dexter, it is of little consequence to us what we are called. sc#bs,replacement workers, custodians etc,. are all suitable and, depending on which side of the fence you are on, appropriate. i shall endeavour to get this thread back on track. it was never a case of whether Cathay pilots had balls or not, rather who was going to be dictated to by an out of date union and affiliated unions.
as with the dispute in '89 in Oz, the union had embarked on a campaign to "annoy the living daylights" out of the Companies in an attempt to gain more money, in an industry that was paying very well at the time. The AFAPs tactics were a "nine to five" campaign, totally unworkable in the aviation industry and the union new it. the AOAs tactics were mass "sick ins" again totally unworkable. now when you get someone annoyed for long enough, they are going to hit back at you and hit back hard. and so was the case with the Airlines in Oz - mass personal writs on pilots for damages. with Cathay it was indiscriminate sackings.
i concede neither retaliations were fair but they happened. the unions should have realised that they were in a no win situation and should have changed strategies but NO. AFAP stick together and it will turn out OK. AOA get IFALPA to sanction a recruitment ban and it will work out OK.
both unions were guilty of headstrong and egotistical leadership. at no time was any consideration given to the more junior pilot groups in the airlines. there were pilots in Oz that never flew again. i was still learning to fly and paying off my flying lessons - no rich Uncle paying for me! i swore, after witnessing that event in 1989 that no union or association was ever going to prevent me pursuing what i perceived to be a fair and reasonable aviation job.
hope this clarifies a few things for you young Dexter.
gee i enjoyed that week off!