News blamed for Ansett collapse

[Wirraway]

AAP

News blamed for Ansett collapse
August 18, 2004 - 3:30PM

If News Corp Ltd had owned Ansett in September 2001 it would still be flying today, according to the airline's administrator.

News Corp, which sold its 50 per cent holding in Ansett in 2000 to the other stakeholder Air New Zealand, could have provided the financial clout needed to keep the carrier in the skies, Mark Korda from KordaMentha said.

"If News Corp still had owned Ansett it would be flying today because it would have had the capital base to be able to keep Ansett Airlines going," Mr Korda told the Australia-Israel Chamber of Commerce yesterday.

Air New Zealand fully owned Ansett when it was put into voluntary administration in September 2001, after buying out its partner News Corp subsequent to paying TNT Ltd $475 million for its 50 per cent stake in 1996.

"Air New Zealand on the last count I saw had about 17 aircraft and it bought a company with 134 - give or take one, because Ansett records weren't that good that they could track every plane they owned," Mr Korda said.

"Ansett owned every sort of plane you could ever want."

He said former Ansett boss Sir Peter Abeles would go to the air shows every year in France and buy up large numbers of planes.

Sir Peter was joint chairman and chief executive of Ansett before stepping aside in late 1992 to become a consultant to the airline.

Mr Korda was also critical of the decision to put Ansett into administration on September 12, 2001 - the day after terrorist attacks on the United States rocked the airline industry around the world.

"If they had just sat back and looked at the situation they should have said to Air New Zealand and the Australian federal government, 'look what's happened to the airline industry, we can't keep propping up Ansett - we can do it for a couple of more weeks, but it's your problem'."

That is the course the US airline industry chose to follow, Mr Korda said.

"Most of the airlines survived in the US because the US government put $US40 billion into the industry," he said.

"If the Australian government had put the equivalent of $US40 billion into the industry the airline could still be flying."

Mr Korda said the administrators, who were personally liable for all the debts incurred - "obviously we don't own many assets" - had decided they would give Ansett one chance to fly.

High profile businessmen Lindsay Fox and Solomon Lew had put together a consortium to buy the airline but pulled out two days before the deal was set to close.

"Solomon Lew got cold feet at the last minute - he was a retailer, he just got cold feet at the last minute," Mr Korda said.

When the bidders indicated they did not want to put in $400 million in capital, Mr Korda said the decision was made to sell the assets and pay the employees as much as they could.

"As of today, we have paid them $570 million with about another $150 million to come," he said.

In the six months to the end of June the administrators had sold $55.7 million of assets, nearly three years after the collapse.

"It's been a staggering job," Mr Korda said.

- AAP

=========================================

[Plas Teek]

So, basically, it was a sinking ship before ANZ got it.

[Kaptin M]

One has to wonder if the truth will ever be revealed - probably not, because of the ramifications.

Abeles & Murdoch gutted Ansett when they took it over from Sir Reginald Ansett, selling off the aircraft that Ansett & East-West OWNED and leasing new aircraft.

But the final straw was the 1989 Dispute - quite simply all of the airlines involved ceased to have ANY income for far, far too long, and the airlines were forced to dip far too deeply into their cash reserves PLUS those of the Hawke Government.
Ansett was the last of the four airlines involved in the Dispute to die.

To publicly admit that the united pilot group (read "union") had destroyed the four airlines by starving them to death (which was what the airline companies had planned for the pilots), would be to admit gross infallability on the part of airline management and the support of the Hawke Labor government.
Hence the worldwide campaign since then to unravel pilots' unions ie. to remove the "Strike" weapon.

[coaldemon]

Oh it must be the conspiracy hour .......

[Buster Hyman]

But if only you'd used your powers for good instead of evil Kaptin!!! :p ;) :p ;) :E

But seriously though...
News Corp....could have provided the financial clout needed
Exactly why they sold when they did! Good heavens man, Ansett was about to cost Murdoch REAL money!!!!
Sir Peter Abeles would go to the air shows every year in France and buy up large numbers of planes
News to me. I know of one time he did it, for the A320's, and then had to get Hawke to get the rules changed so it could do SYD-PER which it couldn't at the time of purchase!:rolleyes:
Solomon Lew got cold feet at the last minute
Cold feet! Is that what you call it when your scam has been exposed! Full credit to SACL for that one!:ok:
It's been a staggering job
And quite an earner for Korda/Mentha! I see they've decided to go into aircraft leasing with whats left!:rolleyes:

[FarQ2]

I don't often agree with you Kaptin M but this time I do. All the so called experts who were around when AN finally went down know SFA about the cancer within which Abeles and Murdoch set in place.

I still remember well my first excursion in the LHS of an A320 in early '89, and as I entered the cockpit an aluminum plaque showing a Japanese Co. Owned the a/c and was leasing it to some other obscure entity greeted me.

I am glad I chose to walk in August '89 and let the "heros" squabble over the dead carcass.

:ugh:

[Wizofoz]

2001-1989= 12...That's one hell of a long "Last straw"!!!

It had nothing to do with '89...but I'm just not going to go there.

[curfew2]

looks like its wind up time :hmm:

[longjohn]

What a joke!

Once again I see KordaMentha trying to paint themselves as the 'good' guys, this time blaming News Corp rather then just getting on with the job of selling assets and giving staff THEIR money.

These guys are not just the ultimate vultures, feeding off the carcass of a dead airline, but they also have the audacity to try and score points off it.

Why has it taken so long to dispose of the assets?
Were they reasonably priced?
Are Kordamentha's fees reasonable and fair?
When are we going to see OUR MONEY?

It is about time an enquiry was conducted into this affair.

BTW Kap, I do think that most airlines did learn from the dispute to screw unions at all costs.

[Raider1]

Many many factors contributed to Ansett's demise and the the 89 dispute certainly was not one of them.

The final straw and the killa blow was ANZ first buying 50% then later being allowed to purchase the other 50%. As I have said many times that was like my local Primary School P&C launching a takeover for Woolworths. Totally out of their depth.
As for the major shareholder Ron B and his company forcing ANZ into that purchase......well for me I will never again purchase a product or service with any company he is associated with.:D

[RIVER1]

Yes when ANZ purchased the first half of An it was very adventurous,but when they jumped at the second half with apparently little due diligence it was foolhardy and destroyed a great carrier that should have kept operating with Newscorp as a shareholder until a buyer with adequate experience and resources could be found.My experience was that after the initial purchase not much happened and after they had 100% nothing happened and good management staff sat on their hands waiting for a statement and direction from ANZ,which never came.I believe it was simply a unbelievably geared share play which did not come off,but those involved should have given more thought to the damage that would be done.But perhaps Howard and Anderson are happy enough to have gone along with what ANZ did.Personally I have always felt that ANZ should have been liquidated as well and if they proceed with the large order of aircraft they have recently announced I think I will live to see just that.

[halas]

There was another buyer....SQ!

Rod was doing his job on behalf of Rupert to bail out of AN.

Rod was on the final detail with SQ when NZ used their pre-emptive right to purchase the last 50% of AN as was agreed to when they bought TNT's half of the company earlier.

They didn't do due diligence, as they have admitted to, even though (for farks sake) they already owned half of it already!
How much due diligence do you need to do when you are on the board and are one of two partners???!!!!

Then there was the placement of a manager of the whole company after they gave Rod the flick and he got a prime job with BA. It only took six months after the purchase for them to coax Toomey out of his comfy QF gig to pick up the pieces that were created by god-knows-who left running the shambles.

To aid to his lament were the sackings (voluntary redundancies) of upper, middle and coal-face staff. If, as an employee, you can get a better offer elsewhere you leave, which leaves behind (or creates positions for) those who don't have somewhere else to go.

Now what a great airline we have!

Then there is the bidding war with QF for Sydney slots (Er, sorry ment to say Hazelton). How much over their list price did they end up paying for that goose? (With all due respect to HZ staff).

Come September 11 an easy out was opened for NZ without even trying.

At that stage NZ relied heavily on US traffic. That was about to cease immidiately.

Two nooses to face. Which is the EASIEST to avoid?

Ansett :suspect:

Now, due to uncle Helen's unterferance, the New Zealand tax payer is an active share holder of a flayling business that is talking up it's future and placing orders for aircraft that the treasury can't afford.

Earlier someone said Sir Peter (May he r0t in peace) was a plane purchaser from heaven (At least that is what the manufacturers thought)
Let's look at NZ inventory
747
767
737
320

Not bad for 17 aeroplane company. (To quote KordaMentha)

Add 777 and 7E7 (Get's better doesn't it?) ((And who orders 2 of a new type?))

I think KordaMentha are lowest of the low. There is so much money left for them to make it's not at all laughable.
Think about how lucky the are!

Ansett collapses whilst they are employees of Andersons.
Andersons collapses and the emloyees become the employers.

They must be buying lotto tickets every day.
But then why would they? The lotto winnings are coming in every day for these pr!cks!

Every day is Tattslotto winning day, and will be for a long time yet.

Enough ranting......

halas

[SydGirl]

halas,

Well ranted! I agree "absolutely" :yuk: with every utterance you've just made.

SG
:E

[Lodown]

One has to wonder about the purpose of Mr Korda’s dissertation. The pieces quoted appear to paint Mr Korda in the light of an ex-employee hard done by and dealing with a poor hand, rather than the person in the executive position responsible for decisions with great impact on the lives of others.

"If News Corp still had owned Ansett it would be flying today because it would have had the capital base to be able to keep Ansett Airlines going."

Okay, News Corp doesn’t, so what’s the point? There's a sucker born every minute and ANZ was one of them.

That is the course the US airline industry chose to follow, Mr Korda said.
"Most of the airlines survived in the US because the US government put $US40 billion into the industry," he said.
"If the Australian government had put the equivalent of $US40 billion into the industry the airline could still be flying."

Oh really! So it's the government's fault? Has Mr Korda looked at the current state of financial affairs with the US airline industry? They might be flying, but only just. The injection of taxpayer funds has only deferred the inevitable, perhaps until after an election or two.

I'm not making a judgment on the collapse of Ansett, but I would have expected more from one of the people charged with recovering monies for ex-employees. Stand up and provide some direction and goals Mr Korda.

[TheNightOwl]

halas and Lodown - good point from both of you, I fully agree.

As for the '89ers, your actions had a lot to do with the difficulties AN faced after that disgraceful episode, but it did NOT cause the destruction of the company. That was ably acheived by that bunch of self-serving morons both across the Tasman and, as important, here in Oz in the form of our own government. Please, wallow in your own perception of your erstwhile importance, just don't ask all to believe that your "justifiable claim" was the downfall of a once-good company, you grant yourselves far too much relevance!

Kind regards,

TheNightOwl.

[Ralph the Bong]

Halas, that posting was one of the most sussinct discriptions as to the demise of Ansett that I have read. Well done.

Add this to the pot: In April 2001 I had a dicussion with a friend, a kiwi(an organisational change consultant), who asked "how do you think AN is traveling?" I replied "not well" and indicated that I was looking at certain carriers overseas as I could forsee some rather unpleasant restructuring ahead at AN. (I also felt like a bit of a change of pace). She told me at this time that looking overseas was a "bloody good idea".

After AN was sunk by TL, my friend told me that she had a sibling on the ANZ board and that the board were looking at ways to wind AN up because they could could not afford to restructure the company. I respect my friends action in not telling me this at the time as it reflects her integrety in in not blabbing sensitive commercial information(which she probably shouldn't have been privy to in the first place), yet at the same time she was warning me to move on before the crunch came.

THere was nothing wrong with Ansett that $1,000,000,000 couldn't have fixed. This would have been the cost of restructuring the company and streamlining the fleet into 2 or 3 types. Imagine how competitive AN would have been with a fleet of 50 A320's and 15 B767-300's. Such a fleet would have adequatly satisfied ANs' existing domestic and International operations. The question remains is to why exactly did Air NZ buy in when they didn't have this sort of money.

