TG, I invite you to expand on your thoughts. You have told us that you think the Labor Party will crucify the pilots again, without really explaining why you think so. You think the Liberals will be more supportive of the pilots cause, yet they produced 'work choices' and Abbot has publicly stated he does not care if Australian jobs go off-shore, as long as an Australian company can make a profit doing so.
It appears to me that you are drawing parallels to this situation and 1989. I invite you to explain why you think there will be the same or similar outcome. A real explanation, not just motherhood statements like 'it is game on'. The only real similarity I can see is that the dispute involves pilots. The differences I see, however, are:
The pilots in 1989 decided to opt out of the wage fixing system and had effectively declared war against both the airlines and the government. The QF pilots now are seeking Protected Industrial Action as a legitimate and authorised negotiating tool that is within the government's industrial relations system. It is not a declaration of war on the government of the day, it is working completely within the system.
In 1989, the actions the pilots took was effectively illegal and exposed them to liability for the damages caused. In an attempt to extinguish this liability they resigned. Action being contemplated by QF pilots now is legal and protects them from civil liability.
The way the pilots and companies and government handled the 1989 dispute was in a 'high stakes' or 'brinkmanship' manner (eg issuing writs by the company, pilots resigning, government directly assisting business with military). Fair Work Australia will remove approval for action if there is significant damage to either party, or to any third party. This ensures that any action is measured, appropriate, and does not lead to the high stakes game of 1989.
Politics and personalities. Related to my first point, but here talking about the personal egos at stake. Hawke had bet his political reputation on his ability to get unions to cooperate and contain wages growth. I believe there was some personal animosity between Hawke and the AFAP. Hawke and Peter Abels were personal friends with speculation about what favours Hawke might owe to Abels. When the pilots decided they did not want to comply with the IR policy, they turned things in to a personal battle with the government and with Hawke. Once again, the QF pilots are not wanting to opt out of the governments IR system, they are acting completely within it. There is no battle with government policy, in fact the central issue is keeping job security, which sits within the intent of the Qantas Sales Act.
In short, I see that AIPA has learned the lessons of 1989, as none of the contributing factors of that debacle appear to be a factor now. Those that are scare mongering about the current proposed action have yet to convincingly argue the similarities between 1989 and now, and have yet to convincingly argue why they think there may be a similar outcome.