---who oppposed (sic)and were in the miniority (sic)supported the formation once it was clear there was a majority.
Dear Mr Cox,
Not really, and I, for one, opposed the original breakaway ( I was on the OSB Committee at the time) because I was one of a number who favored the ALPA framework, with a Master Executive Council, but each airline branch largely running its own race, within a policy framework which would NOT have allowed other pilot groups to dictate operational policy for "competitor" or "other" airlines.
But once the die was cast, all but a handful adopted the new framework, and I, for one, was happy to later admit that Westwood was right. There is no way the domestic recalcitrants of the day would have changed their attitude, as I later came to realise.
I was just as sick and tired of the domination of Ansett/TAA ( the cockeyed Convention voting structure --- with "Ansett" having all the state votes) as Westwood a Co, and the troglodyte approach to technical innovation ----- three pilots or two plus F/E on anything with more then 100 seats/no glass cockpits ( yes, that right --- and Cathay pilots were on the same tack) and many smaller but quite important issues: no reduced power takeoffs, no wet runway V1, no intersection takeoffs, yada, yada, yada.
A not inconsiderable concern of OSB was the party politics in Melbourne, and the attempts to turn the General Manager position into Executive General Manager. The OSB was not going to have a bar of AFAP becoming just another union supporting Labor. Nor would we have a bar of the "Executive General Manager" using our funds to promote his ambitions to become a Labor Senator for Victoria.
If you want to talk about rampant egos, have a look at the "management" of the 1966 QF strike (AFAP President Captain R. Holt) where we finally settled for a deal that was not as good as the QF "final offer" before the strike. "Somebody" was determined to have a strike. It took quite a few years for many F/Os and S/O salaries to catch up to pre-strike levels, I was on a "savings clause" for almost 5 years.We didn't even get datal seniority ---- and for whom to we give thanks for that.
And it was QF pilots who signed personal guarantees to raise enough money to get all the crews stranded overseas home --- quite a risk to take.
Mr. Cox, it is my opinion that, to this day, AFAP has followed a narrow, even introverted and myopic agenda, and I speak from years and years of listening to AFAP representatives talking unsubstantiated rubbish at various technical/consultation meeting ------ it is always the same agenda, making unsubstantiated safety claims to block change ------ pretty much the same as demanding three man crews on anything with more than 100 seats --- or no glass cockpits, because we would all become epileptics.
You will not probably remember, but I was instrumental in getting one of your members out of very serious p** in the west, but this is not the place to go further into that problem.
As to the comments about OSB and GA ----- again, absolute rubbish, as a member of the OSB, I spent many hours assisting the NSW GA guys, and one thing I noticed then, that I still see to this day ----- in an unfortunately large percentage of cases ---- as soon as a bloke gets an airline job, their suddenly adopted attitude of contempt for GA blossoms ----- something I never saw in the OSB/AIPA. I spent a lot of time as an OSB RAPAC rep. arguing against AFAP "airlines reps" demanding restrictions on GA operations ---- that had no evidence based safety case, just assertions. Assertions which, if accepted, would have cost quite a few GA members their jobs ----- and I am still hearing and seeing the same thing, to this day.
I never once heard the cost of supporting GA brought up at an OSB Committee meeting, and I spent more than enough time there.
Tootle pip!!
It even took a "wonderful chap" from Ansett to dob in our DDFO for alleged low flying at Oskosh --- the smallest of small time actions.