PDA

View Full Version : Team AIPA blames others for poor showing at FWA


Jetstarpilot
20th Jan 2010, 22:53
Apparently TEAM BAZZA:}TM had a shocker at the Fair Work Auz tribunal yesterday:ouch:

http://workers.labor.net.au/pictures/Bazza.jpg


Why I've put my faith in these clowns I don't know.


Looks like the only wins they've had since snatching power has been to garner a 6% pay rise for the Lords of the '80:eek:


Is their lack of progress on any issue which affects us mere lesser mortals a sign of incompetence or somthing else?:yuk:

Gingerbread
20th Jan 2010, 23:38
Understand your concern JP. Nonetheless, believe it is always more useful to focus on the solution than reflect upon what has been. What could have been doesn’t bear thinking about.

To move forward will require a certain AIPA leaders to come to the view that the AFAP is here to stay and threatening is not helpful. Will also require certain stalwarts in AFAP to bury the past and acknowledge that having two pilot unions in the one Company doesn’t serve the pilots or a company interested in its long run profitability.

The solution lies in a UK, BALPA style affiliation of AIPA, AFAP, VIPA and all other pilot representative organisations in Australia. Ie: an umbrella Association that looks after all matters other than contract compliance which remains the domain of the Company Councils that make up the umbrella Association. _ APA _ Australian Pilots Association. :ok:

Left Leaning Jowler
20th Jan 2010, 23:46
So let me get your position on this clear. The AFAP supports 1 Star with the out of seniority awarding of command slots and you wonder why you are a member of AIPA:eek: WTF.

Surely you should be asking your associates who are members of AFAP why they support an organisation that so quickly errodes your T&C's and prolongs the race to the bottom in this country.

Have AFAP been threatened again with the loss of flying and scampered back to 1 star with some new deal to "keep the flying" (well until next time that is):ugh:

Gingerbread
21st Jan 2010, 00:24
You make a good point Lefty, even if you didn't intend to.

The latest manifestation is but one more problem emanating from outdated representational design and such things are going to continue going on until those who can fix the root cause – as difficult as it is - do so.

The world economy has changed, the aviation industry is rapidly changing and divided pilot representation, like me, has had its day. :oh:

Muff Hunter
21st Jan 2010, 01:01
I suspect jetstar pilot is a member of the afap....and not a JQ pilot

If you were truly a JQ pilot you would know exactly what has been going on and how Mr CX and crew went to FWA and represented jetstar management and not the majority of jq pilots!!...and bent us over again.

WTF??????

Keg
21st Jan 2010, 01:02
I'm no fan of the entirety of 'team' Bazza but I do support the general direction of the AIPA president even if there are some aspects that disappoint me. However to start a thread to malign the work that AIPA is doing in this case instead of directing the hard questions at the AFAP exec strikes me as strange.

Of course, what seems strange at first glance starts to make sense when a quick view of Jestar pilot's other post is undertaken. A relatively common theme seems to exist. General support for AIPA but continued criticism of 'team Bazza'. As I indicated above, I've got my own issues with various personalities on COM but to define them all as 'team Bazza' is as short sighted and ignorant as those previously who criticised 'team Woodeye', etc.

WRT the case at hand, it's a complex one and it deserves proper consideration- something that I don't think will happen given how the thread was opened and the OP made. Still, perhaps the actual issues will be discussed and all can see whether or not AFAPs actions in this matter serve the majority of their members or just a few.

Ramboflyer 1
21st Jan 2010, 01:38
The DECS are nothing but a problem , the court case on the 15th will make sure they remain permanently in Darwin or come home as F/Os , which on seniority is all they deserve.
Dont think you can come from overseas and steal jobs from the loyal hard working Aussie pilots. You must wait your turn even if you are double the age of the next best f/O.
One concern from all this though is AIPA is setting things up for QF pilots to enter the company on their terms, think about it they will have 1 year to work at JQ and an option of going back to QF or go to the bottom of the JQ seniority they will get awarded a command in the first year and still keep their command after the 1 year even though they will be on the bottom of seniority, same deal as the DECs.
All F/Os should think twice before supporting AIPA ...................

