Last Chance Coming!

[struggling]

Last Chance Coming!

Posted without comment, AIPA AGM resolution as advised to AIPA's CoM:


BIR that Members present at the AIPA 2009 AGM direct the AIPA Committee of Management to hold and complete, within six months from today, on dates mutually acceptable, AIPA sponsored information sessions in Melbourne , Sydney and Brisbane to enable AIPA Past President, Captain Ian Woods and others to outline to those in attendance, why successfully settling the Qantas Sale Act Case (QSAC), is necessary to protect the careers of all Qantas Group Pilots

BIFR that no later than six month from today, but after the information sessions in Melbourne , Sydney and Brisbane have been held pursuant to above resolution, that Members present at the AIPA 2009 AGM, direct the AIPA Committee of Management to put the following plebiscite question to the entire AIPA Membership for its determination


Do you support AIPA’s continued funding of the Qantas Sale Act Case filed by Past President Captain Ian Woods on behalf of all AIPA Members to protect the careers of all Qantas Group Pilots?BIFR that should a majority of AIPA’s Members vote in favour of AIPA’s continued funding of Captain Ian Woods’ Qantas Sale Act Case, that Members present at the AIPA 2009 AGM direct the AIPA Committee of Management to withdraw the AIPA Executive’s letter of instruction compelling Captain Ian Woods to discontinue the Qantas Sale Act matter and simultaneously ask Captain Ian Woods to recommence QSAC proceedings should Qantas Airways Limited not have already agreed with AIPA, a Group Opportunity Allocation List.

[Capt Fathom]

Why is this posted on a public bulletin board?

Doesn't Qantas/AIPA have their own?

[newsensation]

I really think Captain I Woods has already waisted enough of AIPA's funds maybe he could use some of the money he made by suing other pilots...:mad:

[Agent Mulder]

Clutching at straws and grandstanding!

It is my belief that the COM cannot be bound by a motion from the floor as to do so would remove director responsibility.

[Gingerbread]

Take a close look Mulder

ASSOCIATIONS INCORPORATION ACT 2009 - SECT 38

38 Voting generally


(1) A resolution is passed by an association (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/aia2009307/s4.html#association) as an "ordinary resolution":(a) at a general meeting of the association (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/aia2009307/s4.html#association), or (b) in a postal ballot conducted by the association (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/aia2009307/s4.html#association), if it is supported by more than half of the votes cast by members of the association (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/aia2009307/s4.html#association) who, under the association (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/aia2009307/s4.html#association)’s constitution (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/aia2009307/s4.html#constitution), are entitled to vote on the proposed resolution. Tis hot off the press.

[Pegasus747]

Does not apply to federally registered unions/associations

[Gingerbread]

Spot on Pegagus.

Any idea in which State of the Commonwealth AIPA is registered? :uhoh:

[kellykelpie]

Mars! (I know this is not a State)

[busdriver007]

I think you will find Capt Woods has been banned from the Qantas/AIPA website because he threatened to sue too many people.....:eek:

[Unphased]

Talk about thread drift.
The resolution only seeks to ensure AIPA members have enough information to vote on.
Makes me think some people have something to hide?

[newsensation]

then post it on Qrewroom!

[Agent Mulder]

He can't.

He was dumped from it due to his actions towards the administrator of the site.

He often, like this thread, has wonderful conversations with himself.

NURSE!!!!!!
:hmm:

[Keg]

I see no problems with Ian putting the resolution forward. It'll either get up or it won't. Personally I'd like to hear both sides of the story on this issue. I'll be at the AGM to see how it goes.

Whether Ian has multiple nom de plume's on PPRUNE is somewhat irrelevant to the original post.

What is sad to see is that those who argue against the motion being put forward don't do so on the merits but rather attack the personalities and/or perceived motives. Sadly typical these days it seems.

[WoodenEye]

Hmmm! Why all the condemnation? Diversionary tactics perhaps?

