View Full Version : August 24th

23rd Aug 2005, 13:10
Well time zones aside, it will very soon be August 24th, sixteen years since the "Dispute". And I am led one more time to reflect on the cost to our (Australian pilots) community, of the lack of a single pilot union.

This anniversary is important, not just to those who were there, but to all who fear the cost of a House divided. Why do Dixon and Branson et al do what they do? BECAUSE THEY CAN! And there has only ever been one way to defeat such people..... solidarity, which in practical terms, means one union.

I know there'll be many crying "old history" etc (often meaning "please forget that I was a Scab") but the truth is this stuff can and will happen again, if we allow ourselves to be divided and put self interest ahead of good careers and a safe working environment.

I'm proud to remain an AFAP member in good standing. I'm proud of the 777 I fly and I'm proud to have once flown with those who, having built a single pilot union in the years after WW2, gave me the opportunities to be where I am now.

Let us all learn from history or assuredly, we will learn from history. I'm in Rome now, and will probably not have the chance to raise a glass with any '89 colleagues, but my heart is with you.

Safe flying

23rd Aug 2005, 23:41
Why do Dixon and Branson et al do what they do?

Branson did what he did because a group of gents from the dispute agreed to come to Australia and work for less than the going rate and pioneered the practice of paying for jet endorsements in Oz. This lit Dixon's eyes up and along came Jet*

I don't want to buy into or discuss the events of 16 years ago - but I think if you are blaming VB for the current state of affairs in Oz then you have to acknowledge those pilots who allowed it to happen.

Beer Can Dreaming
24th Aug 2005, 01:40
Try this on for size.
Imagine that it is 1989 and the market has been deregulated.

Along comes a pom that is starting up a new airline in Oz and advocates 35% lower wages for pilots as well as having to pay for the privilege of being employed by him (ie: pay for your own endorsement) !

Imagine how that would have gone down in 1989 with the AFAP no less!!
Could you actually imagine what would have been their response back then?

JetA_OK - you're right.

These are the same guys that came back to Oz from Europe and did what they themselves would have considered not only disgusting, but blasphemous in 1989.
How times have changed.

Well done boys.
Im looking forward to firstly the excuses then the rants and raves that will surely follow.
Bring it on.........this thread has just hotted up somewhat.

(Sorry to bring you extra work Woomera, but the truth may insult just a few).

24th Aug 2005, 05:10
This urban myth of rich expats coming home to destroy the conditions of honest God-fearing domestic pilots ought to be put to bed once and for all.

The group whose selfish approach to wages destroyed 4 airlines and cost billions were those who elected to cross picket lines to get what were by any standards obscenely high pay rates. They were the ones that wrecked things. Those who came later simply played with the cards dealt to them. Are you honestly suggesting that if they'd stayed 'in Europe" that NO OTHER pilot would have bought his/her rating and taken the slots?

And by the way, paying for your rating had been going on in GA forever. The only group who tried and still do (thanks Lawrie Cox et al) to lift GA conditions in this and many areas was and is the AFAP.

24th Aug 2005, 05:45
More lead in your pencil Elektra. Thats it in a nutshell.

Al E. Vator
24th Aug 2005, 06:14
Yes I have to buy into this. I agree entirely elektra.

Branson et al would have started anyhow, just using less experienced GA guys etc. The ops culture of VB no doubt benefitted from the wealth of experience those guys returned with. Essentially it was also the only gig.

When observing pilots from both sides of the dispute fence I use the 'good guy' factor. Invariably those whose stayed out seem to be gentlemen/women whereas many of the 'returnees' I have met are total pr!cks. Many of these individuals repeated their selfish action when AN fell, by trying to shaft yet a new batch of pilots.

I hope we as a profession can regroup but those returnees back then lowered the bar so far by allowing a united group to be divided, it will be difficult to raise it again. I fear only the law of supply and demand will prevail. Jetstar to the US etc - what a great way to keep us divided.

The fastest way to regain working conditions at this stage is to ensure the AFAP and AIPA join as one united group.

24th Aug 2005, 20:18
You gentlemen are quite correct. Just before AN finally fell over, I recall seeing "heroes" (some over 60 years of age!) crowding the AN sim centre to obtain A320 ratings in order to grab the few positions in a proposed AN A320 operation. Even the younger and already A320 rated pilots in AN were disgusted at the actions of these "heroes."

They had and continue to have no shame.

Disguise Delimit
24th Aug 2005, 23:18
...... and if Gough Whitlam hadn't been so foully shafted by some other Heroes, life would be different now, bleat, moan, whinge.....

Every year (or more often, depending on how Kaptin M's spleen is feeling) we trot out this old chestnut, fill a dozen pages with bile and vitriol, nobody changes his point of view, and bitter and twisted souls wait for next year.

1989. Gone a long time. Get over it.

Beer Can Dreaming
25th Aug 2005, 01:20
Very true Kaptin M about the repercussions still being felt.

The point I made though was how the AFAP would have felt back in 89 about an operator like Branson coming onto the scene and not only slashing wages and conditions, but making pilots pay for their endorsement.

Sure, we know some other sleezebag would have tried the same but why should things be any different now?

Operators like VB and Jetstar lay the bait, dangle the carrot and these kids just come rolling up falling over themselves to not only pay for their endorsement, but also having lower wages and conditions.
Sure, we know its similar to GA but wasnt that what working for an airline was all about? - company's doing things professionally and having their own Check and Training Dept that actually endorses its own crews?

Kaptin M - you're obviously very happy doing your own thing in Japan and I applaud that.
Getting paid alot more money than being home in sunny BNE working for VB on alot less money and having to work alot harder.
And you dont have to spend a small fortune on a B737 endorsement if not endorsed (which incidentally your employer probably spent quite a bit of money for you to qualify for the JCAB equivalent).

I wonder what old man Holt, Mr McCarthy and the other AFAP lads would have thought about this practice of paying for endorsements and lower wages/less conditions.

26th Aug 2005, 00:15
If the conditions of service of professional pilots in Australia could have a military analogy drawn, I would suggest we met our Waterloo in two places in the war lost over the last 16 years.

Firstly, the fatal decision to resign en masse during the industrial confrontation of 1989.

Secondly, the practice of paying for airline training enforced as a normal practice by Virgin Blue. This locking pilots into miniscule sub-inflation EBA gains as attrition of dissatisfied pilots has no bottom line effects.

Is there a common protagonist in the above Waterloos? Could we call the Chief Pilot of Virgin Blue Napolean Bonaparte?

After the complete destruction of the pilot Empire, will Napolean take his 17 million dollars and live an Elba like exile on the Sunshine coast?

26th Aug 2005, 22:13
Gradenburg, to continue the military analogy, I believe our Stalingrad (or retreat from Moscow if you want to stay Napoleonic) was the fateful day the QF pilots left the AFAP to form AIPA.

Like the German Wermachtof WW2 and Napoleon's Grande Armee, we might still have had a bit of fight left in us, but our fate was sealed from that sorry date – and there were some of us who recognised the fact at the time. But I have to say, I didn't ever predict how utterly we would defeat ourselves, when the 'realists' went back 'for the sake of their families' or whatever other excuse came to mind.

Am I bitter towards those people? Strangely enough, not particularly, for, I have to admit, that after a few pretty hard years re-establishing myself elsewhere in the industry, like most others in a similar situation, I've done probably a lot better for myself than I would have done had 89 never happened.

But to maintain the military analogy, I can't forget that the heroes didn't just surrender to the 'other side', they climbed out of our trenches and into the opposing trenches and promptly aimed and fired their guns at us, their former colleagues.

And when it was all over and the other side had 'won', (what turned out to be a Phyrric victory for many), the likes of Dick Marman - with the enthusiastic support of the vast majority of his heroic colleagues - went to considerable lengths, even going to court, to ensure that, (apart from the token 12 apostles), those non-heroes who'd stayed in the trenches would never get a foot in the door of mainline aviation in Australia again.

26th Aug 2005, 23:28
To continue the military analogy fun some more..

During that fateful campaign of 1988+1 the good old boys liked to compare their battle to the Battle of Brittan. They saw themselves like allied pilots up against the Hun.

I saw them as Luftwaffe pilots, brave, skilled, and determined; but at the behest of megalomaniac leaders.

Imagine out there in cyberspace the LuPo bulletin board where the surviving veterans remind each other of the good old days. And how they were betrayed by that rat Hess.

26th Aug 2005, 23:57
Never a truer word was spoken.
VB,s Napolean is the common link, He is the heros hero.
But the 89 heros can't see the forest for the trees.

Beer Can Dreaming
27th Aug 2005, 00:16
Milkybarkid- I find it amusing that you mispelled the word Britain but got the even more difficult word Luftwaffe spelled perfectly !

Just made me laugh, thats all.

Richard Kranium
27th Aug 2005, 02:46
Errr MTOW, can you tell me what Phyrric means, as this forum seem to want to bring out superfluous words by individulas that seem to make out they are learned person of some kind.

The other thing that is annoying is when someone has nothing intelectual to add to the thread, they seem to instantly become English teachers, looking for spelling mistakes or incorrect grammar or attacking some other weak area like their pseudonym for instance Get a Life I say there are better things to worry about.

The Qantas boys were smart for leaving the AFAP, they could see there was nothing in it for them to stay, and it has proven right, Ansett and TAA at the time should have done the same and formed their own union on an individual company basis, thus Ansett Pilots look after their own interest and do whats best for them, same would go for Australian, and that's what AIPA is about, if they stuff it up its for the Qantas peole to sort out.

The 24th of August resignation was an act of an inadequate and naive leadership, "look I've shot myself in the foot and if you missed it look I'll do it again in the other foot", the membership was told it was never really going to use the resignation papers, only to be used as a lever of some kind to get the airlines to capitulate, that's like signing a blank cheque, who does that, yeah I know only a dill.