Rabbitwear
21st Jan 2010, 01:41
Rambo you hit the nail on the head about AIPA, they are taking all the JQ pilots and the JPA for a very ugly ride.

Going Boeing
21st Jan 2010, 01:49
I am totally gobsmacked at the actions of the AFAP. AIPA's intentions are aimed at improving the T's & C's for all pilots and for the AFAP to support Jetstar in court indicates that they are looking after themselves rather than the people they purport to represent. The opening post by Jetstarpilot displays a level of industrial naivety and he really should be questioning AFAP's actions.

waren9
21st Jan 2010, 03:49
Rabbitwear.

Rambo has not hit the nail on the head. He needs to go read the MOU again.

Junior pilots in both camps sadly, may again have reason to be nervous about the prospects for mainline this year although for different reasons.

Aside from the fact it is very little use to either of them, it does exist and isnt going away anytime soon.

W9

Rostov
21st Jan 2010, 03:59
When the Jetstar pilots where asked about ROR, 90% said "strict seniority" AIPA go to FWA with this, and the AFAP turn up and go against the majority of the pilots wishes to back the company on a technical argument... WHY? AND, how is this a shocker for AIPA? If the AFAP wish to play politics, dont use the Jetstar seniority system as a springboard. Maybe the boys at the Feds cut a deal with Jetstar to get into Management after the AFAP goes bankrupt.:D

drop bear ten
21st Jan 2010, 05:57
Perhaps the AFAP DID represent the majority view its MEMBERS.:ok:

A Comfy Chair
21st Jan 2010, 06:30
I think some here need to consider what AIPA was actually trying to achieve yesterday.

It was not a hearing about the merits of strict seniority... that is being heard on another day.

As it presently stands, in February there will be a hearing by FWA as to if Jetstar's current planned filling of vacancies is valid. That was not yesterdays hearing. Yesterday AIPA applied to have Jetstar not allocate vacancies until that case had been heard. The reason? A simple one. People will, under this next allocations, be required to relocate around the country, and begin training. In a month's time, if AIPA is successful, they will all have to move back, and the whole thing unravelled.

So, AIPA was trying to ensure that people were not unnecessarily relocated around the country while the legality of the allocations was in question.

The AFAP sided with the company, with the view that pilots SHOULD be relocated pending the decision of FWA.

I don't know about the AFAP members, but I would have thought that it would be better to know, WITH CERTAINTY, that your move was set in stone BEFORE being made to move across the country! Remember that members of the AFAP - The application they made yesterday was NOT to protect the current agreement... it was to ensure that Jetstar could move pilots around the country BEFORE it has been tested in court... something less than a month away.

If the AFAP wish to protect the current agreement (outside of strict seniority) that is their business... but they did not do that yesterday. Yesterday they sided with Jetstar that allocations should be made and people forced to relocate before the actual hearing was held. The AFAP could very easily have sided with jetstar about the agreement in place, however sided with AIPA in allowing pilots certainty before making them move. They chose not to do that.

And I thought they were supposed to protect their members interests, not have them moving around the country on Jetstar's whim.

Transition Layer
21st Jan 2010, 08:58
Lawrie Cox (yet no balls) you've done it again.

How long before AFAP goes under once all its members leave the sinking ship?

Who cares anyway, hopefully we'll end up with 3 unions joining forces:

AIPA, VIPA and a new GA/Regionals union (which actually achieves outcomes for its members). Bring it on!

Koala Sheila
21st Jan 2010, 13:11
Why I've put my faith in these clowns I don't know.



That is the AFAP I am assuming :E

OneDotLow
21st Jan 2010, 21:52
Who cares anyway, hopefully we'll end up with 3 unions joining forces:

AIPA, VIPA and a new GA/Regionals union (which actually achieves outcomes for its members). Bring it on!

Hear, hear!

bonvol
22nd Jan 2010, 01:23
Perhaps the AFAP DID represent the majority view its MEMBERS

No one's commented on this yet. Could this be the case?

If so you can understand the AFAP position.

Muff Hunter
22nd Jan 2010, 04:39
The AFAP represented a very small vocal minoirty of pilots that are in Darwin.

And of course JQ Management! Who they seem to be very cosy with.

Walter E Kurtz
22nd Jan 2010, 09:12
So Fair Work Australia wasn't fair??

Why dont you all show Jetstar management who really owns the train set eh? A strike might do it??

titan uranus
22nd Jan 2010, 10:15
The one constant in an ever changing universe...The idiotic, mediocre, moronic Aussie Y generation pilot. Hoping so desperately to be taken seriously by serious people; Yet, alas, he wastes his ample spare time on Pprune. Belligerently squabbling with his peers over who's appendage may be of greater girth, length and stamina.
Sadly, as this thread reveals...
1; Ramboflyer: Easy throw-away libelous remarks; ill-informed, innaccurate and naturally, industrially immature. A particularly nice touch with the "taking the jobs of the young hard working Aussie pilots" line...If you drink and blog, you're a bloody idiot.
2; Transition Layer: Are you still around? 900+ posts isn't what I'd call a fine advertisement for someone remotely interesting. Highly skillfull play on words regarding Mr. Cox too by the way. Don't panic mate, I giggle when someone farts, or says penis too... just like my six year old. Rise above your name.

Shark Patrol
22nd Jan 2010, 11:40
Posted by titan uranus

Rise above your name.

Now that's what I call irony!!!!

titan uranus
22nd Jan 2010, 23:32
Shark Patrol, forgive me if I have misinterpreted your post, however I have been trying to decipher just exactly what is irony in this case.
If I am to assume the reference of irony is related to the air of sarcasm regarding Transition Layers "handle" - with my "Rise above your name" statement - The irony you're implying is related to my handle "titan uranus" (your inference being best decribed by the phrase "the pot calling the kettle black"). The suggestion being, how ironic that I should be sarcastic of such an handle, when my handle is also open for ridicule.
If this is the case, then irony may not be the correct word:

Whilst a complex scenario in english to describe, it could in fact be a Tu Quoque .

Tu quoque (pronounced /tuːˈkwoʊkwiː/, from Latin for "You, too" or "You, also") is a Latin term that describes a kind of logical fallacy. A tu quoque argument attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting his failure to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. It is considered an ad hominem argument, since it focuses on the party itself, rather than its positions.[1]

Tu Quoque: Legitimate use

Not all uses of tu quoque arguments involve logical fallacy. One convenient and not fallacious way [to use tu quoque] is by pointing out the similarities between the activity of the criticizer and the activity about which he is being questioned. To label one [something] and not the other is ... itself a fallacy [of equivocation]. [...] Tu quoque is only a fallacy when one uses it so as to divert attention from the issue at hand, or to avoid or fail to respond to an argument that non-fallaciously gave one the burden of proof.[3]
[edit]

As opposed to :

Irony (from the Ancient Greek εἰρωνεία eirōneía, meaning hypocrisy, deception, or feigned ignorance) is a situation, literary technique, or rhetorical device, in which there is an incongruity, discordance, or unintended connection with truth, that goes strikingly beyond the most simple and evident meaning of words or actions.
Verbal and situational irony is often intentionally used as emphasis in an assertion of a truth. The ironic form of simile, or the irony of sarcasm or litotes may involve the emphasis of one's meaning by deliberate use of language that states the direct opposite of the truth, or which drastically and obviously understates a factual connection.

In saying this however, it is possible your reference is more technically verbal irony.. As irony has an intrinsic meaning of something having to be "opposite", maybe your point is that I am oblivious to the pun intended by my handle titan uranus, suggesting that whilst there is room for ridicule in Transition Layers, there isn't in mine. For example, a statement; "you're very ugly, and fortunately I'm not" (when in fact I am ugly). This situation could be described as a form of verbal irony I guess?
If the latter is the case, and this is a meant as verbal irony as opposed to straight irony or a Tu Quoque, then I can lay the matter to rest by pointing out that I am aware my handle titan uranus is indeed a pun , and subsequently open for potential ridicule.