The reasons that TL bought the remaining 50% of AN from News was, in my mind, a commercial and political decision. Had SQ acquired News's stake, it had plans to expand AN international and begin operations to the West coast of USA(they made no secret of this). This would have resulted in infighting within an SQ/TL board regarding who would operate the services which would to some extent see AN competing against parent company, Air NZ. Sigificantly, SQ never made mention of plans to operate AN on European services.

However, by way of analogy, if you owned a half share in a run down house and the other co-owner wanted to sell their share to someone who was prepare to foot the cost of renovations, would you notwelcome this buyer with open arms?Yet this is exactly what Air NZ did when it prevented SQ from buying in. This simply defies belief!

There are several issues raised by Mark Korda that I do not agree with. Firstly, Sir Peter did not buy aircraft willy-nilly at every Paris airshow. He only ever bought 2 types: the A320 and the BAe146. The 146 was ordered by TNT(72 units, the entire production line for 5 years) so as to establish an overnight freight operation in Europe. At the time the 146 was the only aircraft that met the noise requirement laws for night operation. Owning the only type that could operate at night would have given TNT a monopoly on European freight and postal services. The deal unravaled and TNT did not get the contracts that it sought due to lobbying from the Europeans and Sir 'Peat' was left with a whole bunch of airframes that needed some place to fly. This why they went to East-West (who I understand wanted F100s').

Secondly, the Australian goverment had no interest in seeing Ansett do anything but sink. Honest John, the Minister for Qantas and Max the Axe were quick to cotton on the idea that by allowing Ansett and its heavily unionised workforce to sink would expidite aviation industry microeconomic reform(read: diminished conditions). This agenda would see the 'Bransonisation' of the industry as the lowest common denominator.

Ansett was great place to work with a great product and high caliber, inspiring people. The last year at AN were quite painful to watch and most were aware that a crunch of some sort was imminent. Sad, but most have moved on.

[TheNightOwl]

My thanks, Ralph, for your post, supporting every belief I have held as to the cause of AN's demise. I'm convinced to this day that the primary reason for AirNZ's purchase was that they could see SQ investing in AN, domestic OR i'nat'al, and wanted access to SQ's funds for themselves. This would have given them access to the Oz domestic market, as well as international, and kept SQ out of both.

Our Gov't, in the form of the Minister for Qantas, had a vested interest in seeing us go down, as you say it enabled them to begin the decimation of union power in the workforce, something the 89 dispute failed to achieve. B:mad:

I firmly believe that the purchase went ahead, despite ANZ not having the funds, with the backing of the NZ gov't which was unlikely to see the national carrier fail. I make no claim that the decision was made with the PRIOR backing of the NZ gov't.

May they all rot in their own, particular Hell!!

Kind regards,

TheNightOwl.

[elektra]

It is a FACT that ANZ wanted to enter the Australian domestic market in its own right and was stopped at the 11th hour by Laurie Brereton. On behalf of the Hawke government that wanted to (a) Sell Ansett to anybody to fix up Rupert's budget problems and (b) sell Qantas to fix up their (Australia's other government) budget problems.

Someone in a post above referred to the $1 billion dollars that would have fixed up Ansett. that figure ought to haunt any thinking ex-Ansett employee. That's about what Abeles and Murdoch (with Hawkes help) between them spent of AN shareholders funds on (a) a truly terrible fleet mix (b) a truly terrible 747 led introduction to overseas routes (c) truly terrible losses fighting their own pilots in 1989 (d) truly terrible salaries paid to Heroes after 1989 and (e) truly terrible blood letting in the "price wars" fighting Compass Mk 1 in 1990/91.

By the time Hawke/Keating (as agents for News Ltd) forced ANZ to buy Ansett as their only way of EVER getting into the Australian domestic market it was long gone. Lone gone. Mother Teresa could not have breathed life into the rotting cadaver.

A half decent California lawyer would be suing the AN receivers (and maybe a couple of former prominent ALP leaders) on ANZ's behalf for trickery and coercion.

AN was not EVER a thriving airline cut down in the prime of life. Let's get over that fairy tale once and for all. PLEASE>

[Wizofoz]

truly terrible salaries paid to Heroes after 1989

Cost of crewing per hour flown was 35% LESS post '89

[Spuds McKenzie]

Hmmm, Woomera on a break...?


Nah just got home from the pub. W:p

[Woomera]

airhag

Sometimes we find you quite funny at other times just plain boorish, it's hard to work it out sometimes.

I couldn't work out a way of editing your post to get your point across without deleting the lot.

It takes me less time to delete posts than it does for you and others to write them.

So play nice, you can have a say and I don't have to spend time playing Little Bo Peep. :E :D

[halas]

elektra

a) Sell Ansett to anybody to fix up Rupert's budget problems and (b) sell Qantas to fix up their (Australia's other government) budget problems

a) Rupert never had a problem to start with as he got the TV station he was after.
b) Neither did the Australian gu'ment as they were flush with funds under ALP with all their other privatisations.

$1 billion dollars that would have fixed up Ansett. that figure ought to haunt any thinking ex-Ansett employee

Nothing compared to the New Zealand tax payer for the air adventure they have been subject to thanks to Uncle Helen.

(a) a truly terrible fleet mix
Hello, whats happening in the South sea isocommunity at the moment?

b) a truly terrible 747 led introduction to overseas routes
The Asian crises was not forseeable to many but you obviously. If you include the Sydney incident then granted.
If you include how NZ introduced their 744, then get st*ffed!

(c) truly terrible losses fighting their own pilots in 1989
I'm leaving that one for the keeper!

d) truly terrible salaries paid to Heroes after 1989
Terrible to whome? It was paid for 55 hours a month and any over time was a bonus. Do you realise what the award was prior '89? NO!

(e) truly terrible blood letting in the "price wars" fighting Compass Mk 1 in 1990/91.
Have no idea how much influence that one had. but it's just like saying Ansett had a chance if TL hadn't got involved, or either gu'ment.

As l said before get *&%#$@! unless you know the facts!

halas

[Buster Hyman]

Just a small point of order. The 747 didn't lead the OS expansion, that was done by the 762's to DPS, and that was quite an earner for the airline & the crews.
The only problem with the OS expansion, was the choice of routes & perhaps the 747 training, but I don't know about that part. All along, AN was dependant on foreign travellers using our service. They ignored where the Aussie traveller wanted to go (Bali excepted) and paid the price when the foreign travellers dried up!

[planemad2]

Sir Peter did not buy aircraft willy-nilly at every Paris airshow. He only ever bought 2 types: the A320 and the BAe146.

Not to mention the Fokker 50 ;)

[ACMS]

The Night Owl: I'm sorry but the dispute in 89 that I was involved in cost Ansett hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars. That is fact, and it certainly didn't help things for the future of that company.

planemad 2: yes Sir Pete bought Bae146's by the dozens
12 737-200's 12 737-300's 10 Fk50's and 6 767-200's. Leased them all after selling the DC-9's and 727's we owned.

Made a killing selling the DC-9's to himself then onselling to companies in the US ( the USN were one )

[Kaptin M]

As for the '89ers.......it did NOT cause the destruction of the company. Don't ever think about going into a business venture on your current understanding of economics, TNO.
Now you ARE correct on the one hand, in stating that is was NOT the actions of the '89'ers that caused Ansett irreparable - yes IRREPARABLE - damage, because if you recall, it was Ansett that voluntarily stood all of us aside, and shut down operations.
You DO remember that, don't you, TNO?

But I know of NO company - and especially one structured as Ansett was, with aircraft lease payments, and the promise to continue to pay ALL staff their salaries - that can endure 3 or 4 months of NO INCOME!
If you, TNO, do know of such a company you should incorporate and franchise it.

Abeles & Murdoch started the rot.
They very quickly depleted any reserves (that they hadn't plundered) over Ansett's previous 30 years of SUCCESSFUL, PROFITABLE operations, when they declared war on their pilots in 1989.
And as halas confirms, with his quip, "It was paid for 55 hours a month and any over time was a bonus.", the salaries paid post Dispute were UNsustainable, and weakened the company even further. (Remember, it wasn't the sc#bs who proposed the pay rates, it was Abeles & Co).

Ansett was ALREADY stuffed when Air New Zealand got it - they got a lemon.

[Ralph the Bong]

Krap, Kap.

Ansett NEVER stood you down, You all resigned. That's what shut down operations.

Please do not attempt to re-write history.

[ACMS]

Kaptin M forget about these people, I have. They will never fully understand what transpired in 89. Only people like us who went through the debacle have some idea.

[FarQ2]

Some of you should step back a bit here, the facts are that LONG before "Air Sheep" decided to buy AN it was already terminal.

When Abeles and his "mate" Rupe took control of the Co. in the early eighties ------- rather stole it from Reg for FA, Ansett Transport Industries as it was then comprised:

Ansett Airlines and its Subsidiaries (ANSW,MMA,ASA)
Ansett Air Freight
Ansair - Bus Manufacturing
Gateway Hotels
Ansett Wridgeways
Bendigo Motors
Mildura Buslines
Hamilton Buslines
Diners Club
Channel 10 or O (forget when it chngd)
Hamilton Island
Proserpine Airport --- built by Ansett
AJC Finance - the undoing of Reg.

and some of you guros may be able to add others to the list.

All the a/c, buildings and most of the businesses were totally owned by ATI.

FACT IS THOSE TWO SOB's ASSETT STRIPPED THE COMPANY and within only a few short years Ansett the Company Owned nothing. They took it over for a song and made a huge personal profit from the liquidation of ALL the core assetts

'89 was but only one more nail in the coffin the Company was already well and truly dead. The fact that it survived/staggered for another 12 years is probably remarkable in itself - but IT WAS NEVER GOING TO SURVIVE NO MATTER HOW MUCH MONEY WAS THROWN AT IT.


:hmm:

[Kaptin M]

You are quite wrong Ralph.

We worked 9-5 from Friday, August the 18th until Wednesday, August the 23rd....but let a neutral party relate the TRUTH.
From p's 55 & 56 of Sky Pirates:-
Dad's Airforce
Contingency plans were rushed into operation on Wednesday August 23. Airline managements contacted pilots at home by telephone during the day and asked them if they would work as directed (ie. outside the 9-5 period). Pilots were suspended without pay when they refused....
Airline managements did not approach pilots already rostered on for duty until the end of their day's shift at 5:00pm. When asked to work normal duties, they refused and were suspended too. At 5:00pm on August 23, the domestic airline system was shut down indefinitely and planes were mothballed

PLEASE DO NOT ATTEMPT TO RE-WRITE HISTORY, Ralph the s#*+!

Sorry ACMS however I believe the blame for the suffering of the Ansett staff needs to be placed fairly and squarely on the shoulders of those who caused it.
Attempts by some sc#bs to justify their actions by re-writing history is irksome - to say the least!

[Obie]

Hmmm!...funny about that...

I distinctly remember fronting up to the AFAP office in BNE and signing a resignation form.

Am I wrong about that?

[air-hag]

That's what I thought happened...

"Don't worry, we won't hand it in without talking about it first.."

:rolleyes:

[Spuds McKenzie]

The first eloquent post by air-hag I've seen. No ranting, no name calling, no nothing...

What happened? :E :}

[Kaptin M]

Perhaps the spiel differed slightly, from port to port, air-hag...my recollection of the BNE "yakkity yak", was that the resignations would be used "only if necessary".

In retrospect, the adage "Loose lips sinks ships" was possibly one of the AFAP Exec's cardinal rules - imo.
Did the AFAP know that the airline companies were about to sue individual pilots for loss of revenue, due to their refusal to work outside the 9-5 period?
Was THAT the reason for the sudden, urgent call to the branch offices?
And the reason for the almost IMMEDIATE submission of the resignations? To prevent pilots from becoming liable to "loss of revenue" costs on future scheduled flights?

