EAA/Sunstate - AIPA?

[muffman]

Have many pilots in Sunstate/EAA become AIPA members since the door was opened?

Mostly just after factual information - I know this can be a touchy subject amd don't want to 'go there'.

[Global Xpress]

Dont quote me on this, but in Eastern I believe there a 18 AIPA members, 17 of which are dual members (AIPA and AFAP members). Most joined when AIPA had the $50 special on.

[The Bolter]

With so few members how did that fellow ever get elected to the CoM???:ugh:

[Keg]

Perhaps, despite many nay sayers to the contrary, a lot of QF crew see the benefit of an inclusive AIPA and that includes representation by regional pilots. I've voted for Gary every time his name has appeared.

[The Bolter]

That is the point Keg, he has not done a single day on the EAAPC in the 15 years he has been there, however, to satisfy the political desires of AIPA he can manage a seat on the CoM. What a sham!! For the record he is by his own admission an AFAP member. The boss is laughing all the way to the bank and the talks have a loooong way to go.:mad:

[Icarus53]

That is the point Keg, he has not done a single day on the EAAPC in the 15 years he has been there, however, to satisfy the political desires of AIPA he can manage a seat on the CoM. What a sham!! For the record he is by his own admission an AFAP member.

Given that the EAAPC is an AFAP sub-council (you can try to separate the concepts all you like, but that's the way it exists), he would effectively be serving as an AFAP rep. I doubt very much whether AIPA would appreciate an AFAP member seeking a position on CoM just to represent the AFAP position to that committee.

AIPA still have a long way to go in QLink, but given that their capacity to act as bargaining reps has only been in play for a little over a year, the current state is not unreasonable. On the other hand, many AIPA members are so because they have been deeply dissatisfied with the way the AFAP has represented them in individual grievances. In that regard, there are several AIPA members in EAA/SSA who have been most pleased with the representation AIPA has offered.

Like I say - a long way to go, and more than anything else MBF membership provides substantial disincentive for pilots to leave AFAP. That said, if a new pilot is just joining a union for the first time, and they expect/hope to remain in the QANTAS Group for the rest of their career, can't see why they wouldn't go with AIPA.

Whether the EAAPC evolves with the pilot group and its representational elements is yet to be seen, but AIPA members have bargaining representatives and industrial representation just like those in AFAP.

[The Bolter]

Icarus53,

Read post 4 ( Keg's words not mine). He is on the CoM for NO other reason than to satisfy the political desires of AIPA. Forget actually representing the pilots at EAA. That is why I commented on his absence in the industrial arena via EAAPC.

As for the future of AIPA, I would suggest that when it finally dawns on the power brokers over at the bunker that there is nothing substantial in it for them, the regional assault will cease abruptly. (Put in the too hard basket).

I assume that he only remains an AFAP member to retain his MBF coverage, as after all it is the best there is. What I find astounding is that he directs these new hires toward the inferior AIPA product for his political gain. I wonder if he tells these folks about the 20 year rule?? He certainly knows all about it!! It is the younger ones who stand to lose the most, what a great mate!! ( I've got it but I'm not going to risk telling you in case you go with them).

AIPA certainly does have a long way to go and I for one would like them to just go away and leave the Dash operations be.

[Muff Hunter]

jetstar recently only had around 20 AIPA members, now there is well over 300.

EAA pilots, when you realise that the AFAP are an inferior product when it comes to industrial relations then and only then will you see a decent EBA.

just take a look at the deals the AFAP have negotiated for REX, Jetstar, and Qantaslink compared to Qantas Mainline (i know it apples and oranges) and you'll see what you have to gain..