Edited to give credit to internet site "Wikipedia" for the definitions of Tu Quoque and Irony.

indamiddle
23rd Jan 2010, 00:04
titan, i was going to say "get a life"
probably a waste of time... now back to the thread

titan uranus
23rd Jan 2010, 00:55
Ahhh the "get a life" adage. Well worn and a tad 80's, but it definately struck me to the depths of my soul indamiddle.
I do apologise, as you're absolutely right. The thread, it's contents and participants are far more thought provoking, important and intelligent.
Please...carry on...

Anthill
23rd Jan 2010, 03:30
I commence with the admission that I am not an employee of either J* or Qantas nor am I a member of the AIPA or AFAP. What I am is a professional aviator who has worked in our industry for 25 years. In this period I have worked for 2 GA companies, 3 low capacity airlines and 6 high capacity airlines. I note that this thread revolves around the actions of AFAP in supporting some members who were apparently allocated promotions discordant with company “seniority lists”. This action has evidently caused anger within elements of the J*, QF and other pilot ranks, yet leaves me puzzled regarding why ‘seniority’ remains such a sacred cow within the airline industrial paradigm. There is no doubt that this post will result in some irrational responses, hopefully there will be some rational input and I welcome this, even where well thought out opinion contradicts my own argument.

It is time that promotion based on datal seniority is finally killed off. In an industry such as ours where lack of ability or knowledge can has calamitous consequences, the only appropriate promotional axiom is one that is based on merit. Promotions should and must be awarded to the best, most suitable and most experienced candidate. Datal seniority results in a triumph of the mediocre; whilst all candidates must meet a minimum standard, the result is simply the perpetuation of a minimum standard. Competition for promotion drives candidates to excel and better themselves and their knowledge base as their future prospects depend on it. The result is that we will have a more knowledgeable and professional industrial standard.

In the last 10 years our industry has simultaneously witnessed:

1. An explosion in PRKs/Hours flown/Types on register and
2. A decrease in terms and conditions

Under normalised economic circumstances, this should not happen. As demand for experienced pilots should generate better T&Cs as new or expanding companies seek to attract a competent, well qualified workforce and existing companies need to retain existing staff who may be lured by better conditions and opportunities elsewhere. This is Economics 101 and should be easily understandable. So why have the T&Cs generally declined (note use of generally)(1)? The economic theory expressed as the Laws of Supply and Demand apply in an unregulated environment. Supply and Demand is circumvented when regulation exists (economists often design regulation specifically to manipulate market forces). In our case, datal seniority is the regulatory factor that messes with the laws of S&D that should have resulted in enhanced conditions for pilots.

Seniority means that the supply of promotional opportunity is artificially decreased; pilots will not leave their existing company as they then have to start “at the bottom of the list” again. Promotional opportunities are effectively limited to those within your own company. Thus, employers have a captive, trapped workforce and they know it! They know that they don’t have to offer a better deal because pilots “don’t want to lose their seniority” if they move to another company. So essentially, the 90% of J* pilots who (according to Cox of the AFAP) voted for seniority also voted for a pay cut – for themselves and everybody else in the industry.

Over the years I have heard many arguments that support the concept of seniority based promotion and in the final analysis, I can find very little compelling reasons for its retention. The ‘pros’ for seniority are:

1. It is a ‘fair’ system.
2. It rewards longstanding employees for their loyalty.
3. Seniority prevents”brown nosing”.
4. Everybody knows where they stand in the scheme of things.
5.Everyone gets a chance at promotion when their turn comes.
6. Etc...

However against these points:

1. In what way is seniority “fair”? To whom is this fairness extended to?
2. True. It is good to reward longstanding employees. However this can still be accomplished in other ways, such as choice of basing, staff travel, act..
3.A dysfunctional management will always reward brown noses and find jobs for “mates” despite a seniority list (I’ve seen it happen...). Ethical management would ensure that company brown noses who expect a ‘reward’ are not promoted on this basis. At the same time, it should be recognised that some people have a legitimate desire to involve themselves in activities other than flying the aeroplane. However, this factor should not form part of an objective promotional paradigm.
4. True enough
5. Is an airline a commercial enterprise or an aero club? Not all pilots are suitable for a command and they should be mentored appropriately.

