Originally Posted by
RollThroughApproved
Is that the AIPA who’s Eastern rep went to RSA to help the company undercut Australian pilot’s terms and conditions by recruiting foreign pilots?
The timeless AIPA v AFAP argument is wasted time. Its not the name on the door (the door we fund, mind you) of the organisation that matters. It’s the people who sit on your council who will make a difference in the negotiations. Rather than splitting into two unions - which undermines your power….. Get a bunch of smart people together and replace the current dead wood with pilots who won’t just look out for themselves.
Make the company negotiate against people who can hold them to account - or even better, who aren’t too proud to call on a professional negotiator for help!
That’s how you will get change.
Roll Through...,
It's a pity that you've allowed your opinion to become so jaundiced by the ranting of a few angry old men (in the AFAP). It's also a pity that your opinion lacks a good measure of understanding. I guess you're just young.
Here are some verifiable facts:
1. Experienced Check and Training Pilots (not line plots) were sought from the RSA to maintain the operation. No C & T pilots = no line pilots = no operation.
2. Why was this necessary? There seems to be a lack of type-experienced C &T pilots here.
3. Why do I believe this? The perpetual E o I for C & T pilots that has been published internally for some time with little success.
4. Why little success? (and I'm sure this is the single point on which we will continue to disagree), because LIFESTYLE (not insufficient financial reward) is more important it seems, to our local qualified pilots that could be applying for those C & T positions.
Don't criticise the AIPA rep leader for going to the RSA in search of qualified pilots to sustain our operation. The same operation that now employs, trains, pays and enhances yours and your cohort's future employment opportunities. He did the same thing many years ago WITH THE AFAP's BLESSING after extensive mutual consultation between AFAP and management.
Why him and not someone else? Because he has had a long association with the RSA through many early-career flying years there and some ongoing connection.
In other words, please put away your knife and stop playing the man, because he's earned his stripes in this company and this industry and he deserves better treatment.
"Its not the name on the door (the door we fund, mind you) of the organisation that matters. It’s the people who sit on your council who will make a difference in the negotiations." "Get a bunch of smart people together and replace the current dead wood with pilots who won’t just look out for themselves."
On these points, you and I are in complete agreement. That's why, after decades of AFAP membership, I (and my smart-old-men cohort) voted with our feet and left for better pastures with AIPA. We had become so disillusioned by (and mistrusting of) the AFAP's divergence from its early values and beliefs. They have become a lazy organisation that's now top-heavy and with no real direction about promoting pilot interests - compare the size of their executive and management team to the number employed in AIPA...it's telling.
Why has this happened? Because the MBF is its enabler - lulling pilots into overlooking its bad behaviour during their career, through the promise of a sizeable nest-egg at the end of their career.
I understand your optimistic sentiment about unity and scale. Unfortunately, I'm old enough to know that it's a youthful pipe dream that won't ever be achieved - too many different personalities and too many different priorities out there. Best we can hope for is that the most number of people find benefit with the least amount of imbalance or inequality
I tried to stay on and to believe in the AFAP and even once tried to persuade their leadership into a realignment of their divergent path. That sage advice fell on deaf ears. They are too comfortable in their current culture.
I was around when AIPA split from the AFAP around 1980. Like you, I also thought the breakup was a selfish act by an elite group of self-interested pilots and that it would ultimately undermine pilot interests industrially. Fact is, it didn't. It just established 2 distinct groups of pilots that have different views on how things should be run - with the benefit of some years and a change in personal outlook, it was a perfectly reasonable and sensible democratic action to take.
I believe in a single representative body for all Qantas-group pilots - not because I'm a "Qantas Sky-God", (not even close flying a Dash 8 in regional ops!), but because I trust the organisation to promote and support my interests and to do so fairly and intelligently.