If AIPA can satisfactorily explain to its members how it believes it can deal with the following concern raised by Mohikan:'It is an open secret that the Boston Consulting plan for the Qantas 'group' is for 70% of existing destinations to be services exclusively by JQ and the rest by red tails.

Note that excluded to this is the B787 flying which will be done by contractors outside both seniority lists.'[/font] On this thread: http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-reporting-points/392510-jetstarization-qantas-finished.html

Lack of concern about how the use of offshore pilots pilots can drive down QF & JQ terms and conditions, will sideline the AGM resolution.

If however, Members are not satisfied that their jobs and careers are protected, at least the pilots themselves will get to decide if they agree with the AIPA Executives' decision to shut the QSAC matter down at five minutes to midnight, despite legal advice that:Both Senior Counsel retained by you and (we believe) Qantas Airways Limited were of the view that the proceeding if left on foot would be likely to succeed.And personally, I would like to see the truth come out.

[Pegasus747]

"Take a close look Mulder
Quote:
ASSOCIATIONS INCORPORATION ACT 2009 - SECT 38

38 Voting generally

(1) A resolution is passed by an association as an "ordinary resolution":
(a) at a general meeting of the association, or
(b) in a postal ballot conducted by the association,
if it is supported by more than half of the votes cast by members of the association who, under the association’s constitution, are entitled to vote on the proposed resolution.
Tis hot off the press.


As i mentioned earlier this does not apply to "industrial Organisations"

Its for the likes of soccer clubs and non commercial or non profit organisations. If the AIPA COM is bound by a resolution of the membership it would be found in their rules registered with the Australian Industrial Registry

[Gingerbread]

Really Pegasus!
State or Federal jurisdiction?

Employer Name = "AUSTRALIAN INTERNATIONAL PILOTS ASSOC"

Employer Type = "Other Unincorporated Entity"

NSW Jurisdiction

If the employer is a sole trader or a partnership, this means that they are unincorporated and the employment relationship does not involve a constitutional corporation.

NSW industrial relations laws continue to apply and the information on this website is applicable to your workplace.
As such: ASSOCIATIONS INCORPORATION ACT 2009 - SECT 38 APPLIES.

[Pegasus747]

GingerBread i hope that you are not the legal counsel that is advising AIPA or have been advising them in the past. It might explain why so much of their members money has been wasted on legal cases that are going nowhere...

Good luck with things if you think that you can rely on the argument that you are mounting in your last post as it will have less chance of getting off the ground than OQA

[blow.n.gasket]

At least Wooden Eye had the cojones to take on management.
All we see now is a repeat of that regime that should have been "Halted" before they delivered us unto this mess.

I've heard "Team Bazza" are now being refered to by numberous members on Comm as "Team Arsenal"
"The Gunners", gunna do this, gunna do that,
Yet nothing that will actually help pilot's future careers ever seems to be done.
Funny about that!:bored:
Just another repeat of that previously mentioned regime I've been told.:ooh:
I guess time will tell if my source is correct or not.

[Agent Mulder]

Guts or Balls...

There is a medical distinction. We've all heard about people having guts or balls, but do you really know the difference between them? In an effort to keep you informed, the definitions are listed below:

GUTS - Is arriving home late after a night out with the boys, being met by your wife with a broom, and having the guts to ask: ''Are you still cleaning, or are you flying somewhere?''

BALLS - Is coming home late after a night out with the boys, smelling of perfume and beer, lipstick on your collar, slapping your wife on the arse and having the balls to say: ''You're next, fatty.''

I hope this clears up any confusion on the definitions. Medically speaking, there is no difference in the outcome, since both ultimately result in death.

:ok:

Yeah, he had balls, but on most occasions they ended up in his own mouth!

[GlobalMaster]

Those up here looking down on what’s happening can’t make up their mind to laugh or cry.
By all means correct us if we’ve got the wrong end of the stick, but isn’t the issue, the use of offshore crews to drive down the standards and pay of Aussies, what’s out there.
Have told my young brother that he should high tail it up here if his colleagues aren’t interested enough to save their own skin. :ok:

[busdriver007]

Hey Blow it out your $%^*....
Wooden Eye never had the cojones to do anything that didn't include using lawyers including suing his own Committee members.
Back where I come from you sort out your issues behind the back shed and get on with it....
By the way I am sure QF has more money than AIPA and will do anything to bleed the coffers dry.

[struggling]

From: Ian Woods
Sent: Saturday, 24 October 2009
To: Undisclosed Recipients
Subject: Resolution for Vote at AIPA's 2009 AGM

Dear AIPA Member,

Re: Resolution for Vote at AIPA's 2009 AGM

The attached resolution, proposed by myself and AIPA Committee Member Captain Max Thompson, has been notified to AIPA in accordance with its Rules and Governing Legislation for debate and voting at your Associations AGM on Monday November 2nd.

To protect your career progress, you need to read the information below, consider the attached resolution and send AIPA’s Secretary a completed ‘Directed Proxy’ if you are not able to attend the AGM.

Background.

· As a consequence of the APA Takeover Bid for Qantas Airways Limited, Jetstar is now considered to be, but a subsidiary of Qantas and therefore not bound by the Qantas Sale Act,
· Because Jetstar is arguably not bound by the Qantas Sale Act, terms and conditions that keep Qantas Airways Limited - Australian and oblige Qantas Airways Limited to maintain in Australia, its Principal Operational Centre, are said not apply to ‘Jetstar International’,
· The Keep Qantas Australia Bill was introduced into the Federal Parliament during the term of the last Government while the APA Takeover Bid for Qantas was it progress, but it was defeated along party lines,
· In 2007, when AIPA’s President, I filed the Qantas Sale Act Case to protect the jobs of both Qantas and Jetstar pilots because as things are, nothing prevents Qantas from continuing to transfer to Jetstar International, flying that is, or has been, done by Qantas to Jetstar International and then crewing all such flying with off shore pilots not on the seniority lists of either Qantas or Jetstar.

The Qantas Sale Act Case

· Queens’ Counsel retained by me to conduct the case on behalf of AIPA have advised AIPA that Qantas is clearly in breach of the Qantas Sale Act,
· The proceeding gives AIPA and its pilot members leverage against further and potentially more serious breaches adversely affecting job security and career progression, and
· The discontinuance of the proceeding does not prevent its recommencement.

Why Recommence the Case

· If the case is determined in AIPA’s favour, Qantas will not be able to globalise successfully unless it can persuade the Federal Government to amend the Qantas Sale Act,
· Qantas should only be permitted to globalise, if doing so, can not threaten operational standards and/or the career progress of Qantas and Jetstar pilots,
· If the Company and AIPA can agree the introduction of a Group Opportunity Allocation List (GOAL) and the terms and conditions pertaining to the GOAL mean that pilots from both Qantas and Jetstar can crew all Qantas Group flying, there would be no good reason for AIPA not to support necessary changes to the Qantas Sale Act,
· The Globalisation of Qantas and/or Jetstar does not have to be threatening, but unless AIPA and Qantas can negotiate a binding enforceable agreement, your careers are at the mercy of global commercial forces.

To protect your careers and give AIPA the leverage it needs to negotiate a binding enforceable agreement, I strongly recommend that you vote in support of the attached resolution. If you are unable to attend the AGM, forward a Directed Proxy to AIPA’s Secretary directing the President to vote in favour of the attached resolution.

Kind Regards

Captain Ian Woods
AIPA Past President

[Hot n Heavy]

By the way I am sure QF has more money than AIPA and will do anything to bleed the coffers dryThey sure do.

And what makes anyone think that the government won't amend the QANTAS Sale Act if the viability of the "new" Qantas (as reported by management) is threatened?

Give it a rest.

[Gingerbread]

Rest is surely a good thing H

However, the tension between globalisation and labour will never ease whilst prosperity created by globalising goes mainly to shareholders at the expense of the workforce and the national interest.