Those involved realised that for EVERY DAY we were rostered to fly outside the 9-5 period, but refused to do so, would make EACH of us SEPERATELY, FINANCIALLY, RESPONSIBLE for the companies' losses!

THAT is why things happened so quickly, air-hag.....................to save some peoples' asses!

In hindsight, it could probably have been done in stages - but then the companies had the capability of calling pilots out regardless of rostered duty.

Yes, Obie you are distinclty CORRECT, and more than likely it saved YOU a lot of heartache at the time!!
I remember seeing the guys who DID have writs issued on them - most were seriously beside themselves, wondering how they were going to cope with losing their homes!!
THAT was the seriousness of the situation, at that time.

So tactically - from an I.R. point of view - it might well have appeared the "dumb" thing to do - LEGALLY, it plugged the hole.
But who were we to know all of this.......we are just "glorified 'bus drivers." :O

[Sunfish]

I left Ansett in 84 and thank God for that.

There are a few things I can confirm. ACMS is right about the sale of the DC9's to Evergreen, Les Hong (Evergreen President) was even at Lachlan's wedding.

Rupert and Peter did eventually gut the place but that was after I left. Peter Abeles was the only guy I know who could turn Greame McM into a shaking jelly.

The alarm bells we ringing for me when Ansett had the B767 pylon attachment crack problem. I got onto talkback radio one day with Twoomey trying to argue that it wasn't a problem.


They must have sacked the type specialists in engineering five years before that because thats about how long Boeing would have had an alert out over that issue.

Anyway Ansett wasn't meant to survive. There was only going to be room for Qantas, and Abeles wasa Sydney based (and biased)animal.

Same thing happened to the old CAC over the wamira project for the RAAF basic trainer. The airforce swore blind that they needed side by side seating, a 20 foot drop test and (wait for it!) airconditioning. CAC designed a plane that met these requirements and the RAAF recommendation was 1) the Wamira 2) the PC7 3) No way did they want the PC9. Beazley sucked up to his bankstown labor mates by making them take the PC9

[TheNightOwl]

Kap - may I commend to you the oft-proffered advice to me from amos2 "...have a Bex and a good lie-down", you were obviously so incensed by my post that you failed to read it properly. What I said was that the '89ers did not cause the downfall of AN, with which you appear to agree, then you proceed to denigrate my non-existent business capabilities. How the two correlate escapes me, but your tortured reasoning somehow manages to marry them. My point in posting was to emphasise that, while the dispute caused untold financial and experience losses to the company, the demise was a function of appalling mis-management by successive owners hell-bent on looking after their own interests rather than those of the company they were supposed to be protecting.
As for "...suffering of the Ansett staff.......shoulders of those who caused it", I agree, and all you need is a mirror to see one of those who put the company in the position initially by your outrageous and unsustainable demands. While not being responsible for the eventual downfall, the '89ers did play a major part in exacerbating the problems the company faced.

There is no prospect, nor was there ever, of my starting a business, and the behaviour of people like yourself in pursuit of an unjustified and unsustainable claim convinces me that the necessity of emplying people such as yourself would preclude the possibility. Self-interest was not the motivation of ONLY Abeles/Murdoch, et al, your people showed more than a modicum of it in your approach to "negotiation".

ACMS - "...only people like us who went through the debacle have some idea"!! Yeah, right! Had you been somewhat more willing to look down from your ivory tower, you'd have seen the rest of us trying to keep the company together. Yes, you got "it" collectively stuck to you and, you may be surprised to read, most of us were almost as appalled as were you, but I'm afraid that you asked for it. Why you, in the form of the AFAP, couldn't accept what was staring you in the face, fall back, re-group and try again later will never cease to amaze me. I can only ascribe it to an unfounded belief in your collective unassailability. Well, I'm sorry, truly sorry, but to take on the power of a government determined to seize the opportunity to grab the chance to sort out a union once and for all had to be a monumental stupidity. What really galls is that you, collectively, handed the weapon to them on a plate, then had to retreat from the blows from your own, useless, weapon!

Over to you, Kap, et al, for the right of reply, my helmet is firmly secured!

Kind regards,

TheNightOwl.:ok:

[Kaptin M]

...one of those who put the company in the position initially by your outrageous and unsustainable demands....the '89ers did play a major part in exacerbating the problems the company faced.It was the managements of the companies involved who put the companies in the position they found themselves - our negotiable ambit claim was never negotiated, at managments' insistence! The fact is, TNO our " outrageous and unsustainable demands" were never met, and cannot therefore be attributed to financially draining Ansett.
But the truly amazing thing was that the companies decided it was better for them to recruit an entire new set of pilots, train them, and then pay them 2-3 times MORE than we had been on, with overtime cutting in at 55 hours iso the 60 hours we had been on.
This was a company initiative, and showed the "Win at ANY cost" mentality of Hawke, Abeles, and Macmahon.
Why you, in the form of the AFAP, couldn't accept what was staring you in the face, fall back, re-group and try again later will never cease to amaze me. You appear to have an amazingly selective memory for someone who was around at the time, TNO - an offer to withdraw ALL claims, and to return to work under the old contract (to allow the airlines to return to normal, full-time ops) was made in late September/early October.
Again, REFUSED by Abeles & Co...the demise was a function of appalling mis-management by successive owners hell-bent on looking after their own interests rather than those of the company No disagreement there - Abeles & Murdoch were "scalpers" - otoh, I believe that Air N.Z. didn't realise what they had gotten themselves in to, until they actually got in!

[elektra]

We did "fall back and regroup" TNO. I'm still having fun flying big jets around, still an AFAP member and happy to see the union alive and well and looking after members. Where's the 4 airlines that decided no price was too high to pay to "get rid of the union"? Didn't they follow your advice and "fall back and regroup"?

[TheNightOwl]

That was a rapid reply, Kap. on a grey day, are we?
You have an admirable way with words, my friend, cleverly used to obfuscate. Your "ambit" claim was never such in reality, an AFAP member told me to my face in the AN Sim Centre lunch-room, and I quote, "ambit be buggered, mate, we've got the b*****s over a barrel, they can't run an airline without us"! Ambit? I think not.

I suspect my apparent "selective memoty" is a phenomenon possessed by not only myself, Kap, the pilot body in Aus has long made public only the parts of the dispute which show them in a good light and the opposition as the ratbags they undoubtedly were.
Why, in God's name, would the AFAP expect a set of unprincipled b:mad: like Abeles/Hawke/Kelty, etc., to give up an advantage you handed to them on a plate? Don't you think you are still being somewhat naive? It's all very well to maintain the moral high ground, Kap, but YOU are the people forced out of your industry into the big, nasty, wide, unprotected world of international aviation by putting your faith in the apparent infallibility of your representatives and proceeding blindly down a self-made path to destruction of not only your collective futures, but also the potential futures of the union culture in this country. It was obvious to all except you that your opposition had you in a squirrel grip and intended ONLY to tighten the grip in the vice provided by yourselves.
Yes, I understand that the current AFAP is active and well-supported, long may it remain so, but I'd bet London to a brick that it doesn't profess the power it once believed it wielded!
Negotiations nowadays are on a very different footing than 1989, the whip is now VERY firmly in the hands of employers. That is not meant to imply that the AFAP was instrumental in that, but they did go some way to enhancing the power-base of the anti-union brigade.

Kind regards,

TheNightOwl.:sad:

[Ralph the Bong]

Let me REFRESH you memory here Kapt M, you said: that the companies stood you ALL down .

This is where you are trying to re-write history.

The companies stood some of you down. THis is what is correct. Not you you have tried to make out and misrepresent.

AS for calling me a "s#$$%", let me inform you: I:

1) Did not apply to airlines during an employment black ban.
2) Was not interviewed during employement bans.
3) Was not offered and not not accept employment during said bans, and,
4) Am not and should not be on an 'scab' list.

So stick it!

Your own attempts to sign up during the dispute have been often discussed on this forum. Your hipocracy in calling others a scab when you made attemps to enter the hallowed halls of scabdom are breathtaking.

[Kaptin M]

Quite intuitive, TNO as a matter of fact today is a "blank" day (the same as the old "grey days), and yesterday was "standby" - the equivalent of "Reserve" in pre-dispute AN - but became a duty day because of the disruption the wx caused to the flight schedules.
Oddly enough this airline still has pilots doing standby/reserve :eek: whereas the "New Ansett" didn't find that necessary, which only adds more fuel to the fire that post '89 AN management were so far out of touch with reality as far as airline ops were concerned, in their determination to PROVE that pilots were just as dispensable as all other employees, that they were willing to reward the pilots with excessively high incentives to go to work at short notice.
Yes, post-'89 Ansett did NOT have "reserve" days, and post-'89 Ansett is, no more!

I have not intentionally attempted to cloud any issues, TNO - the fact that 1 or 2 of the pilot reps told you that the claim was not negotiable flies in the face of REALITY, and the decades of previous contract negotiations held between the companies and the Federation.
What else would you have expected the guys to have told you?
"Well we're hitting them with 29.47%, but in fact we'll take 10%", knowing that word would quickly leak back to B.S HQ.

Had we all been as greedy as you try to make out we were, don't you think we would have grabbed the new contracts with both hands when they were offered?
That was what Abeles & Murdoch were counting on - that "every man has his price", and that for the obscene $$$'s offered in the new contracts, we would desert the AFAP in droves.
Do you not find it somewhat puzzling, TNO, that the vast majority of '89 pilots remained fully financial members of the AFAP (as elektra indicates, and as am I) until today, in spite of the fact that most outsiders consider it was our union that cost us our jobs?I'd bet London to a brick that it (the AFAP) doesn't profess the power it once believed it wielded! Pilots never saw the Federation as an industrially strong union - after all, the strength of any union comes from the resolve of its members, when put to the test...something the entire airline group membership had never before been asked to do as a united group. The AFAP had been successful in improving Australian pilot conditions, because of the depth of knowledge within its individual membership, and because of its flexibility in negotiations.
Can you HONESTLY say that Australian domestic airline pilots today enjoy the same (good) employer-employee relationships that they enjoyed pre-'89?...(the AFAP) did go some way to enhancing the power-base of the anti-union brigadeIMO, Hawke, Murdoch, Abeles & Kelty (ACTU), together with the "anti-pilot/tallpoppy" syndrome of many people helped achieve that under Hawke's Labor government.
Why then wouldn't a (historically anti-union) Liberal Government further capitalise on the opportunity to deal a heavy body blow to the major union movement, when their main aviation employer was teetering (by not providing financial assistance.).
Are the employment conditions of the ground staff, enjoyed in the airlines that have since replaced Ansett, equal to those enjoyed by the Ansett employees?

It's a big ferris wheel, isn't it TNO!! :uhoh:


[Edit:- "The companies stood some of you down. THis is what is correct."
WRONG again, Ralphie - they rang EVERY single one of us. There may have been a handful who deliberately avoided accepting the call, because they knew what they would be asked...and by a "handful", I mean probably 1/2 a dozen. Even pilots on o/s assignments were advised that upon return to Oz, they would be asked to work outside 9-5.
FYI, Ralph, the names supplied on any scab list that might exist, were - to the best of my knowledge - supplied by (non-pilot) ground staff members employed by the airlines at the time, and who supported the Federation pilots.
If you've got a beef, take it up with them:O ]

[ys120fz]

Well they didn't ring me!! I wish like hell they had have though.

Now kaptin, you seem sto sidestep this issue of whether you did or didn't try to enter the halls of scabdom early in the dispute. You contend that you signed and withdrew you r application.
That is not true and well you know it.