Dick Marman did nothing but to make sure that there would not be any more disunity, Ansett and Australian had no interest of having the very same people that cost them millions of dollars and wrecked businesses all over Australia back in the ranks to cause more trouble and disunity, Graeme McMahaon was right, he would consider only the guys that had loyalty to Ansett or Australian, and not to a bloody minded union after all who is giving you a career and paying your wages, so if you wanted to come back after the AFAP told you could go and apply for your job back....guess what!!!

The AFAP wanted respodency to the new airline award and they wanted to tell the companies who they are to hire...I mean what planet did they think they were on this was beyond belief, they still couldn't figure out that it wasn't their train set, managment at Ansett and Australian are the only ones that will call the shots in anything they want when it came to running their own businesses, so I say get used to it, its like that with every company once you resign from your company your on your own.

But this all is about some "god given right" the union members thought they had, they had their heads so for up each others arses that they could not smell the coffee or roses, but only believed ther own moronic rhetoric that they cannot be replaced, to the height of, if they didn't want to go back, then no one else had the right either, that can be described as obscene arrogance, that can only be displayed and uttered by boofheads.

There were no trenches, all this Anzac stuff with your backs to the wall what a load of [email protected], this was not war in a real sense, you '89ers were just a stupid lot that can't even till to-day stand in front of a mirror and look at youself and say I was to blame, I blindly followed a leadership that was just out of control and wanted to make a name for itself and go down in history and be heroes not the other heroes, well they certainly did that, more like [email protected]*&s.

Oh someone mentioned Ryanair, and what a terrible company it is, look at what they make their pilots do etc....geeewizz...I gues you won't be applying for a job there then, as the old saying goes, one mans poison is another mans meat, ohhh but the '89ers could never understand that, everybody has to think and abide the their own distorted ideology.

27th Aug 2005, 16:02
Wow, bet it feels better to have got that off your chest! Is there ANYTHING else you left out that the '89 pilots are responsible for? Global warming, the Ebola virus, suicide bombers, Tibet, TESNA?

It is of course true that any individual pilot, or indeed group of pilots, can do better for themselves than for the pilot body as a whole by single mindedly pursuing self interest. That is the case with much of life. The issue at hand here is whether for the entire pilot body, some small level of common input can result in a better output for the wider group. That is the basis of a seniority list, where we all agreed to put aside our individual aims and hopes, in favour of an ordered progression. Hardly a giant concept nor revolutionary.

I could have been stinking rich by now had I accepted the offer made to me back then to take a pay rise far greater than that which the union asked for. A small percentage did take that bait. And the real price paid was the demise, right or wrong, of the collective force of a united pilot body. Results seen today on these forums.

"Me first" leads to the situation back at aero clubs in the 60's where individuals would occasionally over stress the wings on the Chipmunks but never put it in the maintenance log. Great for that pilot who put "me first" but a bit rough on the wider group any one of whom might be flying that aircraft next. "Me first" would see us going straight out the cockpit window after an accident, rather than hanging about to help the other pilot or EVEN the passengers.

As for your flowery rhetoric, the Dispute has been over 16 years. Those prompt sheets the US industrial psychologists gave you then to help you justify your betrayal belong in a museum or even the BBQ. They were not relevant then, remain irrelevant today. Think for yourself and get over what you did. I bear you no ill will, possess no venom that would frighten you. You're just an angry dill who still can't quite sleep at nights after what you did.

I know the world I would rather have.....I commend it to you.

4th Oct 2005, 12:10
Lightly imbued with the stamp of Henry Lawson, and the swag carrying exemplars enshrined in his imperishable stories, those on the wallaby that were always there, in sunshine or in shadow, today he has in a country town his third business venture since his demobilisation in that year of little grace, 1989.
A friend, confidant and workmate spanning 31 years, he will ever be to me "a broth of a boy".

A woman friend of his, proprietor of the next door coffee shop, dropped in one morning. While they were in conversation a former work associate of his from the eighties came in, said "Good morning - just browsing", and walked among the shelves.

My friend did not look at him, acknowledge his presence, let alone the greeting. The caller was as the invisible man. When he left the shop a short time later, the woman, knowing something of the seeds of contention, asked with some asperity: "Why did you snub him? Why can you not bury the hatchet after all this time?"

Quietly, and in a tone brooking no further talk on the subject, the response was:

"He took my job."

Incontinentia Butocs
4th Oct 2005, 15:13

You quit your job and someone else took up the offer.

Big difference. Get over it. It's about to happen again.

4th Oct 2005, 21:25
How come I missed this thread back when it started? Well better late than never.

I suppose the fact that there have been only a handful on posts in response, including two of the topic starters, indicates the degree of interest most have in the subject 16, yes 16!!! years down the track.

Gnadenburg, you got it right with a couple of one liners. Concise and precise as they say.

Elektra, you're copping a bit of what you losers dished out to the nice guys for 16 years. You are actaully responsible for many, many ills in the aviation industry we now see.

The poor old nice guys have ben blamed for everything from ingrown toenails, haemorrhoids, to rising sea levels, el nino, failed space missions and eclipses of the sun.

Elektra you right one one point. If those who went back hadn't, then others would have. Either way it was doomed. Infact many of those who were supposedly strong applied and were rejected or just didn't get there in time. So don't give me the bull$hit about principles.

Incontinentia Butocs, like Gnadenburg, I have much to agree with in your post.

I'm sure you enjoy being in Rome elektra, just as I enjoy travelling the world, but it indicates a certain immaturity to spruik it. I'm surprised you didn't tell us you had just visited the Vatican museum, after captaining your Boeing 777 across the world, (sound strangely Qantas?) and were sitting in the outdoor cafe just opposite the exit with a litro vino bianco, taking in the sights on your ten day Rome turn around and looking forwad with great anticipation to getting back to your hotel room so you could call your wife.

Are you the one who posted elsewhere about "His beloved 777"? Oh gawd help us.

Certainly sounds like your ego is healthy.

jokova, I bet that really hurt the shopper. In fact I'd be willing to bet he considered suicide after that snub. Like F&^% he did. More likely he didn't even notice it.

5th Oct 2005, 01:44
. . . . would not go astray. Some seek truth, (others, their long suit's abuse) . . . . . .

http://pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=192760 (www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=192760)

5th Oct 2005, 02:15
Here they are again trying to justify their actions.

You know what you did.............we know what you did.............

Long gone .................but NEVER FORGOTTEN.

RIP boys.

Sleep well

"click click"

5th Oct 2005, 03:31
In most states the good guys have a convivial get together each two months to talk over their experiences of the past few years. The dispute seldom comes up now, but the interesting experiences related from all over the world makes each meeting a must. The number of members who continued to contribute their knowledge and experience to the various airlines world wide is well known and the number in training and managerial positions are a testmonial to their quality.
Closer to home the success of VB and their employment of so many of our GA pilots has been largely due to the intregration of experienced returnees and selective employment of local pilots of varying age and experience levels.
What have the Heroes contributed and do they also gather as a group of friends each two months. I think not.

5th Oct 2005, 07:00
glastar, many so called scabs do meet frequently, whenever their paths cross. No need for a special meeting to discuss how stupid we were giving away our jobs a long time ago, and hating our current circumstances.

We don't find the need to bleat in each other's ears about how much we've contributed to other airlines, even though those contributions are no doubt considerable, or how the world's airlines are sooo lucky to have us, or how we are God's gift to aviation and possibly the world.

We just enjoy a coldie or two and get on with the job.

Of course ALL the 89ers were quality and the rest rabble. Witness the jerkers who failed their training elsewhere in late 89 and early 90, and tell me about quality.

I recall reading something many years ago in, I think, Readers' Digest. It said "In these days of self aggrandizement (big word = increase the power) it was refreshing to see the man in charge of the meat department at Coles with a name tag that showed hisposition as 'MEAT HEAD'."

There could be a message here for you.

ACMS, are you suggesting that those who took the jobs that were advertised, the ones from which you resigned, may not sleep well??? I sleep very well, and even better for knowing that I didn't throw my career away and end up flying a DC3 in Chad or somewhere sikmilarly inhospitable.

Yorick Hunt
5th Oct 2005, 08:59
Oh ACMS, familiar smell is it, all coming back to you, well its not because of the scabs, it's because your back to kissing, licking, and crawling up your superiors arse.

You won't get far, as there already is a shit load of your brown tonge zombie mates up there and you'll run into the soles of their shoes.

All you zombie '89ers are lot spineless lot, still trying to blame someone else for your stupid actions, that's why you were zombies in '89 and still are now.

5th Oct 2005, 10:27
gee same old retorts...................yawn

spinless??????????????????????????????????? huh

we stuck to our principles, it may not have achieved a lot in the washup but the brotherhood of Pilots stood shoulder to shoulder as one. If we had a united Pilot group in Australia now instead of a bunch of self serving ..........we would all have decent working conditions and fair renumeration.

Suck up to my superiors? huh? what are you smoking boy? If i'd been "sucking up to my superiors" I think I would have sc**ed, gotten a 737 command 7 years early and been forever feeling like I'd let my collegues down. ( sound familiar does it S.M? )

In 20/20 hindsight I've actually done much better than if I'd stayed in Oz. So I guess I should thank you all for helping resolve the situation!!

Oh and by the way, "advertised jobs," "you resigned," "didn't know about the dispute" excuses are just plain old CRAP. You all knew exactly where the land lay and for basically the same reason chose to take a job in Ansett, Australian, East West or Ipec.

So why don't you just cut the crap and admit you are selfish, backstabbing, lying, cheating, low life, scum bag idiots with little dicks.


Rant over, I feel much better now.....................ahh life is sweet.

