Although a long time lurker this is a first venture into print. PPRuNe provides a window with a view. From it comes an insight and opportunity to follow, analyse and too often discard what is seen and felt by a wide cross section of people representing many facets of flying in different environments and circumstances. Also it provides a degree of insight into the personalities and qualities of those who keep this web-site interesting and informative –and others. It is the “them and us” tone of the subject that is responsible for this posting.
Much has been said about the events of ’89, and so deep are the hurts and feelings of those who were, and are still being affected, it will not be allowed to die. Many have been able to put it behind them due quite often to circumstances and luck. Others have not been so fortunate.
This may come as a surprise to many who were closely involved. Although far removed from the trauma of that time it is a personal experience which offers yet another, and darker side to the tragedy of ‘89. It would not be surprising if there were similar private agendas or taking advantage of opportunities with potentially damaging impact on the careers of others. To what extent one may only guess. What follows was executed in secret under the noses of those whose interests were, supposedly, being protected.
Just over a year after the ’89 action, when a certain degree of stability was evidenced by the operations of the domestic carriers involved, my company wrote to the pilot’s union advising of positions available on wide-body jet aircraft. This was not out of sympathy for any person or group, but purely commercial. We needed first world experience from a sound aviation jurisdiction and there was no doubt that Australia was where experience at a high standard was available, and in quantity. The events of ’89 offered a potential win-win situation for an airline and for unemployed, experienced technical aircrew.
Our letter requested a list, if one was obtainable, of member pilots who had not been able to find flying jobs but were interested and available for overseas aircrew employment. At the time a large displaced workforce of qualified and experienced professional aircrew were still unemployed and available. There were those who had not accepted offers or applied to return to work. Others could not find work overseas.
The initial reply was quick and curt. It asked for full details of the company and a banker’s statement attesting our financial position. In addition the writer claimed that all Australian pilots looking for positions were represented solely by the union, would have to be based wherever they resided in Australia and positioned and returned by first class full fare tickets for their duty flights wherever those flights might originate and terminate. They would be available in turn and in accordance with a seniority list made up by the union. Other minimum conditions were listed for items such as salaries, seniority, vacations, pensions and per diems.
In reply we advised our conditions of service were confidential and only divulged following interest by prospective employees during interview. Employment was being offered to a wide range of people, not only displaced Australians. All employment would to be on standard and identical terms. Applications from Australians still available following the dispute and looking for airline flying would be considered. If they were offered employment the choice of accepting or declining OUR contract terms would be theirs and theirs alone. Applicants attending interviews would be provided with transportation, accommodation and per diems.
A document was returned within 24 hours. It listed four names. Those names which included the writer with three others were union representatives manning the office of the union. There is no evidence that our offer was ever brought to the attention of any members other than those four who were at that time involved in union administrative tasks and “looking after the well-being of the membership”.
No displaced Australians were interviewed. And yes, the correspondence has been retained.