What happened is this. Youapplied early in the 'dispute' but you were REJECTED because of the part you played in a brawl/fracas/ scrap(or whatever you want to call it) in Brisbane terminal.
When you applied, it was thought by management that you were too a great a risk because of your propensity for violence.
End of story. You did not withdraw your application but were REJECTED, and as such under that goose from Tasmania's definition, are a SCAB. Like it or not.


TNO, you are right on the button with your submission. They are the facts. A notaable error by kaptin is that the 29=% WAS NOT negotiable, and McCarthy said it numerous times, and it was reported in the newspapers as such. I could probably dig out the cuttings if I could get into my attic.

[RABID DOG 89]

Well Well Kraptin is a frustrated scabber,always thought him and Slasher were good mates.

[Wizofoz]

Kap,

I've kept quite until now, but really....

2-3 times MORE than we had been on, with overtime cutting in at 55 hours iso the 60 hours we had been on.

ABSOULUTE PAP!!!

Your last year as a 767 FO you earned what, 80K? And logged what, 359HRS (I mean LOGGED, not "Credited").

In my first full year as a 767 FO I flew 780 hours and recieved 99K.

Hourly cost for YOU $228/Hr. For me $126.

Express your opinion as forcefully as you like, just don't talk C%%P

[Kaptin M]

Unless you wrote your own rosters, Wiz, then both you - and I - were subject to Ansett's scheduling...correct?

I was available to fly for as much - or as little - as they wanted.
Pilot productivity was determined by the Company.

Neither you, nor I, nor the AFAP ever wrote pilots' flight schedules, month in and month out. Ansett ALONE did that, and managed to remain a profitable company for some 30 years.

You have proven a point though - that as a 1st year F/O, the company was willing to pay you some 23.75% MORE than I received in my 12th year with them!

[Wizofoz]

Well Kap, just as long as we've established that in your world

2-3 times MORE than we had been on

Equals

23.75%

The same world where, I guess, the AFAP was the only pilots union in the world that had no input into the flight, duty and rostering rules that it's members worked by, and where an employer willingly had it's workers operating at around 30% productivity.

Must be nice in there...

[Kaptin M]

Let me be a little more detailed then. Wiz so that even the slower ones amongst us can follow.

Had ANSETT been more efficient with their scheduling, they could have rostered me for 60 hours a month and still have paid me $80k/year, which would have worked out at $102.56 per hour for 780 hours.
In the case of the post '89 pilots, the company put a cap of only 55 hours a month, after which they volunteered to pay EXTRA in overtime rates!

Using your figures, my overtime (at $102.56/hr) would have worked out at $6153.60 in 1 year - for the 60 hours o/t.
....whereas the company volunteered to pay you (using your figure of $126/hr) $15,120.00 - for 120 hours o/t!! :mad:

Now remember that I was on my 12th year increment - you were only on your 1st!
Compare apples with apples, Wiz - there was Absolutely no way in the world that a pre 1989 Ansett 1st year F/O was on anything remotely close to my salary - let alone that which they paid to new joiners such as yourself.

THAT is where the 2-3 times comes in.

The only input the AFAP had into the scheduling, was to basically see that the flying was reasonably evenly distributed across the flying rosters, that min. required rest, and max duty times were adhered to, and that "undesirable pairings" were avoided where possible for fatigue and Safety reasons.

Working now for a company where there is no such pilot input, I regularly see "favours" being done for some pilots by the scheduler, which can amount to large differences in remuneration between pilots - as much as USD3,000 per month!!

There is a lot to be said for a "bid system" wrt maintaining equity amongst the pilots.

You see, Wiz, in my world, people were willing to take their place in the queue and wait, and NOT follow "Scabs' Rules" where it's dog-eat-dog, and each man for himself...f#*k you pal!

[Wizofoz]

Yes, but that was 55 STICK HOURS / month, Kap. Not credit hours. To do your "60 Hours" how many actual, start up till shut down, revenue earning hour would you have flown?

[Kaptin M]

That depended upon the Company's efficiency in scheduling, Wiz.
Again it was NOTHING that either you or I had ANY control over!!

Is the message getting through yet?? :{

[Wizofoz]

Ah!! So the COMPANY decided to give you extra credit for lates, credit for duty as opposed to flight hours, extra credit for longer duties, credit for reserve, credcit for displacement etc. etc.

The AFAP never negotiated for any of that and just stood back and said thankyou.

Yes, the truth of your argument is sinking in just fine thanks...

[Kaptin M]

The AFAP never negotiated for any of that...
You said that, Wiz - not I! :ok:

And you are correct - ALL of the conditions under which we worked, had been previously negotiated, agreed upon by BOTH sides, and signed. "Negotiated" meaning trade-offs...give and take on both sides.

That Ansett didn't elect to fully utilise the conditions their negotiators had gained for them was their business.
The pilots were obligated to do as they were directed to, under the mutually agreed contract of employment - often we WOULD give extra, at no penalty to the company...and it worked well, for over 30 years.

That they couldn't survive more than 11 years with you guys, sure as hell says something!! :p

[RIVER1]

kAPTIN I am flying up to Vietnam soon to see a few mates,no chance you do any runs up there do you.Perhaps I will go QF as there is no chance then that I could be sitting in the back with you up the front,not that you dont appear very very knowlegable in all aviation matters to you but I see it another way.

[Wizofoz]

That they couldn't survive more than 11 years with you guys, sure as hell says something!!

Well, that's a lot longer that Compass 1 or 2 crewed by "Your" lot. Was that because of the pay and conditions of it's pilots? Was Pan Am? Brannif? Eastern?

Kap, it helps you cope with your decistions (Including your decision to apply to get your job back) to blame every thing from Ansetts collapse to the Kennedy assasination on the post '89 pilots.

Be my guest. Just don't expect to post blatent BS (how is your accountant) and not have it challenged.

[TheNightOwl]

It seems that you all are in need of amos2's advice, slow down, people!! This is becoming ridiculous, it's heading for the old slanging match again, so I'm backing off altogether. I'm prepared for a robust argument, and I have no patience with the '89ers argument, but I'm not about to weigh into a personal battle over it.
We are NEVER going to resolve our philosophical differences, Kap, so I guess we will have to agree to differ. I will believe to my dying day that the old AFAP was the architect of the downfall of the pilot body in Australia and, along with a group of singularly greedy and self-serving business-men and politicians, caused untold harm to the company which was an Australian icon totally undeserving of its demise. What part you, personally, played in that downfall, is for your conscience to tell you, I only hope you and your '89 cohorts are satisfied with outcome of your greed and intransigence.

All for now, but reserving the right to give you a verbal right hook in the future if I read a comment too unpalatable!

Kind regards to all,

TheNightOwl.

[Romeo Tango Alpha]

With 15 years hindsight, and a more matured brain, I have to agree with a fair degree of what TNO has written. I disagree with his thought's on 89'ers, but I am sure he disagrees with my vehement hatred of scabs too. To each his own.

As I have said before, we all made our beds, now we have to sleep in them. Some got the fleas in the bedding, others got the plush fittings. Home is where you make it.

What happened in '89 can never be reversed, naturally, and what happened to AN is just as past. It's all history; an interesting and heated one at that.

What is the point in blaming McCarthy et al in the AFAP? Where is it going to get anyone?

WE, and by WE I mean ALL pre-'89 pilots, didn't stand a CHANCE against Abeles, Murdoch, MacMahon, Strong, and Hawke and his government. EVERYONE knows the bed that Hawke and Abeles slept in, and had done for quite a while. Unfortunately, IN HINDSIGHT, how the AFAP boffins thought we could have a crack at the airlines is open to conjecture - one that will be purely speculatory!

Gone were the "glory days" of Reg Ansett, and the TAA reps. Gone were the days when the likes of "Red Ned" and Charlie Gray had some effect in the company. The companies were now run by business brains, with nary a former link to aviation.

I admit to whooping like a crane the day Abele's died, and hoped it was painful (slander me all you like). Nothing will ever change my feelings toward him, Hawke, and Murdoch, and Strong.

Same goes for '89 scabs. The hatred is there, but the care factor these days is negligable. Like a former TN check captain, non-scab, once said to me, "You walk through ghosts". NUFF SAID! Yet, quoting the Bible:" The sins of the fathers is visited on the children to the third and fourth generation of those that hate them". In other words, it will ALWAYS be remembered by those involved.

15 years has come and gone. Personally, I've moved onto bigger and better things. For that, perhaps, thanks is required! Shift me off my lazy arse!

I'll still NEVER fly QAN Dom and one of it's off-growths, but that is a purely personal choice. (Yes, I advocate to my friends not to travel with them either....)

[TheNightOwl]

A very balanced view, RTA, I commend you and wish I was possessed of your sanguine attitude! You are quite correct, we all have our view, coloured by our individual experiences, and mine simply does not reflect yours. Unlike some, I don't give a damn when referred to as "scab-lover", I have friends from pre-89 and others post-89, if they cannot talk to each other then they have the problem, not I. I accept that the pilot body didn't stand much of a chance against the total power railed against them, but I am still at a loss to understand HOW they came to believe so strongly in the infallibility of the then AFAP. How was it that a group of obviously-educated and professional people could be led down the path of destruction by a leadership so arrogant and blind? It beggars belief!

Your comment re "scabs", a loathsome description, reminds me of something I had intended posting in reply to KapM's comment "...names supplied on any scab list that might exist..." - on request I will happily provide him with the url pointing to the current list or, if he prefers, a hard copy of same. It exists, my word it does!

Kind regards,

TheNightOwl.:ok:

[jedda]

Yes TNO ,the"Scab List" does still exist & I have a copy.I have moved on,but the feelings are still there.I can hold my head up and look people in the eye when I walk through an airport terminal.Istill trust my friends;can the "heroes" say that?

[VH-Cheer Up]

Is it true that AN and QF had a list of all striking pilots who did not re-apply for their positions with a "Never Recruit Under Any Circumstances" tag attached to each name?

I've heard the rumours but I have always wondered how they could possibly get away with it.

[Ralph the Bong]

Cheer-up, I recall a senior AN management type saying at some time post dispute that certain individuals would never be re-employed. There were some pre '89ers who were re-employed by AN during '91-'92. I presume that they were regarded as non-trouble makers. I understand that these 12 were refered to as the "dirty dozen" by AFAP.

There where a great many pilots from the dispute who gained employment at QF in subsequent years.

The answer to your question is 'yes' but 'no' and perhaps, 'maybe'...

[Woomera]

This seems to have gone off thread a little, it started off OK and now has gotten personal again chaps.

I think we all understand each others feelings by now, so how about we take that advice and "slow down".

Nobody seems to be paying attention to the "characters and events" subsequent to the collapse, wherein another considerable fortune has been garnered out of the debris.
I rather thought that was the most interesting new matter that came out of the media report.


Lets move on shall we.

[Ralph the Bong]

Ralph and Kapn M are at a table in beer garden. 15 empty schooner glasses await collection by the barkeep on the table in front of them. The usual topics for this sort of afternoon have been covered; footy, politics, lies about how many hosties we've bedded.. The topic of recent pprune topics comes up:

Ralph: "look, mate, I dont know why you persist in calling me a scab. I was'n' even there!'

Kapn: "Well, you always contradic' (hic) everything I say and call me a liar"

Ralph:"I wouldn't say you're actually a liar but somtimes I(burp) think your slant on things differs from wha' happ'ned"

Kapn: "F#$% you"

Ralph:" Well F3$%^& you too"

Kap: "Scab"

Ralph:"Liar"

Kapn M punches Ralph in the nose and knocks him off his chair. Ralph gets up and smashes a bar-stool accoss Ms' teeth and then laughs "Ha! that teach ya". M gets up yelling "Muthaf$%^a" then kicks Ralph in the balls and the two of them fall thru a glass panel locked in a fist flailing embrace into the bar. 2 VB hosties gush with delight. When the police arrive, Ralph is strangling M with the pool-ball triangle as M tries to stuff the broken end of a cue up Ralphs' ar5e..

At the courthouse..

Police Prosecutor: ".. affray, assault, indecent language, wilful destruction of propery.. Your worship, these two were as drunk as judges".

His Worship: "Don't you mean as drunk as Lords?"

Prosecutor:"Yes m'lord"

His worship(hopefully):"So what is this pea prune thing where you met? Is it some kind of dietary health club?"

Prosecutor: "Your worship, it is an internet message and chat board where aviation related topics are discussed".

His Worship:"Internet?"

Prosecutor:" Your Honour, a recent invention utilising a computer and telephone.."

His Worship(curtly):" Yes, quite! Well, what do you two have to say?"

Ralph(squeeking slightly): "Sorry"

M: "Sorry"

Magistrate: "Now kiss and make up".

Ralph and M together: "NO WAY"

M: "You expect me to kiss the face only a Mother could love?"

Ralph:"Cruel and unusual punishment, Sir! He looks like he's been trying to eat a chair!"

His lordship: "50 pounds in the poor box, each and throw them out. Case dismissed"

Prosecutor: "Pounds, Sir? We've had decimal currency since 1966".

His Worship: "Eh?.. Hmm. court adjorned for lunch and my afternoon nap" (bangs gavel and shuffles out).

Outside..

Ralph: "well see ya tomorrow on pprune"

Kapn M : "Yeah see ya mate"

(Curtain falls, pprune theme song cuts in, lights fade..)

[gaunty]

Bwahahaha. nice touch Bong you AND me mate the Kaptin are incorrigible. :ok:

Brekky Creek pub for the next "discussion" :ouch: then?;)

[FarQ2]

TNO We have all tollerated your slant and crap to long, this time you went to far. If you pulled your head out of your backside long enough to look around you would realise that the world has moved on, unfortunately someone like you who has a Dinosaur type brain is still with us, instead of extinct.

I only hope you and your '89 cohorts are satisfied with the outcome of your greed and intransigence

That quote of your's belongs to your "hero mates" so I personally am affronted by the assertion as above.

Your memory if you have one is obviously feeble for as I recall the ambiet claim of 29% was made up of "catch up" for all the "screwing of higher income earners" BY HAWKES BLOODY ACCORD

Snot noses like yourself no doubt were very smug in the fact that you were quietly eroding away the gap and IN MOST CASES TAKING HOME HIGHER SALARIES THAN PILOTS thanks to a corrupt wages determination system the AFAP found themselves in.

So before you and your "hero mates like Ralph the Bong and Wizfoz start slagging off GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT

:* :* :*

[Yarra]

FarQ2...says it all really and whilst you near another sad aniversary you may want to give some thought to the "others" that your actions affected. CSO's, Ramp Loaders and Res Clerks etc. Perhaps if you pulled your head out of your backside and recognised that it takes more than Pilots to make an airline work, you may get another perspective on past events. Perhaps even enjoy life instead of shortening it through negative and puerile emotional outbursts.

Yarra

[Buster Hyman]

Now, I've stayed out of this, for reasons known to the Kaptin, but I find the need to question part of your "aggressive" post FarQ2.the ambiet claim of 29% was made up of "catch up" for all the "screwing of higher income earners" BY HAWKES BLOODY ACCORD
In my recollection, Hawke went after you blokes because you wanted no part of his Accord. So, if I'm reading the above quote from you correctly, the pilots body didn't stay out of the Accord & chose strike action to compensate??? Now I'm totally confused...assuming your statement is correct...:confused:

[Sunfish]

May I suggest that recriminations are pointless.

I'm afraid that all of you fell for Peter Abeles often used tactic, apart from a simple murder threat, he used to give people enough rope to hang themselves, and let them do just that.

The pilots union fell for it hook line and sinker. He used the same tactic to sack a certain Director of Engineering. As far as I was concerned, I knew very little of his history at the time and I thought of him as "Uncle Peter" who was very good to me when I was at Ansett.

[TheNightOwl]

I thank you for your post, FQ2, as ill-thought and vitriolic as it was! Why is it, I wonder, that you are still possessed of such vehemence?
Yarra has it right, there were more than just the pilot body who lost out as a result of '89, as I said before the airline was severely damaged and your collective action most certainly played its part in the downfall of AN, although it was not the singular cause.
Your affront is of no concern to me, my belief is not predicated on your goodwill, get over it!
I love the comment re "...screwing higher income earners..", what nonsense! The primary reason for the 29.47% demand was, from my memory, however feeble, "to restore the salaries of pilots to those of comparable professionals, e.g. doctors, lawyers, etc., (my words). If you can show me a pilot who spends 6 years at Uni to qualify for his profession, then spends more years as an intern working hours that your representative body would simply not permit, then I might begin to listen to your original case, NOT BEFORE!
"...snot noses like yourself"..."quietly eroding away the gap" - is that what is upsetting you, FQ2? Is it beyound the pale that someone as lowly as myself or my ilk could begin to earn an income that approaching that of deities like your good self? Good Lord, and you accuse ME of having MY head in my backside!!

I say again, MY perception of the facts differ from yours by virtue of my interpretation of them, and I lived and worked at AN throughout and after '89, that does NOT make them wrong.

Kind regards,

TheNightOwl.

[Romeo Tango Alpha]

TNO,
Don't try to lump pilots against Lawyers, Doctors etc.

Pilots have to do perhaps 2 years of hard study, with flying training interspersed, then say 4 to 5 years of "internship" as you describe to earn the usual requisite 1500 hours experience.

Then we get jobs in an airline, where we start as FO's, and learn MORE from our Captains and others. That includes:
1. Life preservation - how to bring customers from A to B without a scratch on them. That's USUALLY about 200 lives we need to worry about, plus our own.

2. Hospitality - how to be NICE and CHARMING to our customers (and FA's :ok: )

3. Engineering: we get to learn the ins and outs, the rights and wrongs, the electrics, fuel, hydraulics, pneumatics, thrust generation etc etc of a VERY complex high performance machine.

4. Aerodynamicist: we have to learn how the aircraft performs, and it's performance under varying, and sometimes critical situations. We have to be mathemeticians, and interpolate, extrapolate, and interpret results of performance alterations, that can change in an INSTANT of time. We have to be physicists, and apply sometimes complex formulae.

5. Navigator: we have to know how to navigate the aircraft safely and PROPERLY around the sky. IN the better aircraft, we have to be computer programmers and analysts and enter and interpret the data displayed to us, and apply that to the situations.

And so on. Doctors usually SPECIALISE in an area, as do most professionals (spelt that right Air-Hag). Pilots must don the hat of MANY specialists.

You see, and I know you didn't say so, but Piloting is a SPECIALTY; one that encompasses MANY faculties of specialisation! To lump us against others as you did is incomporable.

That is why so many of us took umbrage to Hawke's statement of "They are nothing but glorified bus drivers".

So, please, unless you actually have gone through the process of becoming an ATPL from Student pilot to Captain of an aircraft with 200+ souls on board, please do not try to lump us against "specialists". It won't fly.

Do you ever wonder why so many full age retired pilots simply die within a couple years (or less) of retiring? Think about that one, and then you may know the "stress" (HATE that word) involved in our chosen careers.

Oh, do pilots do a 6 year or so internship? Nope - we usually do about 30 years internship!

[TheNightOwl]

Thanks for the reply, RTA, but pleaase go back and read what I said, not what you THINK I said!
I did not claim the comparison between pilots and doctors, etc., your ex-AFAP did.
Let me present my bona fides - I was employed in aviation from 1961 until 2002, most of that time in aircrew training, so I am WELL aware of the levels of multitudinous skills required to become a pilot. Many of the posters on here know me and, I am sure, would assure you that I have always had the highest regard for your occupation. As for your claims as to the LEVELS of knowledge required of aircraft systems to become a pilot, I might have a heated discussion with you there!:p
I might even claim to have had a higher level of knowledge, considering my occupation for the 41 years I spent around aeroplanes, if you PM me I'd be delighted to clear up any doubts you may have.

It has NEVER been my intent to denigrate the profession, my antipathy has always been to the part played by the '89 debacle in AN's downfall. The pilot body has, IN MY OPINION, a great deal to answer for, and that is not to say that you were not badly treated by the management and government of the day. They were/are an unprincipled lot of rogues, self-interested to the 'n'th degree, but who used the ammunition handed to them on a plate by the AFAP to beat you into submission. You will, no doubt, disagree, that is your perception and right, but allow me to have my own view, however jaundiced you might perceive it to be.

Kind regards,

TheNightOwl.:ok:

[Romeo Tango Alpha]

TNO,
Please check your PM's.

[TheNightOwl]

Done, RTA, replies on way!

Kind regards,

TheNightOwl.

[Romeo Tango Alpha]

Is it true that AN and QF had a list of all striking pilots who did not re-apply for their positions with a "Never Recruit Under Any Circumstances" tag attached to each name?

I've heard the rumours but I have always wondered how they could possibly get away with it.

Yes, Cheer Up, it IS true, and I have confirmed evidence of it.

As an experiment, officially sanctioned by AFAP Brisbane, my sister applied to AN during the dispute as an FA. She sent in a resume under her GENUINE name, address, details, etc, AS WELL as a SEPERATE one with merely the SURNAME and ADDRESS CHANGED - NOTHING else altered.

She got the two replies - the one under her GENUINE details said the usual "We are sorry, we are not interviewing" etc spiel. The name and address letter came back, offering her an interview on such and such a date.

Discrimination via a blacklist? UNDOUBTEDLY!

[bigles]

THE REAL CULPRITS ARE THE MEMBERS OF THE F.I.R.B.WHO APPROVED THE SHARE PURCHASE.WHO MUST HAVE BEEN DECEIVED BY THE ANZ MANAGEMENT,BRIBED OR JUST PLAIN STUPID.ASIDE FROM NOT HAVING THE EXPERTISE TO MANAGE A LARGE COMPANY,THEY WERE HOPELESSLY UNDER CAPITLISED.IT TAKES A LOT OF "MANAGEMENT EXPERTISE"TO LOSE OVER HALF A BILLION DOLLARS IN SIX MONTHS.
I BELIEVE TWOMEY WAS DECEIVED WHEN GIVEN THE POISONED CHALICE AND FED A LOT OF BULL**** BY ANZ,AFTER ALL THE TREASURY WAS IN AUCKLAND TO WHICH ALL TICKET PAYMENTS BURNT THEIR WAY.
THE SITUATION WOULD HAVE BEEN STILL RECOVERABLE BY A SCHEME OF ARRANGEMENT WITH THE CREDITORS,HOWEVER I GUESS A LIQUIDATION YIELDED MORE MONEY FOR THE LIQUIDATOR'S.

THERE ARE NONE SO BLIND AS THOSE WHO DON'T WISH TO SEE !!

[Kaptin M]

Amusing Ralph - but that's about all. As anyone who knows me will vouch, (i) I'm not a great lover of beer, (ii) I don't bother calling "scabs", "scabs" any more [ask the Sky Net Asia guy who shared the elevator with me a week or so ago]...they got their "just desserts" in my opinion, and they have to live with the consequences of their actions for the rest of their lives, (iii) I learnt many years ago (around 1973, in fact) how to control and channel my physical violence, and (iv) if I thought you WERE a scab, I wouldn't be drinking with you in any case..for starters!

Thank you also, TNO. Just as 1989 had a monumental affect on the lives of ALL pilots involved - +ve and -ve - so did the collapse of Ansett on its employees.
I recommend to you, some of your own profferings of the panacea that you suggest to the pilots of the Dispute, when it comes to Air N.Z's involvement.
Just as you see the AFAP pilots in a bad light over the events of 1989 - and I do not - I similarly do NOT believe that Air New Zealand were responsible for Ansett's downfall, and for the life of me cannot see WHY you are so focused on blaming them.