[Fuel-Off]

I still fail to find how AIPA has done anything for EAA/SSA...come to think of it, I'm still trying to find what they've done for JQ! Come up with the facts and I'm sure the respective pilots bodies might consider a switch. Wait a tick, what happened to this 'unity' that everyone was sprouting just a few months ago? Sounds like just a callsign for an Australian charter carrier to me...:sad:

Fuel-Off :ok:

[The Bolter]

Biatch,

Read it again, I have not stated or even inferred that there was any voting irregularity, the QF crew put him there because that suit their agenda. I seem to recall the ARG, do you remember that faction???

As for unity, that is a bit rich coming from a QF pilot, or have you a short term memory issue??

I say again he has not been either a member of the EAAPC or assisted in any manner with the AFAP in the 15 years he has been at his present employer. He has done nothing but fluff around over at the bunker with his MATES.

Shall I go on??:ugh::ugh::ugh:

[Keg]

.. the QF crew put him there because that suit their agenda.

I accept your premise.....

He is on the CoM for NO other reason than to satisfy the political desires of AIPA.

.. .however, to satisfy the political desires of AIPA he can manage a seat on the CoM.

....but I reject your implication of a 'political' agenda unless by 'agenda' you mean 'pilot unity'.

As for short term memory problems, perhaps a search of my past posts on pilot unity would be useful. I think it would be pretty obvious who has the memory problem and who is running the 'agenda'.

Still, nice to see that some people still put the gun to their foot and give it both barrels. :rolleyes:

[The Bolter]

Keg,

You of course mean Qantas pilot group unity do you not??

When I see some rotary wingers, instructors from Bonkstown/Parafield,bank runners,charter pilots and the like on the CoM I will change my tune til then your talk of unity is worthless and hollow.

As you admit our friend is on the CoM because you (QF pilots) wanted him there not because his workmates did. It suited the "reform" idea going around at the time.

One thing on my "agenda" at the moment is to keep AIPA the hell out of our EBA as I can still remember the last time you tried to help. Can you recall that Keg?? As it didn't cost you a cent you have probably forgotten but those who lost out because of you lot are not about to. Is that clear enough??

[Keg]

You of course mean Qantas pilot group unity do you not??


As a first step in a longer journey? Sure.

I note your proposal that we remain at each others throats for eternity. That's worked well for QLink over the last few EBAs hey!?!?! :ugh:

[badboiblu]

Hey Muff Hunter would you care to elaborate on what percentage increase in wages, allowances bonuses and the like that AIPA have achieved over there last couple of EBA's compared to what the AFAP have achieved with Virgin Jetstar and Sunstate/Eastern "Qantaslink"? I know of a couple of Qantas cadets in the Qantaslink group that think they were sold out by AIPA.

[rmcdonal]

Nearly everyone in Eastern wants AFAP and AIPA to work together, and surprisingly so does management (I can only imagine how hard it is to negotiate with two groups but only be allowed one outcome :ugh:). There are however some small bridges that need to be constructed and traversed in order for the two unions to work together again, and even then they both represent different groups with different wants and so well always have conflicting views on some items.
I find it interesting that AIPA talk of unity when (according to my understanding of the whole thing) they were the ones who left in the first place, after the airline pilots became annoyed that their union fees were going to pay for support for lowly GA pilots.
If AIPA want unity, and the power to stop the rot, then I would think it only sensible that they allow everyone in from the start, rather then waiting for them to join an airline...

[Keg]

I find it interesting that AIPA talk of unity when (according to my understanding of the whole thing) they were the ones who left in the first place, after the airline pilots became annoyed that their union fees were going to pay for support for lowly GA pilots.


Macca, whoever gave you the information for you to have that understanding is so far off the mark there is only two possible outcomes. They're completely ignorant and have no desire to be educated or they're feeding you a line for their own purposes in the hope to also turn you away.

Time doesn't permit me a long response but you've got my number, give me a call over the next few weeks and I'll point you to where you can hear parts of it direct from mouths of some of the horses that were involved.

[Captain Stoobing]

I think we have a choice here that is pretty simple. We can either dwell on the past happenings of the AFAP VS AIPA debate.......stick with what we have got.......and push for the things that we need

Or maybe.........