5th Oct 2005, 11:25
Lets get some facts here.

Who told everyone to sign resignations, not to be used only for bargining, and used the next day. THE AFAP.

Who was offered about 20% and never told their members. THE AFAP.

Who, all of a sudden in 1990, became GA's best friend. THE AFAP.

Trust the AFAP, yeh sure.

And those that did were left with sand in their ears.

5th Oct 2005, 12:25
Wasn't it Impulse that started the lower wage and paying for endorsements. I remember the 717's running around first.

Pete Conrad
5th Oct 2005, 21:37
HGW, pretty much so, but it was well before the 717's arrived. It's interesting to note that Impulse/Jet* have quite a few of the 89ers that cracked the sh1ts and left our shores, only to return and be a part of the cancer now known as Jet*.

So in one sense they fight for their principles in 89, then return and sell their souls to the devil to crew jet*, then have the audacity to bleat crap like "but we had to do it for our jobs" or "you would of done the same thing" or "we had mouths to feed, thats why we agreed to crew the A320's for the same rates as a 717"

Jet*...cheap, nasty and full of hypocrites and sharks from Impulse that couldn't get a job elswhere.

No wonder Australian aviation is up the sh1tter, with the Branson Aero club based in Brisbane and Jet* farking over everyone in it's path.

Direct to
5th Oct 2005, 23:34
You would hope that most of the continued muck raking of the 1989 dispute probably comes form the management types. (For they are the only ones who benefit)

I would like to think that as pilots first, and as employees second (i.e. Qantas, VB, Jet*, Rex, Eastern/Sunnies etc) that we would be in a position 16 and a bit years after the event to put the past behind us in order to improve our lot.

There is clearly only one way to achieve this and that is through unity and a common agenda.

I do not pretend that such a couse of action would be instantly harmonious, and a lot a concessions have to be made on either side of the fence.

For the sake of improved pay and conditions (lifestyle) for all surely it is worthy of your consideration.

The alternative, sees the managers successfully continue to play one pilot group off against the other to keep the budget costs down and hence reward themselves with generous bonuses.

It is our choice.

(BTW I was not involved in the dispute but i am trying to raise a family and continue to enjoy my career.)

Yorick Hunt
6th Oct 2005, 02:04
Well the stupid diatribe from zombies like ACMS just keeps on rolling, you indicate that you are from the Fragrant Harbour so we suppose HK.

Take the issue of the 40'ers, you spinless lot put a recruitment ban on new hires, but no bloody trouble in taking promotions in the consequence.

Well Zombie!!!...you knew where the land lay, but no trouble taking up the promotions while the recruitment ban was on....you pathetic slime.

So why didn't you slime put a ban on promotion as well if you had such HIGH principles, Oh I have seen men of princples as they call them selves all my life, only to find they are the ones that will stab you in the back first.

Oh everybody knew about the dispute alright, its just everybody waited for the zombies to make the "master move" we all waited with bated breath.

I've often wondered if Ansett had folded in the old days, would the TAA zombies would be benevolent and just take them in order or age and experience and aircraft type after all the Brotherhood of Pilots standing shoulder to shoulder as you say.

What do you recon ACMS, I would have put my money on knives flying all over the place, he would have seen a blood bath, so much for your pathetic holier than thou principles, Brotherhood of Pilots my arse, you would step on anyone to get what you want given half a chance.

Alas poor Yorik!! :mad: Enjoy your holiday!


6th Oct 2005, 02:48
If you had a time-machine you could go back and change history!!

If you could would this shite be your numero uno priority........groan:}

6th Oct 2005, 07:54
The AFAP were not perfect, far from it. They underestimated the will of Hawke Abeles etc, no doubt about that.

What really pissed me off was the "friends" telling all and sundry to "stick to it, we are right ra ra ra" whilst at the SAME TIME arranging their command slot back at HQ. This happened a hell of a lot. Had their hands in several pockets at once it seems!! Damn disgrace to the human race.

The HKAOA are not all that great either, our leadership ( and IFALPA ) chose not to refuse upgrades whilst the recruitment ban was on.Why you ask? They were worried that CX would employ direct entry Captains to fill the slots, and this was to be avoided at all costs. I opposed that position, made my position known to the members and to the union leadership. Wiser heads prevailed and they were correct. Now thankfully the 49 er ( not 40 ) situation seems to have been resolved fairly well, although not perfectly.

If Ansett had folded TAA would have taken as many Ansett pilots as they could.The Ansett Pilots would have been junior to ALL TAA Pilots. If however some temporary Captains were need obviously that would have been worked out with a legally binding agreement between the TAA management and it's Pilots.

I have never once stepped on anyone to get where I am today and resent the implication Yorick. It's only you lot that continually resort to those tactics my friend. That's why they call you SCABS. Or had you forgotten?

I guess you were one of the Heroes jumping the que for an A320 endorsement when there was a chance Ansett mark 2 would rise from the ashes. LOL

The vast majority of '89 ers are working overseas or have retired, I don't have the figures but I guess there would be 100 or so in Virgin Blue? don't know really. Virgin Blue don't pay all that bad a wage, it could be better I guess but it is still fair.

If any 89'er is in Impulse ( now Pornstar ) then he/she should be ashamed, they prostitute themselves badly, not once but twice!!

Finally an admission from a Scab that he knew of a dispute between the Domestic airlines in Australia and their Pilot group lead by the AFAP. Thank god that's settled, I'm so sick of hearing "I didn't know"

6th Oct 2005, 09:29
Goodness, doesn't time fly, 16 years and a month or so already,and still both sides are still just that, both sides.
Strange also that the old "justifications" for "taking a job offer" and "you all resigned" and "it's all everyone elses fault" still surface.
We did resign, or if you wish, allowed our resignations to be, possibly unexpectedly, actually handed in.
Then all had the opportunity to rescind that if you wished, some did, nearly 1500 did not, in the next day or so which I think most people would have been generous to see that point, although an aroma of the $c%b was begining to rise in a few cases. Some never resigned and FULL MARKS to them, they stood up for the way they saw the deal.
THEN the wimps, waverers, need the money, school fees, lack of status, wife upset and in tears as the bills came in and 1001 other p1ss poor escuses for honest people, dribbled, slunk, cheated, needed 6 mates to go with them, got the new car offer, got a pay rise, got a command ahead of the others went back and got the stupid award of the year.
Vale Ansett as well to their collective credit and good bloddy bye to any collective group of pilots, hello EBAs, WPAs, cunningly disgised as an "Award".
We are all what we are content to accept, you sign, you accept, let the chips fall where they may on the dotted line.

I am, and will be as long as I get up each morning, a $c%b hating to the 3rd generation 89er, still working and enjoying each and every misfortune that befalls the sods.

:ok: :ok: :ok: :mad:

6th Oct 2005, 15:23
Don't like your pay and conditions? Find another job!

Hate the "boss's" taking home fat pay cheques? Go get an MBA and become one.

Don't like the airline making "big profits" off your backs? Buy some shares and enjoy the profits!

Instead it seems most here are thinking :

"me me me, I want more pay and better conditions... hang on.. If I try convince every other pilot to think "me me me" and join a union with me I just might get it...

Isn't that a tad hypocritical?

Surely a bush pilot taking a job with Jet* or Virgin Blue is only doing the same thing. Trying to get himself better "pay and conditions" by joining a company that pays more than the bush operator! Yet you want those guys to turn down the jobs because they are "ruining it" for the guys who already have the jobs?

Unfortunately, even if they dropped 747 captain salaries to $25,000 you will still have thousands of kids turning up to aeroclubs wanting to fly them.... and the airlines know it.

6th Oct 2005, 21:05
I guess you were one of the Heroes jumping the que for an A320 endorsement when there was a chance Ansett mark 2 would rise from the ashes.

That action by the older AN pilots was absolutely disgraceful. Even the young AN pilots were disgusted, and rightfully so.

7th Oct 2005, 00:53
I guess you were one of the Heroes jumping the que for an A320 endorsement when there was a chance Ansett mark 2 would rise from the ashes

and the survey says........ BA BAWWWWWW..

So to hold an alternate view to the left wingers here you must automatically be a "scab" or a queue jumper??

7th Oct 2005, 02:13
Perhaps we could look at the topic of this thread just one more time.

On the night the resignations were signed there was a briefing. In a nutshell this was an agreement and boiled down to two points.
1/ Resignations would only be submitted if the companies commenced issuing writs.
2/ If the above occurred we would all resign together, and we would only return together.

The first happened, the second didn’t.

Richard Kranium
7th Oct 2005, 02:21
Jesus Christ Greybeard, what kind of a person are you, going to hate scabs for 3 generations, where do you get this outdated 18th century mentality from.

This idiotic belief started in the mining villages of Wales and England, where people were so thick they didn't understand anything, and you put your self in the same category.

What part of life is it that you don't understand, not everybody shares the ideals and belief's that you do, everybody deals and acts with life, grief, tragedy, in different ways, shit this is so fundamental, you must be so naivel to have such simplistic belief's.

The world does not work that way, you just can't make everybody to go in the same direction all the time, that's called totalitarianism, and you and your AFAP leadership or anyone had no right to inflict this on its membership while we live in a free society.

During the dispute, some were opportunistic, others wanted to go back and yet others wanted to destroy the airlines. How on earth did the leadership or you for that matter thought that every 1,647 pilot was just going to stand by and watch their careers being wrecked.

After 16 years and (1 month, maybe you know how many hours and minutes as well graybeard) the most vitriolic of the '89ers are the ones that realised that they have been duped big time by the AFAP leadership and really hoped that they had gone back, the other real haters are the ones that secretly applied to go back but got rejected because of their history during their employ, thus now come out as "we would never have gone back" with such venom.

