AIPA elections again

[whispering jacks]

June, 2002

…

"Your Association is held in high regard within Qantas and other sections of the aviation industry – it must continue to be so. We are relatively close to Qantas management – this was a deliberate move by AIPA as it was felt that the benefits to the aircrew body would be greater. This has proven to be the correct decision especially in the light of the, shall I say, challenging times we have found ourselves in. No one could have been prepared for what has happened in the last couple of years but we, as a group, have come out of it well – certainly better than most aircrew organisations. I know that there are still some of you who believe we should not be as close to management as we are. To those people I am happy to issue an invitation to join the COM and see if the theory works. It is a most naïve way of looking at the reality of industrial relations in the context of the fact that we all work for one company. Qantas’ success and strong performance guarantees our jobs, promotions and security of tenure.

"As most of you are aware, Qantas management has not been highly successful in the minefield that is industrial relations. The relationship between Flight Ops and AIPA is unique in this company with all of us having easy access to our managers. Besides aircrew who think the relationship is too close there are those in the Company who also have the suspicion that they are somehow being conned and it is ‘secret aircrew business’. These people and that attitude are the main reason that our Company has not covered itself in glory in the industrial relations and human resources fields. The fascinating thing is that this attitude does not exist at the peak of the Company but at the lower levels – along the lines of ‘the working class can kiss my arse – I’ve got the foreman’s job at last’.

"The wrong way of conducting industrial relations has been demonstrated in the setting up of Australian Airlines. One week’s work has been stretched to some four months because the negotiators for the other side did not trust us and I’m sure that, due to their lack of operational experience, thought that we were trying to put something over them. For a company to have successful employee relations both sides must respect and trust each other.

"The relationship between Flight Operations senior management and AIPA has been one of mutual respect and a desire by both sides to see the other’s point of view and to get an acceptable outcome. This might sounds all fuzzy and soft but the fact is that it is the truth and any other way leads to a breakdown in communications between us with a hardening of attitudes on both sides. We are both in the same business albeit looking at it from a different perspective. If you were aware of the support given to various aircrew members by the Chief Pilot, the Deputy Chief Pilot and various other managers you would understand this better. Support your Association and support Flight Ops – there are a lot of people out there who do not think that aircrew are God’s gift to the world. It is imperative that we all endeavour to continue to raise the profile of piloting as a profession."

…

No prizes for guessing the author, but as a group we remain at a critical juncture. I have highlighted the points which I hope 'New AIPA' considers above the rest of their agenda.

[Keg]

Strewth, are you for real? Talk about an easy target!

"Your Association is held in high regard within Qantas...it must continue to be so.

It wasn't prior to the election last year. Whether it's changed or not I don't know.



NWe are relatively close to Qantas management – this was a deliberate move by AIPA as it was felt that the benefits to the aircrew body would be greater. This has proven to be the correct decision especially in the light of the, shall I say, challenging times we have found ourselves in.

Didn't seem to do us much good about 18 months later when we were locked out of even being able to talk about J*. We weren't even given the option of joining and now have an MoU which has been distorted to the extent that most QF F/Os who are suitable for promotion to Captain in QF are not qualified to be a J* captain! :rolleyes:


Qantas’ success and strong performance guarantees our jobs, promotions and security of tenure.

Been performing pretty strongly over the last few years. How many new mainline commands for the next training year?


For a company to have successful employee relations both sides must respect and trust each other.

I couldn't agree more. So when will QF begin to have respect for the pilot body? How will they go about re-building the lack of trust that most crew I fly with hold the company?


"The relationship between Flight Operations senior management and AIPA has been one of mutual respect and a desire by both sides to see the other’s point of view and to get an acceptable outcome....any other way leads to a breakdown in communications between us with a hardening of attitudes on both sides.

Again I agree with this statement but lets look at where the rot started to set in and when the desire to see the others point of view started. If I recall correctly it was about the start of the negotiation for J* when the QF crew were locked out. I'd call that a pretty clear lack of respect and breakdown in communication.

Support your Association and support Flight Ops – there are a lot of people out there who do not think that aircrew are God’s gift to the world.

I don't think that pilots are God's gift to the world! :rolleyes: It's very clear to see the disdain in which the mainline pilot group are held by 'senior management'. I do support my association and I will follow the directives of Flight Ops. I used to 'support' them by providing feedback and ensuring that my opinion was noted. You can only be called names (never to your face but word gets around), ignored, marginalised and otherwise shafted for so long before you give learn to expend energy in a more productive manner. :ugh: Qantas' loss is the AAFCs gain! :ok:



I have highlighted the points which I hope 'New AIPA' considers above the rest of their agenda.