My argument is that Merit Based Promotion should form the basis of future Airline Pilot Industrial awards for the following reasons:

1.Allows us to find T&Cs that reflect our true market worth.
2. Would lead to an increase in promotional opportunities within the industry
3. Increases operational standards and expertise.
4. Ensures that the “best person for the job” gets it.
5. Prevents the loss of corporate/industrial knowledge when crews are laid off - many pilots simply leave the industtry when laid off as they dont want to be a SO again.
6. Provides a “safety net” with chance of re-employment on a similar status when pilots are laid off
7.Allows assignments for “political” reasons – sometimes these are commercially and/or operationally desirable

I have attempted to offer this argument objectively and with the aim of betterment of the pilot fraternity. I lack the time to respond fully to counter arguments and will probably not bother to respond to the inevitable flaming that I know I will receive from some quarters.

AIPA and AFAP are in this to protect the interests of their members, even at the expense of others. I think a unified pilot group is essential for our future but think, quite clearly, that datal seniority should not an element of our future industrial landscape.

(1) Many pilots have left 'seniority based companies for DE positions - resulting in increased terms and conditions for themselves, I suppose some would call this "Que Jumping".

Transition Layer
23rd Jan 2010, 03:31
titan,
Don't panic mate, I giggle when someone farts, or says penis too

That's brilliant, coming from a bloke called titan uranus. Your pseudonym is about as funny as my Cox/Balls joke anyway.

Moving onto more important things, you bring up an interesting and valid point. There is definitely a generational change underway amongst Australian pilots and yes it is apparent on pprune and elsewhere.

Some of the older generation (those who went through '89, the collapse of AN etc) have in the past 5 years been very keen to secure work back in Australia, whether that be with Virgin/Jetstar/Tiger/V Aus whatever. Many of them did very well overseas, with very nice pay packets, free endorsements and probably a pretty good retirement fund set-up.

Of course they want to spend the twilight of their lives back in Australia (don't we all), their kids probably just starting high school or uni. However, in the process, they were willing to negotiate or accept conditions lower than what they may have previously consider reasonable, simply because they could afford to do so. And who would blame them really?

Enter the new generation, ex-GA, regionals, military whatever. We also want to work in Australia and fly jets, but many are now faced with the prospect of paying for endorsements and much lower terms and conditions. Whilst that has been the general trend of the industry overseas for a while, I can't help but think it has been accelerated here in Australia because of the abundance of ex-foreign pilots keen to get back home.

These days, most young pilots have the choice of which airline to apply to, and we all have mates flying for the competition, who we worked with in a past life. There is no bitterness amongst us about who screwed who in '89, or who was to blame for the collapse of AN. We respect history, but many of us played no part in it.

I believe a unified Australian pilot body will become much easier to achieve as time goes on, once the old guard with long memories have moved on. I just hope by the time it happens it's not too late.

Lookleft
23rd Jan 2010, 05:28
The AFAP seem to be increasingly struggling for relevance in the workplace. Its interesting to note that in the J* Mel crew room under the AIPA sign is plenty of info on what is going on. Under the AFAP sign (which is upside down) is just brown corkboard as they have nothing to say.
TL- I had to laugh at your reference to pilots coming back with retirement funds set up. Since when have pilots ever been financially responsible? Look at all the over 60's. I don't think they are still flying because they love the early morning starts and BOC.

Walter E Kurtz
23rd Jan 2010, 06:05
Delightful prose Titan Uranus. Joyful reading :D

Anthill's ideas are likewise enlightened. Gelly spined GA puppie pilots are terrified of an industry with reduced seniority privilege. The only thing they own, their only credit, is start date. And dont they squawk under pressure.

The real irony here is that youth advocates stutus quo?? What a screwed up industry.

Command should never be a RIGHT, other airlines regard it RESPONSIBLITY. Responsibility for everything. And command should not be handed out like a three year retention bonus.

Instead of opening ones mouth in anticipation of the expected chocolate, I would be impressed (amazed) if one day I witnessed a Australian GA Airbus Astronaut open his FCOM or enroute chart instead.

Mostly, all I see and hear, are noisy seagulls.