And this begs the question, if you never wanted to go back as you say, why do you care who joined after 24th August, after all you didn't care, you are so happy to be somewhere else and wish such ill will on the two airlines.... but we all know the true answer to that don't we.

7th Oct 2005, 02:54
Dear Richard I can promise you that the vast majority of '89 ers did not want to destroy Ansett or Australian East West or Ipec. What a rediculous notion.
There had been a great reluctance on the management side to work out a fair deal from well before the 24th Aug. They had their position and by god they weren't going to budge at all. The AFAP had our ambit ( spell checker req !! ) claim and so it began,

9 to 5 ....
writs issued.........resigned.................a few scabs........test of wills................more scabs giving the companies hope that we would fould..........AFAP offer in the media to go back to work whilst negotitions continue...........Airlines say "no we are back to normal" .............Abeles "wanting his Boys back"...........Hawke and Kelty involved stopped him giving in............more scabs around xmas..............cost zillions of dollars to Oz tourism and the airlines.............blah blah blah.......and here we are today.

a very difficult time, made a lot worse by those opportunistic sorts that saw a golden opportunity to jump into a position they would never have gotten. ( that includes the junior F/O's of the F50 fleet that saw an opportunity for greatly accelerated promotion, hi to Simon and co. And it includes those sorts from O/S )

Life however goes on, but that is not to say that their actions and the actions of Bob Hawke Abeles Kelty etc will be forgotten.


7th Oct 2005, 04:56
I am neither an 89er nor a hero.

But I can say with some authority that for some time prior to the 89 dispute,

There was a significant worldwide shortage of employable pilots, every one who wanted a job and was acceptable to the airlines could get one.

Ansett, Australian and Qantas were recalling for interview candidates they had previously advised not to bother them again,

I was losing, monthly, well trained turbine, multi and single piston pilots to the airlines and having difficulty finding suitable replacements see above.

Some only enjoyed several months of "airline" before the resignations.

So apart from the returnees where did the rest come from.?

I know that the AFAP exec had been trying for at least a year that I can recall, to engage the airlines in the same form of restructure that eventually occured. I was not involved directly but the talk around the BBQ was pretty frustrated with the airlines intransigence and refusal to even open the envelope containing the pilots proposals.

Coupled with the illegal use of the military and unlicensed operators to keep it going, suggests that there might be several dozen goal terms for some high profile individuals and senior public servants, should a Royal Commission or similar be convened.

Add some pretty arrogant and barely concealed corruption.
I am also aware that upon the death of a certain person the presses will consume several million acres of forrest in the publication of the real deal. It wont be pretty.

Justice for whatever that means is not going to happen, but a reasonable person presented with some simple facts could not fail to draw some very obvious conclusions.

I have lost friends on both sides, on one side by premature death on the other by choice.

There are a few simple core principles that separate a civilised and well ordered community from an anarchical one. The line is fine and was on this occasion breached by the leaders of the very democracy we thought we had constructed to preserve it.

7th Oct 2005, 05:01
How unfortunate poor Yorick has been banished. Ido hope he generates another identity and continues to contribute, or alternatively, is reinstated by Woomeras.
We need a few colourful characters here to counter the oh so sober types who are so far up themselves they can see therir OWN shoes.
What the holier than thou types need to remember is that many of you are now working for cvompanies that undertook not to fly over domestic routes in Australia whilst the 'dispute' continued.

If you work for QF, SQ, BA, ANZ, Emirates( I think) and a host of British charter companies and others, you are nothing but a hypocrite!!

I clearly remember the big Mac telling us proudly how QF, BA, SQ, etc had given him undertakings not to fly domestic routes in Australia, but did so, thereby undermining the cause.

And then some of you guys, the rock solid ones, go and work for these Rsole companies. Some values. So your wife badgered you too, or you needed money for school fees, or the BMW would have had to go back, and you had no choice.
Same old stuff, no matter which side of the fence you stood on.


ACMS, the AFAP position was not an ambit one. Big Mac stated from day one 29.47% NOT NEGOTIUABLE. ONly when things started to unwind did he start bleating "We only want to negotiate."

It reminded me of an AFL footballer after being done for dropping his duds in a bar, ending in court, and as he comes out the door saying "I just want to play footy". Well play footy lad, not with yourself as most of the 89 tossers do daily.

7th Oct 2005, 05:22
There are only three things that are certain in this life: death, taxes – and that the two sides on this particular argument will agree to disagree until the day the last one of us dies. (And I suspect there’ll be quite a few cases where some of our kids will continue the argument well beyond that date.)

So, accepting that for a fact and not attempting to debate the matter further (‘cos I accept that any such argument is totally futile), can I ask a question of Richard Cranium or anyone else behind the sandbags and barbed wire on his side of the post 89 trench line? (And please gents, this is a question only for those who were ‘combatants’ at the start of Bobork’s ‘war’, not the overseas and local blow-ins who joined the battle for whatever noble reasons I'm sure each and every one of you had after August 24th..)

Given that there were around 1670 of us spread across four companies on that date, and assuming that you put at least as much effort into joining those ranks as I did, are you now saying that the vast majority of the people who you worked with prior to Aug 24 1989 – (around 77% I think it was, including most of the management pilots in both of the main airlines, right up to a man I think I’d be safe in saying that most of the Ansett pilots damn near revered, Henry Theunnissen) - were mindless idiots who weren’t capable of thinking for themselves?

A quick follow up question to my first question if I may. (Accepting that you of course are the exception), if you were to cast your mind back to those (so simple they seem now) times before Aug 24 1989 - (and try to be honest, if only with yourself, in this) - how many of the colleagues who joined you on you side of the trench line post Aug 24th 1989 - (and remember, I’m asking about the opinion you held pre Aug 24th 1989) - would you have considered to be on the Henry Theunnissen side of the line that delineated average, both in professional ability or integrity?

I have to accept that one or two do come to mind… but only one or two, and one of those is dead now.

Pete Conrad
7th Oct 2005, 07:31
relax737, what are you? a jumped up little Virgin character? I happen to work for one of those rsole companies you refer to, and beleive me, least it's somewhat a professional outfit.

Cop the shite about hypocrisy lad, because whether you want to beleive it or not, it's there PAL!!

Richard Kranium
7th Oct 2005, 07:47
What this is about is freedom of choice, and a union that was hi-jacked by demagogues and let run out of control.

The leadership of that union was abysmal for many years, when certain people would sit in that Albert Rd building in these huge high chairs that barely fit into the room with gavel in hand that seemed to befit the Supreme Court of Victoria.

I mean what kind of behaviour is that, who do these people think they are, but because the average guy had better things to do, the demagouges usurped power like Hitler in Nazi Germany until democracy and free speech in that union just disappeared.

It became a totalitarian regime where disention or free thought was not tolerated, this, I tell you is a recipe for a disaster, and sure enough it happened in 1989.

In regimes like this there is no room for people to think on an individual level, no room for people to say I've had enough and make up their own minds and go back to work if they wish.

It became a union that said if you go back, you will labelled a scab and you and your offspring for the next 3 generations will also be called scabs.

What is that....what kind of crap is that, who the bloody hell!!! do you people think you are to intimidate others like that, and then produce a scab list and post it on the world wide web.

After 24th August legitimacy of that dispute was gone, the court awarded damages against the leadership, and as far as the airlines were concerned the dispute was over, once they advertised for pilots it was open to all, so if you didn't apply you have no one else to blame but yourself.

The fact that the Leadership was so obsessed with its own importance and power that it lost sight of the real objective and that was to know when to give it away for the greater good of all.

7th Oct 2005, 07:54
Yorik is taking a well earned holiday. He is not banned, merely his participation in this thread somewhat limited for a period.

Yorik's problem was his inability to exclude profanities from his posts and inability to sustain reasonable, rational debate without ludicrous, childish name calling.

This is not the first time for Yorik and I doubt it will be the last.

PPRuNe did not exist in 1989, nor were the site owners or any of the moderators involved in the 89 dispute in any way. PPRuNe forums is not a battleground for regurgitated arguments, childish name calling and unnecessary obsenities.

Hold a professional, rational debate if you must, but those who transgress the rules will join Yorik, regardless of which side of the fence they may have been on all those years ago!!


7th Oct 2005, 10:14
That is perhaps not entirely correct in that I believe that there is some association of moderator(s) with the Dispute. It would be more correct to say that no moderator (so far as I can see) allows any such history to become involved with moderating activities.

Parrhresiastes appears to be well (user-)named.

I always find it interesting to watch some of the intemperate discussions about this topic develop with histrionic digressions hither and thither. I think that most of us would agree that such a criticism may be levelled at both sides of the coin.

Considering some of the discussions in recent times, I suspect that the only remaining matter of any real value is the question relating to the votes which were taken early in the proceedings and, I would have thought, ought to have comitted the voters to their stated positions unless an alternative vote be taken so that all the players might know the state of play ?

If one can believe some of the posters, it appears that some of the players changed their vote on the quiet.

7th Oct 2005, 11:01
RHLMcG. You may be partially correct. No Woomera was personally involved in the dispute as an airline pilot. I accept Woomeri may hold differing views - I have no idea - however whatever views they may personally hold has no influence on their moderating this or any other thread.

What is not acceptable is personal slagging and objectionable language. It is totally unnecessary. Yorik crossed the line and some walk a very fine line.

Debate if you must, but Woomera reserve our right to moderate solely on the basis of the PPRuNe rules.


7th Oct 2005, 11:44
Spad, suggesting that 77% of those pre 89 pilots were idiots is about as foolish as suggesting that all those who CHOSE not to come back (as opposed to those who applied and were rejected) were ace aviators, and those who did return did so because they wouldn't have got a job elsewhere, and that's been suggested more than once.

I suggest that Henry may have enjoyed a reputation professionally that he didn't rate in reality. We've all seen them, and I'm not saying that WAS the case, but maybe. Certainly he was a man of great stature and enjoyed great respect, but he had some old fashioned ideas which needed to be changed.
Pete, no not a virgin type at all. You missed my point.

The membership were being told that a large number of companies would not fly domestic routes and they did. I suppose it proves that any undertaking from their pilot groups means nothing. They can appear good guys by giving the undertakings, but the management makes those decisions, not the pilots. My comment that they were R sole companies did not refer to the standards therein. Happy??

And doesn't that go back to the guts of the dispute? They were running businesses and had to make them work. The fact that they had the PM on side is irrelevant. If the piltos could have had the PM on side they wou have crowed long and loud, and put $hit all over the managements as a result.

RHLMcG, regarding votes, an individual is free to change his position at any time. Can you imagine a pilot refusing to change his plan when things turn to $hit, and continuing along the same path to sure destruction as a consequ nce of running out of fuel??

An individual didn't have to wait for another SECRET ballot where many feared voting against the flow.

Come on, be honest with yourself, as exhorted by Spad, and tell me you would change your plan if faced with dire consequences.
Richard C, I think you've posted a lot of truth. I was once "counselled" becaue I chose to work on a day off!!! Yes, I was asked, and I consented. Who the F$%& is the union to tell me different?

I once found the "scab" list offensive, but no longer is that the case. I see it as the product of tiny minds who made the wrong decision and are looking for someone else to blame and carry the load for them. I do feel a degree of pity for the people responsible for the list. The brothers were telling pilots to go back and they could take their (brothers') jobs because they didn't want them.

Incidentally Spad, before I went back, I phoned Henry and asked him how he felt about the situation. His response was that each individual had to make a decision, and what he did should have no bearing on that decision. Seemed simple enough to me from there.

7th Oct 2005, 13:43
What this is about is freedom of choice, and a union ....

Yes, the freedom of choice to :

1> Not belong to a union.
2> Take whatever job for whatever pay / conditions I'm happy with.

Isn't it selfish to ask someone to not take a job they are happy with, because you aren't happy with the pay they are getting???
90% of SE Asia would be out of a job if that were the case.

7th Oct 2005, 14:16
Shall we be TOTALLY honest about why this hatred of the airline Dispute scabs has endured for more than 16 years, and will continue?
Firstly though, a brief review of Australian (British, and Welsh) history will reveal how scab labour was been abhorred by our forefathers because of their (the scabs') unwillingness to consider the OTHER incumbents' grievances, but rather to "cash in" on others' misfortunes.

The resignations are the ONLY "bargaining point" that the returnees, opportunists, and blow-ins are able to come up with as their reason for taking the job "legitimately"
The resignations were not a tactic.
They were the ONLY legal method by which the incumbents were able to totally absolve themselves for further liability for loss of revenue to the companies - the charge that was made on the writs issued to some 79 pilots up to August 24, as a result of the 9-5 tactic.

Yes, the resignations WERE tendered much sooner than I believe the Federation had intended - but the writs were issued at an amazing pace.
It would have been a brave man who would have volunteered to remain in the company employ, knowing that he had been rostered for a flight, but had not shown up (because of the 9-5), and was therefore responsible for the cancellation of the revenue flight.
A (wo)man willing to lose his (her) house, his (her) savings, his (her)car, and possibly EVERYTHING (s)he had ever worked for

There is no doubt that Oldmeadow and Coysh (and probably Hawke) were convinced that THAT would be enough to frighten and fragment the pilots, resulting in a return to work of a significant number.
In fact, it had the opposite effect.
It galvanised the pilot body, because it now dispelled any doubt that the breaches of contractual conditions, and "baiting" by the companies well before August (there had been a short lightning stopwork in February, you'll recall) indicated that the companies were spoiling for a fight.

Allow me to expand on what is meant by "the companies".
Ansett had seen a pugnacious, adversarial style of management arrive when Graeme Macmahon arrived on the scene.
Macmahon had Abeles ear, and was virtually given a free reign.
He rode roughshod over well-respected, long time employees, with a proven track record of positive results and replaced many of them with no-talent "yes men".
Well before 1989, staff were asking "WTF is going on? Why was so-and-so replaced by him?"
The answer was clear - Macmahon wanted to do thing ENTIRELY his way, and wanted no-one standing in his way.

Meanwhile, TAA was looking for direction, and with Abeles appointed to a lead position with The Accord panel, and James Strong still impressionable, it seemed best to let the Abeles-Macmahon team lead the way, with the support of a pilot-hating, ex-ACTU President cum Prime Minister Bob "imagreatfcuk" Hawke.
Pilot-hating, because Bob never HAD been abe to bring the AFAP into the ACTU fold during his time there - the AFAP realising that if they were part of the ACTU, the pilots would be called out in support EVERY time ANY part of the transport group went on strike.

So there's just a little background that our scab friends conveniently choose to ignore.
For THEM, 1989 STARTED the day our resignations were tendered -
"BUT YOU RESIGNED!", is their catch-cry.
I doubt that even many of the "returnees" were keenly aware of the day-to-day taunts and torments Macmahon caused the pilot group (failure to provide accommodation, failure to accommodate pilots at the contractually agreed hotels - generally there were 2, plus another third as overflow back up) - deliberate rostering of "undesirable pairings", standby callouts not in the agreed order....all made possible by his "Yes Men".

And so it was seen that the returnees, the opportunists, and the blow-ins - cumulatively called SCABS for ease of recognition - were seen in a similar light as the Ables-Macmahon "Yes Men".
These were the weak, pliable servants there to do "The companies" bidding.
Not having any mind of their own, only a non-thinking willingness to blindly follow orders in return for a job and an income.

Perhaps we could have coped with that, because INDIVIDUALLY each of us was able to remind him'herself of the INDIVIDUAL responsibilty we had in supporting the GROUP.
Abeles & Macmahon saw the weakness in the individuals who drifted in one-by-one - looking for somewhere to BELONG.
And so they were quickly given company "protection" - an answering machine, a security guard, a limousine to pick them up and take them home from work.

It was in the companies' interests to keep these SCABS running scared!
Possibly two of the most "famous" incidents were the skinned greyhound, and Abeles public (A Current Affair - Jana Wendt) accusation of threats of "broken hands and feet" - something TOTALLY foreign to Australian pilots.

But now we reach, what I BELIEVE is where the strong hatred of the scabs lives.............
It was NOT their agreeing to work....not even their turning their backs on ALL publicity - television, newspaper, demonstration marches - that ired us.
It was the ACTIVE role that they took in PREVENTING those who wanted to return, from so doing.

Under the very public outspokenness of Dick Marman - an Ansett returnee - the case was made that NO 1989 pilot should be re-employed because of "the DANGER it would create in a "mixed" - scab/non-scab cockpit".

I believe that to a man, the 89'ers accepted that we fought a good fight...we were beaten by "dirty" tactics (namely by Bob "imagreatfcuk" Hawke changing the Constitution).....but we lost.
But the filthiest part of the scabbery was that many who were willing to swallow their pride, and who NEEDED the jobs, were DENIED that opportunity.

For THAT, you can NEVER be forgiven!

7th Oct 2005, 14:44

Not really - I didn't (and still don't) have a problem with pilots who changed their minds. I don't even have a major difficulty with finding those on the other side firing bullets back at me even if it distressed me to see it happen.

I only have a memory of colleagues (including a good number of former friends) who didn't do their colleagues the courtesy of registering their change of heart in advance of their actions.

So far as the secret ballots were concerned, that was a strength, as the individual could register his/her vote without fear of retribution. As I recall we must have had 3 or 4 (perhaps more ?) such ballots. Plenty of opportunity for those who wished to change sides to register their change of heart - and such advice would have changed tactics (or, at least, I would hope so).

I can work with those on the other side, I can drink with them, I can have respect for the few line pilots who chose to stay with the company line through the heat of the moment (not so the management folk as they were privy to privileged information regarding tactics), I can shake hands with those who re-thought their positions and withdrew their resignations shortly after 24 August.

But I really can't countenance those who played two decks of cards for their duplicity was beyond moral comprehension.

Do I feel hard done by ? Not really - I made my bed and can lie in it easily.

Did I offer to go back after the relevant date in March/April 1990 (whenever) ? Yes. Did the company want me ? No. Did that bother me unduly ? A little sad as I dearly loved driving my toy up and down the coast but that was the company's choice and I went off and did other interesting and sufficiently well paid things to keep me amused.

Am I distressed at the eventual destruction of my "family" company ? Extremely.

But what is the only thing which destroys me and will do so until I die ? Those who didn't have the decency to let us in on their little secret change of heart.

7th Oct 2005, 15:50
If you have a jet job and are still pissed about '89, get a f&*#n life!

Ansett is Dead. So who cares?

The scabs who took your jobs in '89 are out of work too now.

Or they are dead of a heart attack. It is soooo long ago now.

For Christ sake shut the **** up about this shit ! once and for all!

7th Oct 2005, 15:59
Those last 5 lines are perhaps some of the most poignant written........
.........16 years on. :ok:

7th Oct 2005, 16:07
Agree.. I find it amusing people quit a job 16 years ago and are sh*tty someone else applied for it. :rolleyes:

7th Oct 2005, 18:54
Any of you heroes in the other trenches care to answer Spad's second question? (I mean, seriously, is there one of you who wasn't embarrassed to find yourself in the same trench as *** "Storm Boy?")

7th Oct 2005, 21:13
RHLMcG, well I'm in the clear on a number of counts here.

I don't have time to answer completely as I'm about to go flying, but before I returned,

I spoke with Henry and he said as above, that his decision shouldn't influence others' decisions. That looked clear to me that he thought it was pharqed;

Rang and advised aq number of colleagues; some speak, some don't;

Advised the AFAP. In fact I had been asked to leave the premises some time previously becaue I held an alternative view. That also indicated to me that they thought it was stuffed and there would be no jobs for them down the track;
I didn't and wouldn't have supported any action to prevent others being allowed back into the fold.

Sounds like you're coping with the occurrence a lotbetter than most whose lives it dominates....still

7th Oct 2005, 21:34
I didn't and wouldn't have supported any action to prevent others being allowed back into the fold. Come on now relax737. You and your like-minded associates were ALL members of the famous Ansett Pilots' Association, of which Dick Marman was president.
Dick made several statements - not only in the public media, but later in the IRC - firmly advocating the denial of employment to ALL non-scab '89-ers on the grounds of "diminished safety in the cockpit".
I do not recall one single pilot of the APA refuting Marman's staunch accusations.
Next you'll be telling us you personally assisted in getting the Dirty Dozen back.

In your own mind, you were a "hero" reflecting back some 16 years - in reality, you were scared and confused initially, and later tempted by the meteoric increase in income and the safety blanket the return to easy employment offered.
Something the 78% of non-returnees were able to weigh up against what they would be trading off and would lose, in the overall scheme of Australian pilots' fair rights - the right to be democratically represented by a body we KNEW was free of intimidation.

7th Oct 2005, 22:20
One last look before I rushed out the door, and I see good ole HI'er has come back with a bite.

HI'er, What a pity you're not as well adjusted as RHLMcG.

Obviously you'll carry a lot of baggage to your grave. Flying a tired old 737 in China perhaps???

I was also a member of the AFAP but didn't support their pitch when they ran off the rails. Did you see me in the press stating my position?? Likewise with APA. There were some things I didn't support in their platform, but it doesn't mean that I had to buy a full page spread in the Age and advise everybody like Dick Holt supposedly did.

And I didn't realize the APA was a famous organization. I've been part of a famous organization, wow!

The AFAP{ MAY have been free of intimidation as you say, but not free of intimdating its members. Don't forget that.

See you in a few days.

Richard Kranium
8th Oct 2005, 06:00
Christ HI'er!, don't equate others by your own standards, of course its not easy to stand up and go against the tide, the intimidation and harrasment that was meated out to the individual thinkers would be hard to take, but it takes courage to stand up and say I've had enough and I'm going back even if you are the only voice.

As every one knows most will just quiver and look to see how many hands go up first and then follow in suit because its more comfortable and safe to be with the majority, that's what I'm talking about, the AFAP did not give this option as it was a tyrannical regine, so people had to return to the airlines in secret.

Dick Marman was right to insist on denial of employemnt, McMahon would not employ anyone that applied to Ansett after the all clear was given by McCarthy anyway. But what your saying is that Ansett had to only hire AFAP members from then on, well this does not seem to be happeneing now is it, Virgin hire who they wanted and only took ex Ansett pilots that were not on the scab list, even sons of the names on the scab list were denied employment so one more generation to go hey.

Now all we need is an airline that will hire pilots that only appear on the scab list, and that will sort of balance things out, you had a choice HI'er, no one denied you a job in '89, you chose to stay out, now if your in Virgin then you feel your getting even and probably would say that there would be "diminished safety in the cockpit" if VB hired some one who is on the scab list.

8th Oct 2005, 11:06
Wouldn't the same principle apply regarding safety in the cockpit. Although this time the people doing the recruiting are exercising the same discretion that was shown to me when I re-applied. Yes it was true that I had also resigned, however, after being in the company for only six months I suppose it was fair enough for Grahame to make one of his numerous and well thought out re-employment policies. Doesn't VB also have a "dirty half dozen ?".To tell you the truth I don't really give a toss about the semantics of the dispute anymore, and yes It has been a long road to once again get a decent job. I basically believe that the scabs are a minority group and from time to time you come across one. I actually feel sorry for them. I will just give them a wave and wish them well, quite content within myself that I did the right thing. I even hear Qantas mainline pilots complaining about them now that they have moved up the Y seniority list. Many of your post 89 co-pilots even allude to your egotistical greedy ways. Surprise, surprise they didn't really respect you either. I remember when some of the QF second officers went to their domestic wing they were conveniently put on B-scale and the heros voted themselves a 10% payrise. I apologise to all the people that have had to endure our grievances over this lengthy period, however, I'm sure it will simmer along for as long PPrune is around. Just take it with a pinch of salt and use the mistakes learned by us to your advantage.

8th Oct 2005, 12:16
Woomera said (he really did, he did - that no Woomera was ever involved in the dispute as an airline pilot? Actually, that is not quite true old chap.

8th Oct 2005, 12:28
You are correct dunerider, the SCABS are a minority group.

Of the original pilots, only a miserable 22% scabbed.
The rest was made up of previous rejects, early retirees, medical failures, and overseas blow-ins.

Why you would wish to give them a wave and wish them wellis beyond me, because it was on YOUR misfortune that these "previous rejects, early retirees, medical failures, and overseas blow-ins" were NOW able to secure themselves a position on the Australian market, whereas previously they were declared rejects by the very SAME airlines that would now welcome them with open alms.

The SCABS of 1989 are becoming a very defined (minority) group, as their numbers decline due to old age, and various other causes. :ok:

Their names have been inscribed indelibly in the MINDS of those they directly screwed.
INdirectly, they f:mad:ed ALL of you who came after them.

[note to Centaurus... No Woomera ever APPLIED during the Dispute! :ok:


8th Oct 2005, 13:12
HI'er: Are you a pilot or a brickies labourer?! You sure sound like the latter, rather than an educated professional who gains employment through his qualifications.

You may think they :mad: it for all but this is what I think:

You :mad: it for a fish exporting company (Gautheaume Bay Fisheries) in Kalbarri. It employed around 40 people (sole bread winners for families) supporting 140 family members. When you went on strike, the company went backrupt. You are responsible for putting those families on welfare, and you :mad: it for all those Kalbarri families afterwards.

What would you like to say to them? You can go to the restaurant that is run from the location of the former fish export company. You can read what they think of you - it's written on a big sign on the wall.

It's: " Finlays Fresh Fish BBQ " , Kalbarri WA. Do drop in, and tell the staff you are one of the '89ers.

8th Oct 2005, 13:44
Thanks P-A-F, I have been both - simultaneously.

Unfortunately, I'm not personally aware of the situation you claim has been affected, but you are free to post.

Based on INDIVIDUAL merit, each of us will determine our recourse to action :ok:

8th Oct 2005, 13:49
I'm not surprised you haven't heard of it. Most union members don't think about it when they strike and don't want to hear afterwards. They just think of their own selfish circumstances. Surely you knew by crippling national infrastructure you were costing hundreds of millions of dollars [no, not the airlines money, but EVERYONE else in Australia].

Here's the details. Maybe you could visit and help put some money back in there pockets by dining there.

Finlay's Fish BBQ - open daily 11.30am – 2pm and 5.30 – 8.30pm
website: n/a - email: n/a
Finlays Fish BBQ - Magee Crescent, Kalbarri Western Australia 6536
Phone +61 8 99371260 - Fax n/a

Finlay's Fish BBQ is now a tourist attraction of Kalbarri. Known world wide for its atmosphere, extensive selection of seafood at a great price it is recommended that you don’t leave Kalbarri without checking out Finlay’s Fish BBQ.

8th Oct 2005, 15:39
Just so we get our terms correct.

When a Joint Managing Director says “I vill shut down ze Airline”, and does - this is called a Lockout.
I doubt very much that the innocent people of Kalbarri were greatly affected by six days of airline operations during business hours. These people and all the other innocent ones were victims of some very nasty people, none of whom flew aeroplanes (for more than ten hours, anyway).

As pilots, and especially Captains, our plan is to operate the aircraft safely. When things turn to $hit we operate the aircraft safely. “Continuing along the same path to sure destruction as a consequence of running out of fuel”, would be changing the plan.
Once again, relax737, I am having trouble with your logic.
And, changing one’s mind, and breaking a commitment are not the same thing.

8th Oct 2005, 15:46
When you all resign at once it's called Economic blackmail.

Don't worry, economic studies showed that you only cost Australia around $1 billion, substantial job losses and the recession to begin 2 years earlier than our trading partners.

8th Oct 2005, 16:10
If there was a strike, then what you say would be correct. However there wasn’t which makes it incorrect.

Perhaps we could look at blackmail as a threat to take everything from a young family and throw them into the street.
The resignations protected us from those previously mentioned.
The damage to the country came from ordinary citizens being denied their basic democratic and constitutional rights.

8th Oct 2005, 16:18
democratic and constitutional rights

And what right was that. I'm all for rights. You must recognise the airlines and other companies have the right to choose not to employ you.

There are also ethical and moral questions that arise from a group of people willing to get a 30% pay grab at any expense. (including a massive expense to the general community at large).

Surely you would agree even if we take the "pilots working office hours 'Strike' " example there were costs to the community in general. Including the poor and truely needy.

8th Oct 2005, 17:55
Perhaps, Pass-a-Frozo, we should switch to MSN. Are you in The States as well because it’s around three in the morning EST in Australia?

Here we can agree. We are both for rights. The airlines and other companies do have the right to choose who they employ. In our society which we would like to think is based on fairness and equity there are certain checks and balances or rights.
The particular ones I refer to are the constitutional right to freely associate and the democratic right to negotiate directly with an employer.
A little less than seven years before the event I was employed. Obviously I was suitable. It could be argued that in the ensuing years I became even more suitable as I gained one turboprop and two jet endorsements.
At the time we speak of I was also suitable, but only if I forewent my rights. This was spelled out very clearly in a letter from the then Prime Minister.
I believed this was wrong and not the way things should be done in Australia.

You seem to differentiate between groups with your next point. Is it OK for some to get this but not others?
A few months before the troubles Sir Peter Abeles granted himself a 36% pay increase, a few months after the politicians did the same, this time 32%
Is it right for businessmen and politicians to get a 30% pay grab but not wage and salary earners?
You may also recall the vitriolic indignation of the one with 36% in his back pocket together with the other planning his 32%.

There were costs to the community in general associated with the pilots working office hours. To put this in perspective we could compare it with the maritime strike that was occurring at the same time.
My personal opinion is that domestic aircraft operating to reduced schedule produced far less grief to the general population, including the poor and truly needy, than a blockade of the nation’s vital exports and imports.
You could take this further and see how a small independent association, that steadfastly refused to join the ACTU, was treated compared to those backed by Kelty.

8th Oct 2005, 18:01
So... a quick question or two to people on both sides.

Are things better for the pilot group within Australian aviation post 89 when compared with conditions before 89?

If your answer is in the negative, do you believe conditions would be better today had a single union continued to represent Australian pilots?

Who would you say is most to blame for the fact that a single union no longer represents the majority of Australian pilots?

PaF, I was there in 89 and I was not on strike for one single day - and I was available at two hours notice to return to work just as soon as I was allowed to have union representation, something that remains a right to most of not all Australian workers to this day -- but not to airline pilots in 1989.

8th Oct 2005, 21:02
Perhaps, Pass-a-Frozo, we should switch to MSN. Are you in The States as well because it’s around three in the morning EST in Australia?

Working nights Brisboy. Don't worry though, I'm quiet happy with my pay and conditions though :p

You seem to differentiate between groups with your next point. Is it OK for some to get this but not others?

No, I don't. You can ask for it. It doesn't mean that your a entitled to it though.

Is it right for businessmen and politicians to get a 30% pay grab but not wage and salary earners?
You may also recall the vitriolic indignation of the one with 36% in his back pocket together with the other planning his 32%.

So what? Just because someone with a totally different skill set , in a totally different field gets a big pay rise you are entitled to it?? That's not how it works!

Equally, just because someone gets away with a disgracefully expensive strike, you think you morally can? Ha!

So let me get your logic right? Some maritime workers cost others more money that you did, so it's ok?

[QUOTE]PaF, I was there in 89 and I was not on strike for one single day - and I was available at two hours notice to return to work just as soon as I was allowed to have union representation, something that remains a right to most of not all Australian workers to this day -- but not to airline pilots in 1989.

I'm sorry was that a question? Just because a company tells your "representative" to get bent due to the ridiculous pay request they made doesn't mean you lost your constitutional right.

All I'm saying is you '89 bunch post on here like you are a bunch of hard done by angels. You cost hundreds and thousands of Australian's their jobs by your actions, through your greedy selfishness. Yet you have the gaul to abuse people for taking a job? You lot set the ball rollling, you lot have to take responsibility for your own actions. It's always "someone elses fault" isn't it.

It's the boss's for getting a big pay rise. It's the airlines for telling you to get bent. It's the government's fault. etc. etc. Christ, a LABOR government didn't even support you!

So then if you should be able to have the right to strike regardless of cost to others then you probably support police and defence going on strike??

9th Oct 2005, 02:53

For no other reason but to keep the logic tidy;

You cost hundreds and thousands of Australian's their jobs by your actions, through your greedy selfishness.

All I'm saying is you '89 bunch post on here like you are a bunch of hard done by angels. You cost hundreds and thousands of Australian's their jobs by your actions, through your greedy selfishness.

assumes that their was only one participant in the "battle" and that the "greedy selfishness" of the pilots was the prime motivation. They would agree that there was a bit of that amongst some but as I understand it better rostering and their utilisation was the core of the issue.

You cant have a "fight" without two (2) adversaries.

The returnees and blow ins went back for more money than they were previously and as I understand it on the same pattern that the AFAP had been trying to negotiate for several years.

What was the motivation of the airlines and Govt that was so desperate that the former refused to negotiate and the latter suborned the Constitution and trashed several dozen laws and statutes.

Watching from the sidelines, and yes I was desperately affected, it was clear there were more than several points at which the airlines and Government would have been able to negotiate a way out.
But all I was seeing was the PM and his benefactor Abeles playing to the lumpen proletariat.

It was always within their power to end it honourably and quickly, but hey, it was never about either of those terms. It was a labour dispute, under a Labor Government, why were they not able to sort it out.

If you want to start laying blame for the economic impact on Australia, then you have to start at least from a 50/50 position, with the proportion increasing towards the airlines and Government from the day they started issuing workers visas as carpenters and bricklayers of which there was and still is a chronic shortage, to allow the blow ins "legal" access.
DIMIA is a bit of a train smash at the moment but one would wonder how they countenanced it at the time without demur, or if they did, who monstered them.

BTW the recession we had to have, was not triggered by it, you should look to Mr Keating and his agenda for that.

So if you are going to put the AFAP in the dock and charge them with economic terrorism, then you must also put Hawke and Abeles in there with them.

The returnees can not claim ignorance of the surrounding labor, social and democratic issues at stake and the blow ins in denying or ignoring the same issues by participating in what can only be immigration fraud to gain entry and a job, stand, IMHO, doubly accused.

Certainly were I to gain access to another country for economic benefit in similar circumstances and by such means, I should have no reason to complain nor could I offer any mitigation, were I to suffer disapprobation at the hands of those whom I had displaced. I would stay very quiet and very much under the radar.

There is no other logical construct possible on the facts.

9th Oct 2005, 03:40
Post deleted, as Gaunty said what I wanted to say, but better.

Richard Kranium
9th Oct 2005, 07:58
Look what's wrong with you blokes, what part of this don't you understand, you keep going on about Ables, Hawke, scabs etc, amazing you don't metion Oldmeadow and Coysh but they were huge in the your demise in '89... and what pay rises they did or did not give themselves, its all irrelevant, what you have to understand is that the pilots were not in a position to dictate to anyone any more, time was up.

Hawke was out to get the AFAP, as they would not be part of the ACTU and wanted to negotiate outside the accord, I mean who sat there in the old parliament house in CBR all having a wonderfull Hawke inspired talk-fest, Ables and all the leaders in big business, who are in a position to give themselves big payrises anytime they want, like it or not.

The airlines knew, that under deregulation that was looming the work practices that were in place were not sustainable, in the future negaotiations with the AFAP were going to be difficult as the work conditions would have to be wound back to gain greater productivity to be able to compete with any new starts.

The AFAP for years now have lived in a false world of their own making, bludgeoning the airlines whenever they wanted and always won, you would have noticed that the negotiations where done on the divide and rule just like the bosses are accused of, that is Ansett and TAA negotiations were always apart, so as trouble was looming for TAA for instance, Ansett was making hay, then it would be Ansett's turn and TAA would get the advantage, and so it went on.

Yes there was a wage explosion among the elite of the professional world and judges, doctors, bussiness leaders etc gave themselves large pay rises, so the AFAP thought we will do the same, notably that deregulation is looming and this might be our last chance to get a descent payrise and thus blundered into a major conflict with everybody.

The trouble with you blokes that call others scabs, is that you put your selves on some peddestal, that you are be all and end all, pilots to these wheelers and dealers are just fodder, no more that a component that makes money for them, and you as that component if you want to survive better keep re inventing yourself or otherwise you become uncompetitive, this is what companies do but the average boofhead does not see or understand that.

All you scab haters seem to think that if no one returned then you would have been ok like Alice in Wonderland, but that is not the real world, like I keep saying others see the world diffrently, its amazing that you think that way, and you all really knew, that some you would always go back.

There will never be another '89 type strike again, AIPA at Qantas would never do that as they know the same thing would happen as in '89, there would be shit load of guys that would just go back, do you think that this great brotherhood exists in VB or Jet*, you better belive NOT as it never was there in the first place, it was always an uneasy truce while the going was good, but built on intimidation and thuggery.

You can mince it, slice it or dice it, but the guys that run the corporations and this country call the shots, its just the way it is, pilots are just employees, to be and mix it with the big guys then you know what you have to do, then and only then will you see it from their side.

9th Oct 2005, 09:07
Gaunty: you want to start laying blame for the economic impact on Australia, then you have to start at least from a 50/50 position

Oh absolutely. Don't get my position wrong. It does take two to tango, however I'm yet to see over the years any '89ers take responsibility for what they did. I think the way to address that is to place some blame right at their feet. They are always attacking the people who returned to work / applied for jobs.

I do admit it was not totally responsible for triggering the recession, however it was a major contributing factor. Anything that shocks the economy to the tune of $1 billion has to!

I'm still curious what an '89er would like to say to Finlay's Fresh Fish BBQ in Kalbarri?

9th Oct 2005, 09:41

Hmmm Kalbarri.

I have been going there since 1956, Hec Mainwaring had what is now I think Lambs cottages after the Sangsters with whom we used to go bought it from young Hec. It was just a bunch of fishermans shacks with the "road" from Ajana little more than a goat track.

They were still using the old lugger type cray boats with the first displacement planing types a curiosity

Went to school with young Browny.

And yes I have pics of young gaunty holding up 12 lb tailer nearly as big as he that we would usually throw back as tiddlers.. :}

From where I come from in this world and which I admit is probably an Australian world no longer recognisable (and we are IMHO the worse for it) I would like to think that the response would have after a bit of straight forward Aussie dialogue, been total dismay.

Dismay that Australia whose union movement started in the same outback environment by the shearers for a fair days work, pay and conditions was treating "my fellow Australians" :{ :rolleyes: so.
Dismay that the Murdoch owned press was pressing the anti case for an airline of which he was half owner.
Outback Aussies have never trusted the big city "press".

Basically the lack of a fair go.

You're right if you control the media and the owners control the Government then the pilots and anyone else were on a hiding to nothing.

It was a very very scary time for Oz.

Had the workers at Finlay's Fresh Fish BBQ at Kalbarri and everywhere else in Australia known what was really going down and who was getting paid by whom, I think they would have been standing shoulder to shoulder wit them. It's an Aussie thing, which non Aussies simply don't get.

It could not happen again today, for no other reason than that the internet now exists and the execrable behaviour of certain persons could not go unchallenged.

I think the more pertinent question should be, given the knowledge of what and how it actually happened, would be what the returnees and blow ins say to the workers at Finlay's Fresh Fish BBQ were they to be taxed by them on it.

9th Oct 2005, 09:48
Had the workers at Finlay's Fresh Fish BBQ at Kalbarri and everywhere else in Australia known what was really going down and who was getting paid by whom, I think they would have been standing shoulder to shoulder wit them. It's an Aussie thing, which non Aussies simply don't get.

I can't agree with you on that one sorry. I think if you explained to the workers what an airline pilot was already paid, and what they were asking for , the only response would have been
"Are you :mad: kidding?? I'm losing my job for that??"

Remember Kalbarri is just a microcosm of Australian society. I'm sure the Australian community at large didn't support the 89'ers. I don't put it down to poor press, but rather the fact most Australian's could only dream of the income that an Airline pilot gets. All they saw was some "rich guy" asking for more, and costing them to try achieve it.

9th Oct 2005, 10:05
It is fair to say that many posters only have a small part of the story and that is the nature of these sorts of discussions.

Gaunty's posts, I suggest, are quite balanced. One particularly pertinent observation he makes relates to the internet. Had PPRUNE been available the dispute would NEVER have developed the way it did - the AFAP could not have engaged in the secretive practices it did nor could the other side successfully have commited the skulduggery it did. The dispute, as many skirmishes in various disciplines preceding it, depended on disinformation and deceit to permit it to feed on itself. The net, and bulletin boards such as PPRUNE, either blow this problem out of the water or make it so difficult to achieve that much of the problem has disappeared, I suspect.

9th Oct 2005, 10:13
The net, and bulletin boards such as PPRUNE, either blow this problem out of the water or make it so difficult to achieve that much of the problem has disappeared, I suspect.
I believe that you're half correct.

The net, and bulletin boards such as PPRUNE, have provided "the problem" with a place to take refuge from the realities of the modern world. Imagine if some of the crackpots posting on here were actually flying paying passengers around the sky! :rolleyes:

9th Oct 2005, 12:42
Pass-A-Frozo it appears to me that YOUR comments put you in the same boat as the one in which you place the '89ers, and that your actual knowledge of the events - and what ALL Australians had done to THEM, by Hawke, Abeles and Murdoch - is quite shallow.
Here is a condensed version of the events.
Up until 1989, the pilots in all airlines had been represented by their union, the AFAP, in contract renewals. In that year, the companies jointly declared that they would no longer deal with the Federation.
The AFAP had agreed to VOLUNTARILY commit the pilots to the Hawke/Abeles Accord for a finite period - at the end of which it was evident that pilots' salaries had fallen a long way behind those of other professions with which we had previously been comparably remunerated. For that reason, the Federation declared that it would no longer work within The Accord framework, especially in light of the fact that the airlines had introduced new aircraft types which involved a different technology and work concept for pilots at almost no increase in salary.
Abeles declared that pilots were no different to any other workers - a quip that resulted in pilots beginning their 9 to 5 work campaign.
After only a week of this, pilots were contacted one by one by their companies to ask if they would work outside those hours.
The standard reply from pilots was "Talk to my representative, the AFAP."
Each pilots was then read a prepared statement, standing him aside.

AFTER the standing aside of the pilots, the writs started flowing, followed shortly thereafter by the resignations, for reasons I explained in an earlier post.

It was NOT the resignations that stopped the airlines flying - the COMPANIES had done that a day or two PRIOR to the resignations.

Gaunty has covered a lot of ground by patiently highlighting how these "Mates" took away from an ordinary group of unionised labour (forget they were pilots) what were their democratic and constitutional rights.

"Are you :mad: kidding?? I'm losing my job for that??"We had many months of asking OURSELVES the same questions when our paychecks stopped, and the companies attempted to lure us back with obscenely inflated salaries if we would just sign a contract WITHOUT the protection of our union.
Months of doing whatever work we were able to find - generally unskilled labour, on a fraction of our former airline salaries.
But almost to a man, we considered it was better to continue to fight for the same rights as other Australians were afforded.

Did the workers of Finlay's Fresh Fish BBQ at Kalbarri ever realise that THEY too could be subjected to the same abuse by their own Prime Minister and Government at the time?
Did Pass-A-Frozo look beyond the tall poppy airline pilots, to TRY to see what issues were at stake?
In my opinion, your perception seems to be that it was merely a monetary issue.
I think if you explained to the workers what an airline pilot was already paid...Perhaps you should also explain to them what is involved in achieving that position, the responsibilities that come with it, and what is entailed in maintaining it.

9th Oct 2005, 12:57
Out of interest, which other professions had you previously been comparably remunerated with?

You stone walled your employer, and trusted the management of your career to the actions of a group that was making deliberately unreasonable demands of the marketplace. But it is the airlines who are to blame?

Come on, be fair, you complain about losing the protection of your union and can't accept that they failed you ultimately.

By the way, as the protector of the interests of the common Australian working man, could you please explain (ignoring monetary issues) how you were so hard done by? I mean seriously, for an industry that has no entry qualifactions other than having the money to pay for training, you do talk yourselves up quite a bit.

9th Oct 2005, 13:02
pilots beginning their 9 to 5 work campaign

pilots began costing the Australian economy money. Costing people their jobs.

You cost people their jobs. You trivialise the 9-5 work campaign. Call it as it was, the 9-5 strike. You make it sound like the 9-5 work campaign didn't have any negative effects?? I'm curious, what do you think this was costing Australia? You forced the companies hand. Now you have to accept the consequences.

Seriously though. Point-O-Five makes a great point. You got to your job by getting older. Every pilot gets hours and experience as they age.

... 9 to 5 work campaign....[you mean STRIKE]
... Talk to my representative, the AFAP ....
... resignations, ...

and now you are out of a job! Seems pretty logical to me. It all started because you thought you personally deserved the same pay as a doctor or lawyer.

Well, at least the people of Kalbarri took the beating for you.

Like I said.. It's always someone elses fault with you lot!! You talk of responsibility [that comes with the job]. How about showing some by taking responsibility for your own strike actions and their result. You were an active participant in that process.

Did the workers of Finlay's Fresh Fish BBQ at Kalbarri ever realise that THEY too could be subjected to the same abuse by their own Prime Minister and Government at the time?

Well I'm sure they didn't think the way to fix it was for them all to lose their jobs. I'm sure they thank you for such a noble fight! ha!

9th Oct 2005, 13:20
Did the workers of Finlay's Fresh Fish BBQ at Kalbarri ever realise that THEY too could be subjected to the same abuse by their own Prime Minister and Government at the time?
Good point, glad to see that AFAP stood shoulder to shoulder with them as their jobs evaporated around them.

Solidarity comrades, solidarity.

9th Oct 2005, 14:11
You stone walled your employerIt was the opposite case in fact - the AFAP tried many and varied way to try to get the airlines to NEGOTIATE.
an industry that has no entry qualifactions other than having the money to pay for training,But the airlines have (minimum entry qualifications).
You make it sound like the 9-5 work campaign didn't have any negative effects?? I'm curious, what do you think this was costing Australia? The 9-5 campaign was effectively moving the majority of people who wanted to travel, evidenced by the fact that not all flights were 100% filled.
It sure as hell cost Australia far, far less than the airlines shutting down ALL services.
Employees have the right to withdraw their labour - why should pilots be any different?
Any industrial action will generally cost people not directly connected with the disputing parties.
Did Pass-A-Frozo take the initiative and contact his Federal representative pollie to tell him how the PM's actions in agitating, rather than conciliating, were resulting in the employees of Finlay's Fresh Fish BBQ at Kalbarri losing their jobs? (Or did you decide from the outset that it was those tall poppy overpaid airline pilots who MUST be at fault?)
I contacted several.
You forced the companies hand.Rubbish.

:confused: :confused: "You got to your job by getting older." :confused: :confused: The same way that I can get to be a fishing trawler skipper by starting out gutting mullet at Finlay's Fresh Fish BBQ, then moving up to bread-crumbing and battering the fillets, before graduating to the deep frier?
You got to your job by getting older - r i g h t :}

Good point, glad to see that AFAP stood shoulder to shoulder with them as their jobs evaporated around them.The same can be said of Hawke, Abeles, and Murdoch, as they stood steadfast, refusing to deal with the AFAP.
Of the FOUR airlines involved in that Dispute, not one remains today.
Abeles stated on television that he would rather lose Ansett than deal with the Federation. He was right!

9th Oct 2005, 14:19
"You got to your job by getting older." The same way that I can get to be a fishing trawler skipper by starting out gutting mullet at Finlay's Fresh Fish BBQ, then moving up to bread-crumbing and battering the fillets, before graduating to the deep frier?

Yes, that's exactly my point. The fishing trawler skippers weren't demanding to be paid inline with wages of a doctor or lawyer were they?? They weren't costing the town thousands of dollars by going on strike after making an unreasonable pay claim.

It sure as hell cost Australia far, far less than the airlines shutting down ALL services

So it did cost ordinary Australians.

Yes, you have the right to "withdraw" you Labour. [Incidently it's called STRIKING.] The airline has the right not to employ you after your actions directly cost them millions of dollars!

9th Oct 2005, 14:39
This thread has gone around the requisite number of circles.
Lets move on shall we.
Good night click!