As is pointed out in the AGM resolution:

‘Qantas should only be permitted to globalise, if doing so, can not threaten operational standards and/or the career progress of Qantas and Jetstar pilots,’
‘The Globalisation of Qantas and/or Jetstar does not have to be threatening, but unless AIPA and Qantas can negotiate a binding enforceable agreement, careers will be at the mercy of global commercial forces.’Regretfully, thus far Qantas senior management has shown little meaningful will to satisfy flight crew and/or aircraft engineers concerned about job security and career progress.

Is their call. Nonetheless, unless the Company sits down with a view to reaching agreement with the unions whose members are in the gun, expect that competing globalisation issues will be sorted in the Courts of law and public opinion and/or in the Parliament.

IMHO, is not an issue Qantas can afford to lose. Believe it would be extremely foolish for the Company to have a ‘third party’ hand down a decision from on high. :oh:

[newsensation]

This is good news for the AFAP because if woods gets his way AIPA will go broke.....

[Unphased]

Would seem to the interested bystander Keg that your concern:...is sad to see is that those who argue against the motion being put forward don't do so on the merits but rather attack the personalities and/or perceived motivesIs pilots behaving like the Liberal Party's federal director, Brian Loughnane who: ..advised media advisers to avoid policy discussion and instead reinforce stereotypes, attack bureaucrats and demonise special interest groups.Both are but the politics of fear and smear.

Whilst ever Qantas pilots behave destructively, not constructively, the Group will continue to flounder. :{

[struggling]

Posted Without Comment for balance:

Dear AIPA Member

Re: Capt Ian Woods’ email dated 25 October 2009

To read what AIPA's president has to say about the QSAC matter log into:www.aipa.org.au (http://www.aipa.org.au)

Keeping on struggling

PS: It's only one side of the story.

[WoodenEye]

Further to the above, please note:

1. The AIPA Executive was instructed by the AIPA COM to agree with Qantas Airway’s Limited AIPA Members job security and career progress before instructing me to discontinue the Qantas Sale Act matter. The AIPA Executive did not and has not yet done, what the AIPA Committee instructed it to do.

2. The AIPA Executive has been advised that (Ian Woods) rightly refused the request of Qantas as dismissal would imply that the proceeding was wrongly brought. Dismissal would enable Qantas to represent to the Minister and Parliament, to Investors and to the Industry, that the Federal Court of Australia had dismissed a legal challenge to alleged breaches by Qantas Airways Limited of its obligations under the Qantas Sale Act, a public law of the Commonwealth of Australia.

3. No information as to what led the AIPA Executive to see the discontinuance of the proceeding as being advantageous to AIPA or Qantas Group Pilots has been provided to AIPA Members.

4. Both Senior Counsel retained by me, and AIPA’s legal advisor, hold the view that Qantas Airways Limited were also of the opinion that the proceeding, if left on foot, would be likely to succeed.

5. If continued, the proceeding will give AIPA and its pilot members some leverage against further and potentially more serious breaches of the Qantas Sale Act adversely affecting job security and career progression of Qantas pilots.

Is now the Members' call.

[GlobalMaster]

This Cut and Paste from QrewRoom compliments of my brother, is enough to make even Honkies cry.At the end of the day all this resolution requires is that a series of information sessions are held and that a plebiscite be held to THEN vote on whether AIPA should continue to fund the case.

Given that I am NOT able to attend the AIPA AGM, and that I AM concerned about my future career prospects, surely this provides us an opportunity to gather more information before casting a final YES/NO vote at some stage in the next 6 months ? ? ?

At the end of the day all this resolution requires is that a series of information sessions are held and that a plebiscite be held to THEN vote on whether AIPA should continue to fund the case.

Given that I am NOT able to attend the AIPA AGM, and that I AM concerned about my future career prospects, surely this provides us an opportunity to gather more information before casting a final YES/NO vote at some stage in the next 6 months. Any union that won't give its Members a vote isn't woth belonging to guys.

[Going Boeing]

Struggling, considering that there are a lot of sensitive issues surrounding this case, AIPA was reluctant to put the details into the public domain, however because of calls by members for more information, the AIPA President sent out the details that you posted above to all members private email addresses. I'm sure that the COM and majority of members would not be happy that you've now posted it on this very public BB which is regularly visited by journos looking for an item that they can sauce up into a major news item (not to mention that QF management now have an insight into what AIPA's legal team were advising.

If you have an issue or simply want more information, why don't you pick up the phone and call AIPA - you'll get the details that you want without the downside of going public.

[struggling]

Come on Boeing!

Even you know that AIPA has been found wanting concerns many Ppruners. Nevertheless I know that Woodi is passionate about making Qantas prosperous and getting Qantas Group pilots a fair share.

Accept that he would not want to hurt the Roo and its workforce and given the concern you raise, have decided to restrict access to Bizzo’s email.

Regards

Struggling

[WoodenEye]

At the request of some AIPA Members who read Pprune, but are not able to attend Monday's 2 November AIPA AGM and wish to forward a Directed Proxy vote to the AIPA President, I hereby provide for readers in that situation, the following pertitant information:

AIPA Members input is needed to resolve alleged non- compliance with an AIPA COM Resolution:

· The need to deal with the QSAC resolution on the table for voting at the 2009 AIPA AGM arises because of the AIPA Executive’s seeming non-compliance with an AIPA Committee resolution of 11 August 2009. The relevant 11 August resolution states that any AIPA Executive instruction to Ian Woods to discontinue the Qantas Sale Act (QSA) matter; ‘is contingent upon the AIPA Executive satisfying itself that AIPA’s objectives are achieved in relation to Qantas Group career progression’.
· AIPA has not yet agreed with Qantas any group career progression whatsoever.
· AIPA has not explained to AIPA Members how the discontinuance of the Qantas Sale Act Case is advantageous to AIPA or Qantas Group Pilots

Why should AIPA pursue the Qantas Sale Act Case?

· Necessary pursuit the QSAC matter arises because of what global liberalisation of the aviation industry will allow to be done with Jetstar, but not with Qantas and what that means for all Qantas Group Pilots,
· Jetstar is arguably not bound by the same constraints as Qantas – Ie: it is not subject to the QSA,
· Very large reductions in aircraft leasing costs (~30% ) can be obtained by establishing a global aircraft leasing company partly owned by Qantas and Jetstar,
· However, unless agreed otherwise, nothing in law prevents Qantas from continuing to transfer to Jetstar International, flying that is, or has been, done by Qantas to Jetstar International and then crewing all such flying with off-shore pilots not on the seniority lists of either Qantas Mainline or Jetstar Australia.
· In the opinion of some Federal Politicians, the Qantas Sale Act was intended to prevent Qantas Airways Limited utilising Jetstar International the way it is,
· Senior Counsel advises that any view that the Qantas Sale Act doesn’t apply to Jetstar is a legal fiction.

What happens if AIPA can’t agree with the Company- group career progress and does not continue to support resolution of the QSA matter?

· Qantas will be free to keep in place and further exploit existing internal and external wages competition amongst Australian and Offshore Pilots,
· Unless prevented by binding, enforceable agreement or by law, Qantas can continue to:
o put downward wages pressure on the terms and conditions of Jetstar Australia Pilots by using Offshore Jetstar International Pilots to undercut them, and
o Using Jetstar Australia Pilots to put downwards wages pressure on the terms and conditions of Qantas Mainline Pilots in the same way.
· The end result is known as ‘Whip Sawing’ in the USA and left unchecked, will eat the heart out of the Qantas Group, its Australian Pilots and ultimately the entire Qantas Workforce.

Isn’t the downside for AIPA Cost Prohibitive?

· As far as I am aware,
o QSAC costs thus far to AIPA are in the vicinity $150,000,
o Qantas’ stated QSAC costs of $600,00 thus far, can no longer be visited upon AIPA,
o For IW to get the Case back to where it was, would cost AIPA approx $50,000,
o For IW to then run the case against Qantas would cost another $150,000,
o Should AIPA lose the case, total costs to AIPA would probably be around $400,000? The additional $200,000 being court ordered reimbursement of Qantas’ additional costs.

Kind Regards
Ian Woods

[blow.n.gasket]

Or we could just do nothing but sit around the camp fire singing "kumbaya my lord" and when the proverbial hits the fan, which it will, and the Executive can then congratulate themselves and pat each other on the back telling everyone what great fiscal managers they were because they have a few hundred thousand in the bank more than what they would have had if they used every lever at their disposal . Just look how wonderfully consevative they are by not upsetting management when they had the chance ,gotta prove yourself worthy of climbing that greasy pole.
At least Mainline pilots got decent hotels and allowances by not upsetting the powers to be, instead of fighting for the members. Surley that's worth more than career progression for all Qantas group pilots?.:uhoh:

[LeadSled]

Folks,
I would have thought that fairly persistent stories that the first 10 (at least) B787 will be delivered to the part owned Vietnam subsidiary and never come on shore in Australia, except in transit, should be enough to get everybody's attention.
Tootle pip!!

[Just Relaxin]

It would seem pretty obvious to anybody that all this talk of cancelling court cases because of QF threats and keeping the money in the AIPA coffers will be a disastrous outcome for Qantas pilots. Having a comfortable bank balance when the lights are turned off won’t give too many people a warm fuzzy feeling. Once the flying has gone it isn’t coming back!

Why not run every case that might achieve an outcome. You CAN’T win if you don’t try and who knows, when the gavel comes down it might just be a positive result. Regardless, you will have tried to save your jobs.

500+ young QF pilots should attend the AIPA AGM, or have proxies with mates, and insist that the President and Committee reinstate the Qantas Sale Act Case AS WELL as running the Transmission of Business Case. The more irons in the fire the better chance of a good outcome. Both cases can be run at the same time.

Good luck.

[blow.n.gasket]

Unfortunately the political campaign to oust Woodeye by those with a Management predilection may have just been too successful to the detriment of our collective well being.
No matter what Wwoodeye says,tells,predicts from here on in will appear as nothing more than an overplayed Cassandra complex I'm afraid.:uhoh:

[Bazzamundi]

Was giving up this case anything to do with the 5% payrise for the 380 and other candy in the last EBA rollover?

It's time to get some balls AIPA and take this thing on as we are seriously running out of chances. If we lose and members have to increase subscriptions for a short period to cover a shortfall, then I am all for that. Every new mob comes to power with the mantra of trying to improve relations with management - more often than not to feather the nests of personal ambitions. It has never got us anywhere before.

Its time to take a chance and give the bastards some of their own medicine. I would rather sink knowing that at the very least we tried our best to prevent the impending catastrophe, than to just bend over and lube up.

[Capt Kremin]

It was a nice day in Sydney this morning. Obviously so nice that any spare junior pilots who weren't flying decided to go to the beach instead of the AGM, which could not be held due to lack of a quorum.
Its going to make it hard for the Company to keep a straight face when AIPA is trying to negotiate access to the growth part of the group, Jetstar, for these people.
That won't stop Gen Y from complaining loud and long that "somebody should have done something about it while we had the chance", when their career paths come to a crashing halt.
Sorry Woodeye, you tried. Maybe you should expend your energies on a more motivated group of people.:(

[wombat watcher]

Yes> Absolutely. Now that his latest attempt at spending someone else's money pursuing more of his paranoia through the courts has failed due lack of interest and the fact that he is no longer flying, he can persue his one man bulls##t company with his 100% attention.
He should affiliate with that other one man company, Harold Scruby of the Pedestrian Council.:D:D:D:D

[Capt Kremin]

Wombat watcher, perhaps you should take a look at yourself in that regard.

You joined two years ago, you have posted 5 times and your singular area of interest is bagging Woodeye. Sad and pathetic if you ask me.:rolleyes:

[struggling]

Good analogy Blown

For those who don't know; Cassandra Complex is a term applied to situations where valid warnings or concerns are dismissed.

Given that AIPA is labouring under the misapprehension that the QSAC issue is about painting Qantas on the side of Jetstar aircraft and don’t seem to comprehend that it is really the company’s fear of having Jetstar International caught by the Sale Act, says it all.

Sorry to say it, but any chance to stop the Whip Sawing has just been waved off by apathy and myopic behaviour.

Last Chance Lost. :{

[Keg]

Given that AIPA is labouring under the misapprehension that the QSAC issue is about painting Qantas on the side of Jetstar aircraft.....

I disagree. Having been there today I was left in no uncertain terms that the AIPA President is well aware of what this case is really about and Ian himself was clear about the consequences of actually winning the case. I think there is furious agreement on the required long term outcomes however that this court case is the best way to further those outcomes is where the agreement diverges in a big way.

I must say that given Ian's comments, I'm not convinced that this is the best way to achieve what Ian stated that he wanted from the case. I've got no problems with having the bat sticking up from behind me and using it if the situation demands but when the use of said bat will result in an outcome that probably won't advance our case then I'm not convinced that even walking in with it showing serves our purposes. I won't go into greater depth on PPRUNE but my assessment of the case is 'high risk' in terms of outcomes for crew even if the case is actually decided in Ian's favour.

Anyway, there wasn't a quorum so it'll be fought another day. Whether it was indeed the 'last chance' is something that only hind sight will show.

[noip]

I was disappointed to see that Ian was long on assertions and short on evidence.

I am not necessarily opposed to his viewpoint, however I think that his arguments need to be more cogent and logical. He was not helped by his legal "evidence" telling AIPA that this was a case not worth pursuing.

I need more convincing...

N

[wombat watcher]

Ian was long on assertions and short on evidence
Spot on. Has always the case in every one of his uncontrolled rampages.

He was not helped by his legal "evidence"
His advisors have a long record in supplying sympathetic advice no doubt because of the generous and continuing fees it provides. Trouble is he is not astute enough realise this however.

You joined two years ago, you have posted 5 times and your singular area of interest is bagging Woodeye.
Your dead right. The damage this man has done to QF pilots and to the cause of QF pilots in a number of issues is breathtaking. The real problem is that he doesn't understand that and he still has a number of believers following him.:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

[WoodenEye]

For the record, AIPA was informed by its own lawyers:
'We have no information as to what led AIPA COM to see the discontinuance of the proceeding as being advantageous to AIPA or Qantas Pilots. Both Senior Counsel retained by you and (we believe) Qantas Airways Limited were of the view that the proceeding if left on foot would be likely to succeed.'
AIPA pulled the case the night before the scheduled hearing.

As Keg has said: ..there wasn't a quorum so it'll be fought another day. Whether it was indeed the 'last chance' is something that only hind sight will show...

[noip]

WW

Careful you aren't quoting myself and others out of your zeal against Ian. He may be controversial, BUT it is always possible he has something of value.

I don't support him, BUT I'd like to see a reasoned argument. At the moment, I don't see one.


N

[Keg]

Another thing to point out is that a few protagonists made it difficult for Ian to even get his case across. There were some petty interruptions that were inappropriate and thankfully the President was able to allow Ian the chance to speak.

[Gingerbread]

Looks like the Kiwi's aren't going to let the bear the cost..New Zealand will begin charging Australian-licensed carriers operating on domestic routes a passenger safety levy ...The only carrier affected is Australia's Jetstar, which had avoided the levy as it operates domestic services in New Zealand under an Australian air operator's certificate, instead of a New Zealand AOC.Perhaps it's time for a rethink?