bunkmaster
I don't quite follow your logic.
You say:
there are as a matter of fact very little similarities between the waterfront dispute and the current QF situation.
waterfront was very ineffective/unproductive/ did not want to shift aussie jobs overseas and many other little issues.
You seem to be saying that QF cabin crew are productive. By what criteria do you measure their productivity? If we use surveys of passenger satisfaction, in the
2004 Skytrax Cabin Staff of the Year Survey QF didn't make the top 10.
Also, isn't the QF dispute also about (to use your words later in your post:
more jobs going overseas at slave labor rates
And as for "many other little issues", one of the themes common to both disputes was/is the payment of allowances.
Like the MUA (and also the British National Union of Mineworkers in Thatcher's 1980s Britain) your strength lies in being able to take action as an entire entity. If this occurs, it will then be a test of brinkmanship as to what tactics each side uses to advantage. But don't count on any other union support. S45D of the Trade Practices Act generally prohibits secondary boycotts.