Personally - as an outsider looking in - I believe that Air New Zealand could hardly believe their good fortune when they found themselves in a position to control one of Australia's major airlines...Kiwis controlling Ansett!!

BTW, TNO - the comparison between pilots, lawyers, etc, was based on relative INCOME - not necessarily on academic equality. And I agree that you and I will probably have to "agree to disagree" on some issues - until we have the pleasure of a "face-to-face"...should be an interesting couple of hours!!

This topic is moving on - and in slightly different directions to past ones, I believe, Woomera - however the roots of the tree planted 15 years ago still had a bearing on how the future branches and leaves developed.
Sometimes we need to go back to the roots....dig up a little bit of dirt....to determine if the issue was a "root cause" or something that sprouted later.

In my opinion, Ansett served as a vehicle for many political changes once Murdoch (and anyone who is not aware of it should investigate Ruoert Murdoch's role in the Wapping dispuite, his affiliation with Maggie Thatcher, and his grooming of Bob Hawke from Hawke's university days), and Abeles (also check out Abeles' influence over Hawke) took control.
Under a Hawke led Labor Government, Ansett - in conjunction with the Federal Government owned Australian Airlines (aka TAA) was used to smash a union..the AFAP...that had resisted joining the ACTU/TWU (previously Hawke-led)...and that refused to be part of "The Accord".

Some 11 years later, a Liberal Government stood back and watched Ansett and 10,000 (approx) Australian workers collapse, taking with it, and them, disputably the singlular biggest representation of ACTU/TWU unionised labour in Australian aviation.

[Sunfish]

And if Ansett was based in Sydney it would have been rescued.

Maybe Ansett should have had Trevor Kennedy, Graem Richardson, Jamie Packer or Nick Griener on the Board. The Sydney Mafia always get theri own way - no matter which party is in power.

[TheNightOwl]

This will never do, Kap, we're approaching mutual tolerance, what will I do for my occasional stoush? :eek:

AirNZ's acquisition of the second 50% of AN was, I firmly believe, intended to ensure that the REPORTED $US2.2 billion available in the SQ coffers for investment was diverted to ANZ rather than AN. This would have allowed ANZ access to Aus domestic markets, while keeping SQ out of them, as well as limiting any AN/SQ alliances internationally and funding of AN expansion plans. The fact that they nearly beggared themselves in the acquisition, to the point of cutting us adrift to sink, was a direct consequence of their greed. Even their own government had to bail them out to save the national airline, what about that do you not follow? I have no idea as to the veracity of reports about AirNZ's conduct following their abandonment of AN, e.g. removing funds daily to NZ; removing a 737 full of AN's avionics kit to Wellington/Helengrad for their own aircraft use, but I am quite prepared to believe it, my view of them is so jaundiced.
As for "...believe their good fortune....Australia's major airlines", good fortune didn't come into it - their greedy panic was so great that they could not help themselves in their anxiety to access SQ's development funds and either failed, or didn't carry out, their "due diligence" requirements. Either way, their management ineptitude was as staggeringly bad as the previous AN management's, just over a considerably shorter timescale!!

Yes, I understand the point about comparable salaries, but that is, once again, a matter of perception, and I was left in no doubt by the AFAP reps that, in their eyes at least, restoration of the status of the pilot body was as important to them as the restoration of the salary levels. THAT was the crux of my point.

Your points about the results of the debacle are well made, and I must heartily agree wrt the Thatcher woman (if that is what she really is)! A more appalling person to be in her position would be difficult to imagine, she was a harridan of the first water, IMHO.
The industrial die is long cast, Kap, and the future direction of IR in this country has been well and truly shaped by business and politicians, to the detriment of the bargaining power of ANY union body. It will take a strong, and not necessarily militant, leader to re-shape the blue-collar working population into a cohesive force and, quite frankly, I can't envisage it happening in my remaining lifetime.

I note your reply to RTB, and also your dislike of beer, but, should you choose, I'd be delighted to buy you a drink over an animated "discussion" one of these fine days. I'll stick to beer, to my undying shame I'm a Scot who can't stand the taste of whisky!!

Kind regards,

TheNightOwl:ok:

[Buster Hyman]

Add some coke TNO!:ok:

Now, I'll get the first shout if I can come & watch you blokes going hammer & tongs!!!:ouch:

[FarQ2]

Buster I am appalled - a pox on you my boy ! :E

I am not a Scot however I do claim some Scottish heritage, unlike TNO I do like more than a wee dram of the finest highland liquid.

IT IS SACRILEGE TO ADD ANYTHING OTHER THAN A FEW DROPS OF SPRING WATER TO THE WORLDS FINEST ELIXER :ok:

maybe a drop of maidens water! :}

[TheNightOwl]

For the further education of Buster, FQ2, and any other adulterers of "The Craitur", let me advise you - the ONLY permissible additive to a single malt of quality is a little more of the same! I have that on the very good authority of my maternal grandfather, who was a distiller all his working life. Unlike me, he was partial to a "wee drop, for my health, you understand"!!!

Kind regards,

TheNightOwl.:ok:

[Romeo Tango Alpha]

I admit to a liking of Irish Whiskey and Dry.

Or JW Blue and Dry....

[Buster Hyman]

WTF!!!

Woomera! This threads been hijacked by alcoholics!!!!:ok:

[Spotlight]

Last Bus. Last Bus.. Last Bus. Buster are you coming to Jet Blast.

[Buster Hyman]

Anything good over there tonight???

[Spotlight]

Nah, same old and by the way, Sorry for, you know Smithy and all that!

[Buster Hyman]

No wucken furries!:ok: :E

[Spotlight]

Goodo, I.ll see you later then.

[Kaptin M]

1989.........................(or was it Air Sheep and 2 me in TNO's case?)

Enough to drive you to drink :{ :ok: ...bourbon & Coke, thanks!

So TNO do you think that Air New Zealand really knew how serious Ansett's financial problems were, but were gambling on SQ wanting to get in badly enough, that they (Air NZ) went ahead and bought in anyway???

In hindsight - and being a dyed-in-the -wool conspiracy theorist :suspect: - and with Ms Margaret Jackson's (of QF) latest comments (""We have been very disappointed that we have been unable to form an alliance with Air New Zealand") , AND with the Howard Liberal Government (John Anderson's party) in power stated preference for Air NZ to have AN....do you believe that it could have been an attempt to torpedo Air New Zealand:eek: thereby giving QANTAS a boost in the trans-Tasman traffic?

[TheNightOwl]

I believe, Kap, that AirNZ knew exactly what they were getting themselves into, and that they were relying on the NZ government to bail them out if it all went pear-shaped. If they were NOT aware, then they have only themselves to blame for the trouble they encountered and it's then even MORE of a pity that they had to bring us down by their unmitigated greed.
I reiterate - I am convinced they wanted SQ's investment funds for their own expansion plans, while simultaneously frustrating SQ's ambitions for AN acquisition and all that it promised for them in terms of access to OZ markets. I'm probably a conspiracy theorist, like yourself, but with different theories.
Having observed QF's shenanigans in the past, I would put NOTHING past the devious minds of its management, of whichever sex, and would trust them to have only their own, personal, futures and bonuses at the forefront of their minds. If that meant shafting AirNZ, or any other entity, in the furtherance of their aims, then YES, I would believe the possibility.

Kind regards,

TheNightOwl.:ok:

[Sunfish]

One of the saddest things about AN's demise is that ANZ plundered its rotables by the pallet load and anything else that they could take of value.

The receivers, being accountants, knew SFA about the value of aircraft spares.

[RIVER1]

How sad that our govt of the time allowed TL to have such a huge gamble with ANSETT,Most of us in the industry know the reasons but to my mind it was madness to allow such a small airline as TL take out a major Australian carrier.After my time with AN I now gain from the cheap airfares wich prevail at the moment as they help fill my tourist park but I can see that Virgin is headed for hard times as they compete with Howard and Andersons prefererd airline.My view is that any threat to QF will be managed by Andersons team which seems insane to me because no airline did such Australia wide coverage as Ansett (we all know where he lives) Good luck Virgin as our destinies are tied together but I think your opportunities are not of your making.

[Traffic]

I hate to ruin a good stoush so will go no further back in time than the late 90's.

Personally, I think our friend the Night Owl gives conspiratorial credit where it is not totally due.

Indeed Singapore plays a central role in this pantomine but for somewhat different reasons. By 2000 it had long become the HQ of one Brierley Investments, the major shareholder in AirNZ and therefore indirectly a major figure in the 50% of Ansett not owned by News Corp.

Air NZ had pre-emptive rights on the balance 50% of Ansett should it come up for sale.

News Corp wanted and needed to exit. They found a buyer in SQ and spent a lot of time stitching together a deal for AUD 500m that would ensure the recapitalisation and fleet renewal of Ansett and provide a footprint for the Star Alliance in Oceania.

Whilst I agree that AirNZ tried to blindside and outsmart SQ, this was only cobbled together in response to immense pressure from Selwyn Cushing and his fellow travellers who shared the same conflict of interest...namely being directors of both Brierley and AirNZ.

Air NZ,given the price they paid for the first 50% of Ansett, and through them Brierley, would have to make substantial write-downs on their investments (AirNZ in Ansett and Brierley in AirNZ) if the direct deal between Ansett and SQ went through.

Selwyn Cushing used his immense influence (and Brierley voting block) as Chairman of AirNZ to force AirNZ to bet the whole company.

Sure they banked on the NZ Govt to come to their rescue, and there was a certain amount of naive arrogance in thinking that SQ would pour good money after bad, but that all came after Selwyn Cushing (as Chairman of AirNZ and Brierley) decided to put HIS national carrier at risk to protect Brierley Investments balance sheet (which could ill afford to take a write down of that magnitude).

In my view the Hall of Shame is missing one potrait...and one that is very much alive and indeed very wealthy at the expense of
many.

Well he may be knighted but I suggest he be better stuffed and mounted in the above Hall of Shame.

[RIVER1]

Very well put Traffic.

[Sunfish]

One of the reasons Ansett went was because, contrary to what you may think, the Government does pick winners and losers and it does have preferred visions of various industries structures and futures.

For example, Qantas is a Sydney Icon. Nothing will EVER be allowed to happen to it while the NSW Labor AND Liberal branches have the power in Canberra.

Thats why the Federal Government played with a dead bat during Compass I and II and sat back and watched while Virgin fouht with the Sydney Airport Corporation.

Ansett was doomed from about 1986 onwards by the prevailing wisdom that the Country could only afford one international flag carrier and that Qantas was it. Thats why the Fed's just sit back and say "its just nature taking its course" sometimes and yet leap to a company's defence at other times (think Manildra and gasohol).

Same mindset completed the demise of the old Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation (although it was just about ossified already).

Same mindset still exists and will shortly do in Tenix's Williamstown dockyards - they will never build another ship, no matter what. The votes are needed in Adelaide.

[Going Boeing]

Sunfish - you have a very jaundiced view. The demise of AN had nothing to do with International Ops and late nineties politicians had nothing to do with the terminal financial situation of AN. The only political interference happened during the domestic pilots dispute when the then PM assisted his good mate and from what I have heard he also had a hand in the demise of Compass Mark 1. The current government is a different brand and I am convinced that they had no role in AN's demise apart from allowing market forces to play their part.

[Sunfish]

Goeing Boeing, you are absolutely right when you said that the government had no role in AN's demise. They just stood back and watched nature take its course.

Contrast that behaviour with their efforts to keep Mitsubishi afloat in Adelaide, and that was for a lousy 3000 jobs compared to 10000+ in AN!!!! There are plenty of other examples where Government has bailed out industry for all sorts of reasons.

My point is that if Qantas was in AN's situation any government would come running with its chequebook.

I got the drift way back in the days of Compass One when as a consultant, I asked the ACCC what they would do if an accusation of predatory pricing was made against Qantas by Compass.