Put the past behind us.........remember that we have new people, new ideas and a very different industry to work in. If we can do this we may be able to put ourselves in a better position in which to try and enjoy working in this bizarre industry. Just be open to it, listen to both sides and make an informed decision as a group through our pilot councils.

As for some people hanging on to bitter feelings about crap that went on prior to them becoming a member of either union, either EAA or SSA or even getting out of school is insane. Get over it and move on.

If you always do what you have already done......you will always get what you have already received.

[The Bolter]

Biatch,

My comments on AIPA are based on my experiences with them over the last 20 or so years. I have not made personal comments as you have, I suspect there many "muppets" out there. Your words not mine. As for the MBF, sure the younger people can be in it for 20 years, it is portable, so indeed they have the most to gain by joining early. You insinuate that the 20 year refund will not be forthcoming, kindly give us some examlpes of member who was entitled to it and did not get it. I won't be holding my breath waiting!!!

Fuel Off,

Exactly. Bravo.

Keg,

QF pilot unity is it in toto.The EBA I refer to was in 2005, if you do not recall the shenanigans then go ask former President RH as I am sure he will still remember them vividly.

RMc,

The other thing that drove the QF pilots mad was the way the Ansett/TAA pilots dominated the AFAP.

Stoobing,

The past has taught me that all AIPA are interested in are QF pilots, when that changes and their actions match their words we may make some progress.

[The Bolter]

Biatch,

As I said, give us the names, if you can't then ask your mates who are members, if they can't then they don't exist. Have you read the rules of the AAPMBF??? Have you read their audited accounts from last year or any year for that?? OK so the answer is no, so I am wasting my time going on. You say forget history and just move on and that is all warm and fuzzy (read BS), if it were you that had been shafted and out of pocket I am sure that it would be different kettle of fish. If you are not on the CoM you should be.

[Di_Vosh]

Global Xpress is about on the money with the relative numbers at EAA, give or take one or two. AFAIK, there are one or two members of Sunstate who're AIPA members but the total is probably less than 5.

Why is that?

MBF is a definitely one reason. The other reasons have been covered pretty well by some of the previous posters (e.g. distrust, lack of visibility of any AIPA members except at EBA time, etc).

There's nothing stopping an AIPA member (even the one under discussion here) from being on the EAAPC (apart from getting voted on :8). As recently as last year there have been "$50.00" AIPA members on the Committee.

The only suggestion I'd make to Keg et al, is that prior to voting for the "EAA CoM member" (whoever that may be) is that they ask other CoM members about that persons performance and general reputation on the CoM.


EAA pilots, when you realise that the AFAP are an inferior product when it comes to industrial relations then and only then will you see a decent EBA.

Pretty funny comment Muff. If you know anyone at EAA, it might pay to call them and ask how much help the AFAP vs. AIPA have been towards the pilot group over the past 18 months.

DIVOSH!

[Keg]

Thanks Di Vosh. You're not the first person to suggest that in recent days. If only we had a choice of which EAA reps to vote for! (Hint, Hint, more EAA AIPA members desired so that they can have a say).

[Gen. Anaesthetic]

If I may just shoot one perception down here, MBF is NOT the best product out there (my opinion only of course). Here's why:

For starters, the MBF is not insurance and therefore users do not have the protection of Australian insurance law. If you read the AAPMBF rules you will see this stated quite clearly fairly early on in the document. From what I can see the MBF is what is known as a discretionary mutual fund (DMF), the key ingredient of which is that payments of claims are discretionary. As soon as a member has a right to a claim then the product becomes insurance and the AAPMBF is required to adhere to Australian insurance law. So to say that the MBF is the best product is in fact a little misleading. It is the only product in this space that's out there, so you could also say that it is the worst product!