I've highlighted the bits I hope ALL pilots take note of- whether AIPA members or not! :ugh:

[whispering jacks]

Ah yes, Keg I should have anticipated you would be so fast to reply! I was quoting an old document to try and highlight the differences we now face while recognising the critical need for the present relationship to change. I made no comment other than to suggest two things 'new AIPA' should include in their agenda. Spend a little less of your energy going off half-cocked at 'easy targets', have a big glass of warm milk, a cookie, and a lie down. You have a long history on PPRUNE, but you're not always right:

The gist of your extravagent post seems to suggest that the exclusion of AIPA in the negotiations of Jetstar domestic was the catalyst for the change in your attitude towards the company. Just like most pilots, including yourself, Qantas management is not always right. And, just like most pilots, sometimes its hard to admit that. It's hard to believe that management have actually been trying to correct offsiding the pilot body, probably because they haven't been seen to do enough. Sadly, the unyielding cynicism that even you have succombed to makes any sort of progress difficult - for all parties.

It will be the cynicism that halts the advance of our profession - whoever we happen to fly for - not any evil conspiracy of senior management.

Jack

[max autobrakes]

Who wrote that drivel? :bored:

[max autobrakes]

Oh and the glass is half full and there is nothing but sunshine and lolly pops in the future for Qantas pilots and Robin Holt and Chris Manning are the saviours of Qantas along with Geoff Dixon.
Did I miss anyone or thing?:ugh:

[TurbTool]

Maxi, judging by your joining date I think you may be fairly new in QF, if that is where you work.

I would suggest that the three individuals you have named have contributed more to the success of Qantas, and it's employees, than you are likely to in your lifetime. I hope you prove me wrong.

[Johhny Utah]

I tend to agree more with Max on this one. Whilst I have no doubt that in the past 'Mr Mannering' and 'the man with the woman's name' may have done some (or even a lot) of good for the QF pilot body, they have managed to undo all of that good work (and then some) by being perceived to have 'sold out' the pilot body.

Having witnessed first hand a former union president (RH) trying to tell anyone who would listen that we would be lucky to get away with a 0% wage increase at the next EBA (i.e he thought we could easily accept a DECLINE in pay) as well as having to pay for our endorsements when promoted (it was apparently the way of the future...!) - he had obviously lost touch with reality, and was certainly partial to a lot of dealings that seemed to be extremely favourable to the company, with poorly worded agreements meaning that once deals were done, there was no real way for the pilot body to extract itself...

It will be very interesting to see the talk from the company side as we get closer to the next EBA; over the last couple of years we've heard a lot of rhetoric on how everyone should be willing to compromise in order to move forward - it will be interesting to see what (if any!) compromises the company is willing to make...:rolleyes:

[Keg]

Jacks, glad I'm so predictable. The warm milk went cold a few years ago and the biccies are long since stale I may not sprout my opinion on anything and everything but I'd like to think that when I do it's a considered opinion.

I've been married for a while now but even before that time I recognised that for a relationship to change for the positive that both sides needed to both recognise the need for change and have a desire to make the change. I see nothing to suggest that QF even recognises a need for change let along wanting to make a change.

The other thing that marriage has taught me is that continuing the same behaviour and expecting it to work when it continually doesn't is an act of lunacy. 'Old' AIPA had continued with a particular kind of behaviour that wasn't working. It was being taken advantage of by 'the other side'- and I'm not talking about Flight Ops here but more the IR side of QF. To continue that type of behaviour is doomed to failure. So we change behaviour- and there is no guarantee that will work either- in an effort to make the other side see the inequity of their behaviour.

Sadly, the unyielding cynicism that even you have succombed to makes any sort of progress difficult - for all parties.

Those that know me well understand how loyal I am- often to a fault- and that to get me offside actually takes a concerted effort over a significant period of time. They also know that I'm particularly forgiving and getting me onside is quite easy if someone makes the effort to engage. I may be cynical now but only because I keep seeing the same old crap from QF to make me cynical. It'd take about two acts to have me believing the story. When I keep seeing acts to the contray from the CEO down why should I be anything but cynical.

You talk about it being difficult for management to admit mistakes and I say that if that is the case then they are manifestly unsuitable for the position. If a skipper were to ignore input from his or her crew and make a bad call they'd be hammered. On the other hand we're supposed to say it's 'OK' for QF as an organisation to do that and then also say that 'it's difficult for them to admit a mistake'? Sorry but that doesn't cut it. I work in middle management for another organisation (again those that know me know what it is) and if I made that suggestion to either my boss or my subordinates they'd rip into me. :rolleyes:

The 'advance' of our profession was targeted and being dragged down well before I became a cynic! :ugh:

[neville_nobody]

Turbine Tool if Manning was the president of some other unions in this world he would find himself at the bottom of the Pacific permantly attached to a concrete block!

He may have contributed alot to QF but as to the employees........:suspect:

[mustafagander]

NN, there's a good idea!! :ok:

[Keg]

Actually I think that Chris had a couple of decent 'wins' during his tenure. Whilst we took a pay 'freeze' the 5:30 and the increase in blank line pay was a good result. For the 767 drivers at the time it meant the same divisor and one-three extra days off per roster.

I actually agree with the intent of his letter but the point about mutual respect and all those other things from my earlier posts still hold. It's all well and good to have the intent of working together but when the other side doesn't want to it is very much like :ugh: