described in the award irrespective of whether their employer is a signatory or not, the only exception being if the employer has a formally ratified enterprise agreement.
This means that if you are employed by someone, and regardless of your job title you are required to perform the duties of a Commercial Pilot, then the award applies to you. No dodgy “commission based pay” or “verbal contract” abrogates your right to award pay, at least that’s what the law says.

Option c) Since technically at least the law is on our side, fighting collectively for our rights through a union is the most logical method of attacking the problem.
-Firstly we must find a union willing to take up the issue or form one if none is available (seeking comment from the AFAP here).
-Next, we must promote union membership throughout the pilot community, including to those down the bottom of the employment ladder and unemployed CPL’s.
-Once this is done it will be a relatively simple task to compile a list of all those operators paying less than award. The next step is the decisive one.
-The union will negotiate with the concerned operators and demand that as of a certain date all pilots will be paid the award. The union may choose to offer amnesty to those that comply with the demand and will initiate legal action against the others. Because all operators would be notified en masse no particular operator will get shafted while everyone else in the area keeps making a profit. Operators would be given sufficient time to adjust their prices to take into account award wages before action was initiated. No excuses.

Pilots need to remember that there are a lot of operators out there who would have no problem paying award, except that they can’t compete with the guys next door with pilots working for next to nothing.

Can the industry afford this? In the case of CHTR it’s clear cut as the market as a whole is relatively inelastic. Consider a 3 hr CHTR C-210 billed at $385/hr ($350 plus GST). Approximate breakdown p/h:
Now
A/C Dry $150
Fuel $70
Pilot $30 (common ‘under award payment’)
Landings $15
Operator’s Margin $85 (nothing wrong here)
Total $350 plus GST
CHTR Quote $1050 plus GST

Pay the pilot an award wage (say $50/hr) cost becomes:
Total $370/hr plus GST
CHTR Quote $1110 plus GST

This means that we’re talking about less than a 6% increase in cost over the board to cover award wages!!! I challenge any operator to tell me that his market would collapse if industry rates went up by 6%. The customers might utter a word or two but would forget about it in a month. It’s not like they’re going to drive or catch a bus instead because of the increase!!!
Air charter services are demand inelastic precisely because they can’t be easily replaced by another product. If we get paid the award the earth will not collapse and jobs will not be lost because a pilot’s pay only makes up a small percentage of total cost at the best of times.

The situation for instruction is slightly different because it’s relatively more labour cost intensive, however the same principals apply. An across the board price rise will be accepted by customers- provided that it’s reasonable and consistent amongst competitors.

As I see it we have two options, Live on our feet, Collectivise, Enforce the award then improve it or stay on our knees and keep those pineapples coming!!!

The choice is ours.

Well said Yossarian,
Going by your name, you'd be well aware of the concept of "Catch 22"...

It seems that :
Pilots are forced to accept conditions which are unacceptable (pay or otherwise).
Companies are forced to accept pilots who accept the unacceptable, due to economic pressure from other operators who are cutting costs to win customers.

Three constants here are:
Pilots are KEEN to build up their hours.
Customers are KEEN to pay the least possible.
Operators are KEEN to make their businesses pay, by attracting the customer.

(As an aside, maybe many pilots would not be so quick to leave GA, and get into the majors, if pay was reasonable?)

In many ways, it comes back to supply and demand.
If Yossarian says a 6% increase in fares would solve the problem (please, any GA operator out there confirm or deny this...), then I'm sure the pax would complain at the price rise, as customers always will, but if every GA operator toed the line, and charged a REASONABLE price (to account for operating costs, staff wages, overheads, safety etc.) the reduction in demand would be negligable - unless of course the pax could get a cheaper, more effective service by using other means: bus, car, hovercraft, horse drawn buggy etc.

Aviation provides a service which can not be duplicated. Until another method of transportation comes along which can take someone from A to B as timely as an aircraft can, aviation will have a place. That is, aviation has a relatively fixed level of demand for its services.

The classic problem with supply, is that oversupply will inevitably prove an effective filtering mechanism for demand.
More supply + same demand = more competition, which is usually a good thing.
But oversupply + same demand = overcompetition, which proves to be a reason for suppliers to cut corners, and cut costs to stay effective - it's a fine line, and one which seems to have been well and truly crossed by GA.

We have seen the ACCC and Prof. Fels taking care of monopolies, but is there any Govt. body which looks at OVER competitive industries? (Apart from Darwinian natural selection, survival of the fittest)

It's a fair point that the level of profit expected by GA operators is well below anything expected by companies in the broader spectrum of industry outside of aviation. In fact, it's a credit (?) to GA that many companies continue to operate on margins which would have shut down companies in any other industry, due to their dedication to, and love for the industry.

As Yossarian states, the only (obvious) way is regulation. Be it industry self regulation, regulation by an effective pilot's union, or government regulation.
And if that is a double edged sword, or undesirable, well so is running yourself into the ground trying to make an industry you love pay something more than just enough to cover the cost of tea and bikkies.

If i was stranded in the desert wastelands i'd be following Y0SSARIAN.

Do you think you work for an employer whom makes more then his fare share?. Do feel insecure about asking the boss for your award, which is due you by law?. I suggest you join & lobby http://www.afap.org.au/ . Lord knows theres enough of you claiming to be underpaid to form a pressure group. Try sending them a copy of your payslip and a copy of your bank statements showing employer deposits. If your not being paid correctly then its quite clear a criminal act is occuring. Tell the union that you want to remain anonymous out of fear for your job and reputation.
Definetly tis true that the federal gov has a different perspective on employee rights, but does your local member?, which ticket did they run on?. If your state gov is labour oriented then contact the relevant people, they may have more power to command a local buisness then the fed gov.

Who sets the award? good question i thought, anyone know? i'd hazard a guess its a previous fed gov in consultation with the ANU. Why doesnt someone get intouch with the ANU and state your case why you believe the GA pilot award needs to be altered.

Anyway, it's not very realistic to do the dirty work yourself so have the union flex their muscle....think they dont have any....then ask yourself for instance why aussie pilots get 6 weeks annual leave (those of you working public holidays, ie most of you) and those in the USA get 56 hours paid annual leave (generally increases at a huge 8 hours per year worked with the company, across the board no matter what occupation). If the pilots union isnt any help then try your sea-faring mates in the maritime union.

Just one last thought on the current award of 28k. You think $30 per hour is a fair rate (i do)? then that gives you 27k for your 900 hrs max (is anyone flying it?), before tax. I think you'll find were your getting shafted is all the hours you spend pushing a broom, answering a phone, on your back scrubbing in general. Maybe you should be logging those hours aswell and asking the $8/hr unskilled labour its worth (or getting the union to on your behalf).
Oh and have them pay for your headset too damn it, its required for a safe work place!, so is 2 engines!, turbines at that! and a bulletproof cockpit door.