The answer was that it might take them a month to decide to investigate and about six months to reach some determination. As anyone who has been involved with an airline knows, the huge cash flows involved in this behaviour would easily bankrupt a fledgling airline in six weeks let alone six months.

There are **** all people who know anything about airline costing and pricing in this country and none of them work for government. Qantas gets what it wants from the Government and the rest get ****all.

[bushy]

Aviation in Australia is an obscene industry. Qantas make squillions, and the rest struggle to survive.

[Going Boeing]

Sunfish

Qantas was not involved in anything to do with Compass Mark 1 as at that time they were purely an international airline - they weren't allowed to fly domestically until they purchased Australian (TN) Airlines late in 1992 (approx 10 months after Abeles had arranged for his mate the PM to pull Compass's AOC.

Bushy

In the world of business, airlines are considered very poor return on the sums invested. Qantas has many billions invested in equipment and infrastructure and its recently reported "record" profit did not impress serious investors as in the last 3 years QF has been spending billions in an expansion program and with this increased capital equipment they had expectations of a much larger profit. a good comparison is QF made under $700million profit from just under $12 billion in revenue - Commonwealth bank made $4 billion profit from the same revenue. The only way to truly compare the performance of airlines based in Australia is to look at profit versus capital invested - it might turn out that an operator such as Air North gets much better returns.

[ys120fz]

I appreciate that this may be a little off topic, but I find Kaptin Ms revelation back on page 5 quite startling.
He learnt to control his physical violence back in 1973??? I don't think sooooo. The reason you were rejected by AN when you attempted to acquire scabdon of the first order in Sept 89 was for your role in a melee in Brisbane terminal in the early stages of the dispute so that is quite clearly not accurate.

But,if you've learnt to control your physical violence, and we won't argue about the date, and you no longer call people "scabs", we woul dhave to assume that you no longer abuse people. Correct?

OK, now we 've established that I assume that there will be many who will be receiving apologies for your character assassinations on these forums. Attacks with absolutely no foundation in truth, and some perpetrated by your 'mates' because your identity was too well known.

We will relaxwith a gin and tonic, and peruse the pages here as we wait for those apologies I love witnessing humility.

[Kaptin M]

"We will relaxwith a gin and tonic, and peruse the pages here as we wait for those apologies I love witnessing humility."

You'd better order several tanker loads of the stuff then - and then some more :p ..your role in a melee in Brisbane terminal Outright lies like that one only add further proof that the characters of you and your's helped Ansett's slide down the plughole accelerate, once you got inside - like worms inside an apple.
Abeles got what he deserved with you lot :}

Cheers!:p

[Romeo Tango Alpha]

When you know the full story about Kap's "return", please post again, instead of the half truths and slander.

When one weighs ALL facts about "that incident" involving Kap (not the supposed melee), I still FIRMLY believe it took more conviction and moral fortitude than being a bloody scab! He KNEW that there would be absolutely positively no chance EVER of returning to AN after he walked away (no, he was NOT rejected by AN as being too "unstable" - that has been confirmed by several people that leaked info out from crewing, admin, and even FA's that were there).

Again, we shall all beg to differ no doubt, and some will try to paint with the same tarry brush.

Don't bother with the feathers after the tarring - only COWARDS get feathers. Don't try to bring others down to that LOWEST of levels.

Whilst I can NEVER condone that Kap ALMOST did (a thought I never had), I fully recognise the strength needed to walk away. For that, I admire the man!

[ys120fz]

Well in that case you admire a scab, because under the definitionpropagated by the guy from Tassie, half the bother (and I mean bother not brother)team whose names I have forgotten, anyone who applied or negotiated prior to the AFAP giving the all clear, is a scab
Incidentally, I was never AN. 737 with the other side and then 767.
I lay a few baits to test the integrity of the system and it is found wanting fron time to time.

And the melee was real and the only reasonyouwere rejected KM. I'll be saying no more than that. It is not my intention to get involved in a tit for tat.

It seems that I may have been hoping for too much if I expected humility from you regardless of the fact that you slandered others here fromtime to time. That's OK. I'm assured by a couple who copped that crap that every dog has its day.

Bye bye. no more from me.

[Romeo Tango Alpha]

Considering, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, that Kap NEVER signed ANYTHING, the definition is open to speculation!

I call scab anyone that went back, signed a contract, and flew again during the period so nominated.

Then there are the Opportunists.

And I suppose, under the definition (which I do NOT subscribe to) that you cannot call Wiltshire, King, and other NON-RESIGNEE'S scabs, because they never resigned, never signed a new contract (they may well have had to agree to a new contract; I am not sure).

It's all a mute point. I talk who I talk to, and ignore who I ignore. I once had a former mate come to my house that scabbed, trying to mend the bridges he burnt. It was the tensest moment of my life, and undoubtedly his, but I let him in, sat down, had a talk, and watched him leave. The anger was SEETHING in me, but I held my tongue; I stood firm. He tried apologising, but I simply said "You made your bed". I refused to shake his hand. Someone who couldn't make it beyond F/O in the old system became Capt. in under a year. How very sad times were, and maybe still are.

Test the "system" all you like. We all have differing opinions on that matter.

[ys120fz]

Romeo Alpha Tango,

I said that I would say no more on this matter, and I am not about to comment on whether KM was involved in abrawl or not. That has been established.

However, you need correction on a few points. I nevr said he signed a contract. I said the definiition included 'appliedor negotiated' and he clearly did both.

Now not accepting the definition, and suggesting he isn't one of those because you don't accept it, , is a little like
Groucho Marx saying ' Ihave my principles; if you dont like them, I have others'. The easiest person to whom you can justify anything is yourself.
And incidentally, it is a 'moot' point, not a 'mute ' point, 'moot' meaning 'debatable', and 'mute' meaning 'silent',or without speech. And another. Anyone WHO went back, not anyone that etc. 'That' is used for animals and inanimate objects. Yes, yes, I know anyone who went back is an animal.

If you are going to enter into discussion with me, please be a little more grammatically correct. Typos can be excused, poor use of the language cannot!

I definitely won't be commenting further either on KM or your violationof the language.

Oh, and I had a friend who didn't go/come back to work as well,and he came to my house some timeearly in 1990, wishing to apologize also. Like you, I let him in,and listened to what he had to say. We had a beer or two. He tooapologized with tears i n his eyes, but for his own stupidity, and the need to leave Astralia and work overseas. In spite of that, we remain close friends, and go to the footy when he's in town. He's a 777 capt a nd has been for a few years, something I could never have hoped to achieve by returning to work.
Soyou see for every horrible, nasty story, there is a contrary story, a nice story, and people do remain good friends in spite of the stupidity of one.

[Romeo Tango Alpha]

My apologies for my poor illiteration and grammar.

The replacement of "That" for "Who" was, as you suspected, INTENTIONAL.

I have no excuse for typing mute instead of moot.

[The_Cutest_of_Borg]

One of the things that may have saved AN would be if it had at some stage been a privatised company with a board in it's own right instead of always being a someone's subsidiary.

Boards are required by law to make provision for the future of the company. That never happened with AN in the last 20 years of it's existence. Sad really.

[Kaptin M]

What my role in anything during my time with, and after, Ansett, had to do with the topic subject is lost on me.

However, as ys120fz has decided to launch a personal, cowardly, and factually incorrect attack on me - from behind his cloak of anonymity...much like those who skulked back behind their peers' backs during the Dispute...I would like to use my right of reply to post some TRUTH.

Firstly, my identity is hardly a secret - I have never attempted to hide it when challenged, and have posted photos of myself on PPRuNe at different times.

Are you, ys120fz, man enough to expose your real identity? I doubt it.
Do you have the guts to stand by your own words?I love witnessing humility.

The only incident I can recall, involving any physical "interaction", in which I was involved at Brisbane Airport in 1989, was during a march there when a taxi driver grabbed a handful of pamphlets from me titled "YOU ARE ABOUT TO FLY WITH A SCAB PILOT", and threw them onto the footpath.
I still have the video clip (from the television news) which shows that there was no physical retaliation on mine - nor anyone else's part.....undoubtedly much to the disappointment of the camera crew, and the TNT goons present.

As I have stated in earlier posts, my application to Ansett was made in January or February of 1990, however I telephoned from the Brisbane AFAP Branch office and advised Brian King - the RFM at the time - that I was withdrawing it some 3 days later (it had been lodged at the Fortitude Valley Ansett office).
King said that he had not received it.
I had at least 2 other witnesses with me, listening to the conversation at the time, and whom I had asked to be present.
There was never any negotiation involved.

So you see, ys120fz, I have FACTS that I am able to back up, and am not ashamed that my identity is no secret to friends, and lowlifes alike.
As this is an anonymous forum, you are abusing the privileges of it, by publishing LIES to try to slander me.

If you are as confident in stating about me, that which you have, then PM your name to me to prove your own belief in yourself as a man.

[Romeo Tango Alpha]

Does the nick-name "Jungle Jim" mean anything to any posters here?



:8

[Wizofoz]

Kap,

I for one believe your version of events from that time. But before being quite so vehement towards people throwing accusations at you, however unfounded, realise that YOU have often COLOURFULLY AND LOUDLY stated as FACT thing about the post '89 pilots that were simply not so, then stubbornly argued the toss when the truth has been explained to you.

Saying that we earned 300K+ (how is your accountant), stating with religious furver that we received four-figure call out fees (and accusing me of lying when I told that wasn't true), stating we received 2 or 3 times what our pre '89 counterparts did (this got rapidly rationalised though never withdrawn).

You reserve the right to very offensively talk B*****ks about one group. Don't get too sniffy when one of them talks CR@P about you...

[ys120fz]

Thank you Wiz.
What a shame it is that I undertook to speak no further about KMs propensity for violence nor Romeo Alpha Tango's gross misuse of the language. The reference to 'illiteration' (does he mean illiteracy?)surely deserves investigation, but I will be true to my word.

KM, you're right. My post regarding your violence has absolutely nothing to dowith this thread, but now you may have some appreciation of what thousands of other ppruners think when you wade into any and every thread and somehow twist it round to the usual old boring scab %$^& scab #$%*& scab.
There may have never been any negotiation involved, but there wa s an application,and the definition was 'applied or negotiated'.

But as Romeo Alpha Tango points out, hedoes not accept the definition, and if you don't accept the definition, then it didn't happen. Those who went back to work no doubt apply the same logic, and the definition of 'scab' is someone who takes the job of a striking worker. You spend a lot of time on these pages pointing out that there was never a strike. I leave the subtlety of my argument there so that you may ponder it for some time and perhaps, and it is a BIG perhaps, grasp the underlying point.

And you are unable to refute that you have made, or caused to have made, many cowardly attacks on individuals on these forums, some in the most colourful language which inevitably included a few scab %$&* scabs. You have even alluded to some involving themselves in marital infidelity, and made veiled threats to expose them to their spouses. Let me say, and you will know what I mean, 'People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones'.

I now leave this thread and will make no further comment, either on topic or off. It will be difficult though after witnessing Romeo Alpha Tango's assault upon the English language.

[Romeo Tango Alpha]

You KNOW when someone has run out of steam, run out of venom, and realises he/she is cornered and defeated, when that person resorts to 'picking' on the spelling and grammar of a post.

Bravo. Well done. You made your argument SO strong there by insulting me in such a way. I am SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO offended, and distressed. Ouch. OOOH. How will I ever recover.

It will be difficult though after witnessing Romeo Alpha Tango's assault upon the English language.

Oh, I am SURE you will recover your sense and sensibilities. I could pick on your bad syntax and typographical errors in your last post, but could NEVER sink to your sordid level.

Now, go back to chasing down lost R/C aircraft in the jungles of Lae.