There are pros and cons to this arrangement: Although the AAPMBF rules state the conditions upon which a claim (as well as the 20 year payment) will be paid, the discretionary nature of payments means members have little legal recourse in the event of a dispute. In contrast, when an insured makes a claim via their insurance company, they have the benefit of Australian insurance law which worldwide is considered the most consumer friendly there is.

The pro to the DMF arrangement though is that what I will call "frictional" costs of operating such an entity are far less than a normal insurance company, and thus members get more bang for their buck. An insurance company has to carry a certain amount and quality of capital (e.g. government bonds versus futures or other "risky" derivative products), and they also have far more stringent reporting requirements to regulatory authorities which leads to higher overheads and red tape. DMFs on the other hand are not bound by these constraints quite so much. In recent years the reporting requirements have increased somewhat, but it is still nothing compared to an insurer. I suspect this is a large reason, as well as a dearth of claims, why the MBF is feeling so flush with funds...

Given that disputes over claims with the MBF appear to be quite rare, is any of this really a big deal? Arguably not, but for my money I am happier dealing with insurers who come under Australian insurance law. There have been numerous examples of DMFs that were once sailing along nicely only to be decimated for what would appear to be remote reasons and I would hate to be one of those who ends up on the raw end of that deal.

Personally, I have not gone with the MBF because frankly there are better income protection products out there anyway! $550,000 is a pretty measly amount for a start. The insurance I have gone with pays up to $2 million, and although it is not in one lump sum I would prefer it this way as it makes tax far easier, and is more in line with my needs anyway. Furthermore the flexibility of these insurance products is greater than the MBF in that you can adjust excesses and numerous other details far more easily than you can with the MBF, leading to a product that is customised to your needs.

All of that said, I shall reiterate that this is my opinion only, and all respect to those who are part of the MBF. In many ways it is a good product, but it doesn't take much looking around to see that there are many very good options around, and those options only seem to be increasing.

[The Bolter]

Gen,

Just as Biatch has you make a big deal about discretion when referring to rules of the MBF so kindly tell us when that discretion has been used to refuse a payment of any sort to any member that was entitled to that payment under the rules of the Fund. We shall deal with the rest of your post then.

[Gen. Anaesthetic]

Gee Bolter you are pretty sensitive about this. I think you can see that my post was not an attack on the MBF. I never made any assertion that the MBF has not paid a member. All I was attempting to do was shed some light on reality. Clearly you have presented the case that few if any claims have not been paid so that's great. I just thought it reasonable that people understand the full picture. As I said, I actually think the MBF is a pretty good product.

But, to answer your question, how the hell would I know?? I am not a member of the MBF and have not been around long enough to see what has taken place. Furthermore I am sure any non payment is not something the MBF is going to advertise! The point is, the very nature of the MBF requires it to be discretionary in the way it pays out its claims. In fact there have been numerous situations where a court has deemed a body like the MBF to be an insurer - and therefore subject to Australian insurance law - simply by virtue of the pattern of payments it makes to its members. Consequently DMFs do play a somewhat dangerous game at times and this is what can bring them unstuck. That being said, from all reports the financial state of the MBF is extraordinarily sound so there is probably nothing to be concerned about, as well as the fact that the trigger for a claim is usually going to be far simpler than that for many other insurers or DMFs. This to me means that the MBF is less likely to get into trouble than your average DMF.

[The Bolter]

Gen,

When you mention the discretionary nature of the MBF you paint the picture that they only make payments if they feel like it, this is not the case, in reality they are obliged to make payments in accordance with the rules. There is a dispute resolution rule should the need arise, again you fail to mention this. When it comes to escape clauses your insurance policy probably has more than Jack Rice could jump over. They invented them didn't they???

You admit to not being a member and yet proffer that one reason that the MBF is in such a sound financial position is a dearth of claims, how do you know exactly how many claims they have had and what the total value of those claims are???

Your insurance company is there for only one reason, to make money and lots of it. Get yourself a copy of the rules and read for yourself why the MBF exists. (It is only a few lines " Objects").:ok: