So . . . AIPA handing out information on why you can't take industrial action . . . sounds like another meeting I was at where Alana Stark did exactly that but, I suspect, for slightly different reasons. Same effect though - neutralises the option and degrades the newsworthiness of the issue and the meeting overall.
Guess what - if you are really concerned about the issue of standards or pay or whatever it is - you don't rule out industrial action. Another example of amateur hour at AIPA. Similarly, having called the meeting - what do they do? The very gentlemanly option of a "no confidence" motion - just proves how ineffectual the exercise was.
As others have written - it needs to be about SAFETY! Damage to the brand is what hurts Qantas and J* - it's why Sue Bussell made reference to it in her recent speech on the Fair Work Act:
'Unions wrong to use safety to attack Qantas
Bussell lambasted those unions that had used safety issues as a bargaining tactic.
"There is an unfortunate tendency for a small number of unions to damage the employer brand" as a way of, or "instead of, bargaining", she said.
They were borrowing from the US model and "using safety as a tactic", she said.'
You said it Sue - and it hurts that's why it's effective.
On the other hand - the meeting should have encouraged QF and J* crew in regard ot he support they have from their colleagues and the need to be more unified in their approach to the underlying job security issue.
However, the issue of offshoring jobs needs to be run as a campaign in all it's component parts. Who would run a meeting like this on the first business day after a Federal Election when, regardless of the outcome, election news would dominate. The report on PM didn't come on until 6.40 with election news dominating. The saving grace was the FO who was interviewed - did an excellent interview and was very compelling. He should immediately be co-opted to the AIPA COM.
By comparison listen to the AIPA President from a couple of weeks ago - just awful:
Pilots angry over Jetstar's new 'group' company - Radio National Breakfast - 23 July 2010
Or Woody's garbled message on ABC Radio news on Saturday.
Maybe AIPA can tell us what follow up is planned? What is the ongoing media strategy - what follow ups are planned? OF course, I would ask what the political strategy is except we don't have a Federal Government at the moment. What follow up with CASA? Or a dozen other key players?
By the way - just an observation - AIPA is now taking QF to court, attempting to get some media traction, is working with the ACTU, has a LH EA in the offing and is contemplating pilot unity - what year is it? Try 2008 . . .
The more things change . . . the more they stay the same . . . except 2 valuable years have been wasted.