[slamer]

Having just read pages and pages and pages........etc, of ANSETT bagging by the people that worked there (I'll assume). Could someone remind me, just exactly how that Company was/is such a great "Aussie Icon", and not something to be sliced and added to a G & T???

[ys120fz]

slamer, I can't help you. I never worked for them, but I would have liked to see them survive; many good friends there over the years.
Romeo Alpha Tango, Regarding your animal quip back a few posts, my wife says I'm a real animal in the cot. Does that count? Lae?? Never been there.

Please see my para from my previous post reprinted below.

But as Romeo Alpha Tango points out, hedoes not accept the definition, and if you don't accept the definition, then it didn't happen. Those who went back to work no doubt apply the same logic, and the definition of 'scab' is someone who takes the job of a striking worker. You spend a lot of time on these pages pointing out that there was never a strike. I leave the subtlety of my argument there so that you may ponder it for some time and perhaps, and it is a BIG perhaps, grasp the underlying point.

The comments on your 'illiteration' I consider just an amusing side issue, and they are quite amusing!

[FarQ2]

ys120fz you are full of horse manure

I now leave this thread and will make no further comment, either on topic or off that was 2 posts back !

16 posts and no credibility. :8

[ys120fz]

Cutest of Borg,

AN was as you call it a privatized company.
I don't recall the maximum number of shareholders that a private company can have, but I think it's over 20. However there were only TWO shareholders in AN, TNT and Newscorp. The fact that they had millions of shareholders as public companies was irrelevant; those companies were the only two shareholders. It was not a public company.


I'm not sure if you're confusing a listed company with an unlisted company. Listed companies, i.e., those listed on the stock exchange as public companies have much more onerous reporting obligations (to the public and stock exchange)than unlisted companies.
Private companies do not have to report to the public at all, but only to shareholders, and presumably the shareholders are close enough to the action to know what's going on.

Now after all that, I suppose the punters invest in public companies like TNT and Newscorp knowing that an unlisted company is part of the whole, and expect that it will contribute to the profits of the parent.

That's how it was all explained to me over a beer by my accountant a few years back.

E & OE though

Beyond that, the intricacies of accounting are beyond me.

[Obie]

...you keep saying you're nicking off, but you keep coming back!

Why is that, mate?

Do you have a decision making deficiency?

[Romeo Tango Alpha]

He keeps coming back to check on my spelling, grammar, and 'illiteration'... :}

[A4G]

The difference between AN, VB & JetStar etc of today is that AN had a heart and soul pure and simple. The people who worked there were responsible for this. Sadly this has dissapeared with LCC's. That's it in a nut shell.
KAP has been highjacking threads here for years then acting like the victim just like he did in 89. Hey KAP "no one gives a toss about your pissy 89 rubbish any more except you" I don't here my AN friends going on like you ex 89 guys! They lost just as much if not more than you & your mates. Get your therapy elsewhere. I don't know why you're proud of posting your photos here. I saw them and it made me laugh. You even look like a complete dick!

[Foreign Worker]

This thread has lost all direction i.r.o. the topic heading.
That the previous poster bothered to register, simply to write 5 out of 7 lines denigrating another poster indicates a serious insecurity on his part, and is superfluos to the core topic issue.

[TheNightOwl]

FW - you are quite correct, the topic is rapidly being lost in the mire of vitriol and bullsh1t being posted in the name of grammatical accuracy.

To summarize, IMHO, and as one who lived through the demise:
1. Abeles AND Murdoch played their individual parts in AN's downfall, principally by their unwillingness to run the business AS AN AIRLINE instead of just a bottom-line figure. Too many aircraft types, chosen on price and suitability for a different function and environment than we needed, and an almost total lack of investment capital WHERE IT WAS NEEDED put us on the slippery slope.
2. The '89 stoush played a part, in that we lost invaluable numbers of experienced pilots who had to be replaced to keep us going. The pros and cons of the means of accomplishing this end are for another, more sedate, place and time. Suffice to say that the AFAP of the day,:yuk: , have a great deal to answer for, IMHO!
3. The avarice of our final owners, may they rot in Hell, was the final nail in an already prepared coffin, but they must, I believe, take responsibility for their actions. Who hammered in the last nail is a moot point, and depends on perception for the laying of blame, but it lies fairly and squarely at the door of AirNZ/Brierly Investments and SIA, again IMHO!

As a company, AN was NOT a "lemon" or "basket-case", it became such from the day it was removed from the care of RM and fell into the hands of people who had NO interest in running a service industry concept and creamed every last cent they could from the company before selling it off to another of their ilk.
We had a well-deserved reputation for service and friendliness, derived from years of being exposed to the "AN ethos", an undefinable willingness to go the extra yards for your customer.
Now, there will be some amongst you who will disagree with my view, that is your right, as is the option to have a pop at me. Go right ahead, you won't change my mind - I spent twenty of the happiest years of my working life with AN, and I regret to this day the ruination of what was a fine company.

Rant over, it's all yours,

Kind regards,

TheNightOwl.:ok:

[Obie]

Hmmm!...can't say I disagree with much of that...

as a matter of fact, I don't disagree with any of it!

[gaunty]

Eeerm........ I don't suppose anybody around here happens to have a hammer and a big wooden stake handy ?:suspect: :ouch: :p

[FarQ2]

Well TNO I'm pleased to see you have finally agreed with me about the demise of AN, re my post of 22nd August.

One wonders why you took some 2 weeks to acknowledge the facts that I stated that AN was on the way down from the day Abeles got control of the board.

I do whole heartedly agree with your post, very pleased to see re '89 that you acknowledged the fact THAT A GREAT MANY experienced pilots walked, replaced by weeelll.

:hmm:

Rgds FarQ2 :ok:

[ys120fz]

I`m glad you chaps find my return irritating. It is just further proof that when KM continues with his boring #$%& scab line it gets up people`s noses.

I did undertake not to comment on KM`s penchant for violence nor on Romeo Alpha Tango`s `illiteration` and I haven`t done so.
Maybe this will be my last??

Obie, you are very observant. I had enjoyed a few rum and cokes prior to my last post, and just couldn`t resist. Alcohol breaks down the inhibitions and resistance. I thought I may be able to offer something on the company structure etc.

And I certainly have no difficulty with the decision makin g process, unlike KM alleges he did back in 89. I knew what I had to do, no mistake, and so did he, but they put the stoppers on him. I won`t mention why, in accordance with my undertaking.

[Kaptin M]

Quite a fine summary, TNO, although (as you undoubtedly by now realise) I must disagree with your final sentence in point #2, re the AFAP - the opportunity to NEGOTIATE with the pilot body was flatly rejected outright by Abeles & Co - you must remember the interview on 60 Minutes, in which Abeles said he would rather lose the airline than negotiate with the Federation. It happened, but not in his time.

As expected there has been no PM to me by ys120fz, which was totally expected and in accordance with his history of not having the guts to do things in the open.

[TheNightOwl]

FQ2 - I have re-read your post of 22Aug and, yes, we have points in common, I agree. The title of the thread is "News blamed for Ansett collapse", and I have been trying to point out that News was not the only, and certainly not the final, cause of the demise.
As I said before, many parts came together to cause the collapse, - the "Swiss Cheese" philosophy at play again? - but no ONE part was the single cause.
Yes, I agree, we lost a great deal of experience in'89, and the one commodity which cannot be taught is experience, but I'm afraid that yourself, Kap, and all the other '89-ers who combined in the form of your representatives to cause such damage to the company are held in the same regard, BY ME, and I speak for no-one else, as you hold those who took your places when you resigned from AN's employment. The reasons for this may be debated until the cows come home, but the facts are that you left the company bereft of the capability to fulfil its obligations, thereby putting the rest of us at risk of losing our jobs. I understand all the arguments put forward by your group, I've heard them for the past 15 years, I simply disagree with your slant on the situation.

Kap - I thank you for your comments, over the time of this debate I have mostly experienced at least courtesy from you, and for that I'm grateful. We will never resolve our differences wrt the '89 AFAP, but we can, at least, be civil on here. Yes, I well remember the 60 Minutes program, and again I remember what transpired, but I still say that you, through your representatives, brought the wrath of the AN management and the government on yourselves. YOU provided them with the means to metaphorically knock seven bells out of you by your stance and approach, and for the intervening 15 years you have tried to maintain the moral high ground wrt the "sc***" as you refer to them.
As for ys120fz, that is a matter between you and him, I want no part of it. I will say, though, that anyone who enjoys a couple of rum 'n' cokes can't be ALL bad!! That's my favoured tipple, when a White Burgundy isn't available!

Kind regards,

TheNightOwl.:ok:

[amos2]

So, just to summarise, for those who don't know the Owl as well as I and others do...

what he's saying is ...I hate all ex Ansett pilots except the scabs! And, of course, the scabs consist of local as well as foreign imports that has an affinity with.

Just keep that in mind when you read his sick, biassed rantings that amuse most of us who know him.

Best regards

amos2

[TheNightOwl]

No, amos, I don't hate anyone, not even you, although I have to admit you push me close to it at times. Hate is a futile emotion which achieves nothing for either side in any argument. What I dislike, since you will never achieve the level of discernment to understand my posts, is the continuing attitude of people like yourself who propagate the hatred of the "scabs", under the guise of the righteousness of your cause. In my view, once again, it was an unworthy and unworkable cause, an exorbitant demand and NOT, despite the protestations of KapM, et al, an "ambit claim" in any way. It was a confrontation between the AFAP and AN management, engendered by your representatives for, supposedly, the reason of restoration of the status and salary-levels of pilots in the Aus aviation industry. You didn't care who got hurt in the process, then played into the unscrupulous hands of Hawke/Abeles/Kelty and painted yourselves into a corner from which they refused to let you escape. You have only yourselves to blame, in my view, "as ye sow, so shall ye reap"!!!

As for bias, of course I am, biased against stupidity and selfish thoughlessness in any form. Idealistic, I accept, but that's how I feel.
For the elucidation of other readers of this, I should make clear the reason for the antipathy between us - it stems from a discussion we had at the AN Sim Centre during the time the Centre was being picketed by the Engine Shop people at Garden Drive. Amos believes that we at the Centre should have been on strike as well, supporting the Engine Shop people in their picketing. He does not accept that we had a valid reason for continuing to work, in that we were the only department still bringing in earnings for what was left of the company, but believes that solidarity should have been paramount.

We will NEVER agree, amos, that I accept, but I will not descend to your level of vitriol, nor shall I respond to you again.

TheNightOwl.

[amos2]

So, once again, just to summarise, the owl is still saying he hates all ex Ansett pilots, except the scabs, even tho he says this is not so!

He is, and always has been, known as a "scab lover". Which is why we have no respect for his opinions on this pilots forum.

Most of us have moved on in recent years to bigger and better things. Since Owl's beloved Ansett folded he seems to have "not moved on" as others have done. Why is this so?
Why does he continue to attempt to denigrate the profession of airline pilots? Perhaps we have left him behind?

The sooner Owl joins his ex engineer mates on another forum and stops trying to mix it with us, the better it will be!

Kind regards

amos2

[air-hag]

You two "butches"* should just get married and be done with it :ok: instead of bitching constantly.

It's like listening to Felix and Oscar moaning at each other but never moving apart.

:E







* I use the word "b!tches" in the rhetorical sense, of course, not as an insult. ;)

[Romeo Tango Alpha]

I go away for 3 days, and look at all the fun I missed.

I don't think ys120fz (BTW - that's a small radio controlled aircraft engine for those who need to know - maybe that is all he/she/it flies these days?) understands. As expected he/she/it seems to dwell in his/her/its own compunction about the action he/she/it took during 1989. He/she/it lives up to character as expected.

Whilst (ah, is that correct grammar?) I do not always agree with TNO, his view is HIS view, and he is not frightened to have his say, no matter who (correct?) it seems to offend or titilate. He doesn't need to sink to critisizing one's grammar.