Lawrie,
Thanks for taking the time to respond. Next time leave out the references to 'skygods'. It offends me personally both in reference to my flying ability (because a skygod I ain't) as well as to my religious beliefs which those who have seen my posts on Qrewroom would know that I take pretty seriously.
To answer very bluntly the Federation will protect its area of coverage from bodies seeking to move in (in this case AIPA) that should come as no surprise to anybody with a working knowledge of unions.
I guess this is a philosophical difference. I see that all people in the one company doing the same job should be able to be covered (if they choose) by the most appropriate association. If this is the TWU, AFAP or AIPA then I don't really give a stuff but to 'isolate' parts of the group from membership due to a belief that you 'own' strikes me more as 'protectionist' than anything else. It doesn't look like 'service', it looks like covering your own backside.
I have no problem with anyone attending a meeting a AIPA what i am getting "jack of" is the plain rubbish been spoken about futre unity when the whole exercise is only about protecting QF mainline backsides and using others as their pawns.
I disagree- as my comments above allude to.
The Federation has put it to AIPA to give us a full written proposal that can be considered at our Executive in mid June for one pilot body in Aus. Guess what they can't and will not do it because it exposes the fraud that is being played out.
Have you submitted your full written proposal to AIPA (or anyone really) for the one pilot body in Australia? I've never read it. I've read many calls for unity amongst the representative bodies on this forum (I authored a few of them in fact) and yet the first time I recall hearing from you is when AIPA make a move to open the doors to other crew employed in the QF group.
They do not want GA pilots, or helicopters or small airlines in the camp and god forbid you give them equal standing with the QF skygods in voting strength.
I'm not sure what we're voting on here but I don't think that I want a GA driver voting on whether or not EBA 8 gets up in QF. I'm not sure that I want Captain Bloggs from Joe's Air Charter (apology to Joe if the company actually exists) to be speaking on behalf of QF group pilots just because he got the 3200 GA drivers to vote for him whilst the 3199 QF group pilots didn't. I'm not sure the DJ crew would want Captain Bloggs from QF speaking for them in their EBA negotiations either....or for the GA drivers.
The pilot unions will never get together whilst you exclude professional pilots who do not meet the percieved "gods gift to avaition" standards.
Can we leave the hyperbole behind? It's tiresome, it's old and it's generally the refuge of those with massive chips on their shoulders. Many pilot's in the US are part of their own group's association which goes to make up USALPA (or whatever they're calling it this week). What's the problem with this model? The answer is nothing.
If your fair dinkum about the future of pilot unions convince AIPA to embrace all professional pilots and work with us on a structure to achieve rather fight in the courts.
Rather than fight in the courts? Why don't you drop the case Lawrie and work with AIPA. I can't see AIPA being prepared to 'work together' when you're the one trying to block them from being able to cover pilots all employed by the same group.
[quote]
As a side note or for you an inconvienent truth over 70% of the Jetstar pilots voted their agreement up and the wide body amendment....[quote]
Geez Lawrie, a big percentage of people in Germany in the '30s voted for the Nazi party and Hitler to become the Chancellor, that doesn't make it a wise decision.
... we are and have continued attempts to work with the group not stand back and call them parasites and actively try to discredit them as AIPA and its leaders have done since the outset.
Funny, I recall a number of times that AIPA and QF drivers asked and even begged the JPC, J* pilots and everyone else involved in the A320 introduction and the subsequent widebody variation to get their heads together with AIPA to work together on these deals. Where was your proposed unity then- or were you so delighted about being able to 'stick it' to those in QF that all you could think of was the increased subs.
I'm quite happy to see that AIPA is working towards ensuring that all members of the QF group are able to avail themselves of the one representative body if they so desire. I've got no problems with AFAP running a case to be able to cover QF drivers (if we so chose). Based on your comments here though and your track record over the last few years I can't see too many QF drivers being particularly anxious to make the leap though- even given our own internal issues with AIPA.
Regards,
Keg