Walter E Kurtz
23rd Jan 2010, 06:13
Before Seagulls squawk about Captains they know that cannot catch a chip on wing. They were most probably promoted on seniority alone, not merit. Think about it...

Col. Walter E. Kurtz
23rd Jan 2010, 06:36
Walter E. Kurtz

Your self-righteous posts are really becoming a pain in the arse - so much so as to force one out of posting retirement.

What a self loving bore you are.:rolleyes:

Oh, and get your own name next time.

From THE REAL COL. WALTER E. KURTZ

drshmoo
23rd Jan 2010, 06:57
TL - great post as per usual.

Because people are from another generation, why do you talk down to them Walter?

Anthill, Seniority and sound training standards will cover all your hoodoos over promoting through seniority.

Seniority stiffling conditions - thats crap. If you throw away seniority, you'll have pilots from overseas screaming for DEC and will do it at any price to get out of shitholes and raise their families in our great country. I'll bet the QF, Jetstars and VB would love that. The race to the bottom would well and truly be on should seniority be bypassed at infinitum!

titan uranus
23rd Jan 2010, 07:00
FOR THE RECORD

AT NO TIME IN THE HISTORY OF JQ AND RECRUITMENT OF DEC'S HAS THERE BEEN ANY ORGANISED INDUSTRIAL MOVEMENT TO PREVENT IT HAPPENING. NO IFALPA BACKED RECRUITMENT BAN HAS EVER BEEN PUT IN PLACE.

Anyone with any industrial know-how will understand the significance of this point.

RAMBO and TL; You are trying to retrospectively alienate the DEC. You have no grounds for your allegation that they have done anything wrong in joining JQ. It may seem safe to mouth off anonymously on this forum, but be really cautious where else you try it on.

JQ would not have had the ability to grow to its current size without them.
If you are both as "senior" as you make out, then it all happened on your watch.

Transition Layer; Yes, my endorsement was paid for by my employer, as well as all the other trappings that come with expatriate lifestyle.
If I may be so bold, that may be perceived as being quite savvy about how one has approached one's career...no?

Thanks Walter E..
...and as for Col. Walter, posting retirement suited you better.

And Drshmoo; I can tell you why Walter E has talk down to some of these cretins...based on the diatribe of disrespectful garbage I read from the children of GEN Y on this site, talking "down" to one of them is actually remarkably restrained. And by the way, no-one suggests seniority should entirely be disregarded, just not a form of stoic datal seniority.

I suspect some of you are just scared of having to step up to the plate, and retreat behind datal seniority as a defence mechanism perhaps?

Put yourself in our shoes:
Half the FO's I fly with either came directly from GA, or spent no more than a year in a regional carrier. Some have the demeanour that they've now somehow served their apprenticeship and are on sites like this complaining not actually about not getting a jet command under 30, but the fact they may have to move to Darwin to get it!
I'm sorry if I don't feel overly concerned for their plight. Now I do generalise, some are great and I will do all I can to help those with a reasonable attitude, those without I simply couldn't care less about.

One FO brags about how he was requested to "update" his hours for command consideration - he is a well know trouble maker - he has 5,000 hours total time - has never left the same postcode throughout his aviation career - hates the company - won't move to Darwin - hates the concept of RoR - stoically and proudly states he will never leave Melbourne for a command - claims to be an industrial expert - is a whining pain in the arse to fly with.
My heart.. and many other hearts - naturally bleed with sympathy.
Mind you, half the check and training department, whom he shall need on side, are of course vastly more experienced DEC's. I'm sure his persona will be nothing shy of total sweetness for that month and a half...

For perspective, I came from a time when you needed about 3,000 hours to get a RHS in a regional turbo prop - with an average of 8 years to command in that same turbo prop - and let's not even start talking about what it took to get to fly a jet (especially in Australia).

goodonyamate
23rd Jan 2010, 08:06
For perspective, I came from a time when you needed about 3,000 hours to get a RHS in a regional turbo prop - with an average of 8 years to command in that same turbo prop

Those times are gone. Get over it. Just because 'back in your day' thats what it took, doesnt mean it should be the same these days and anyone who gets it quicker is just a 'i want it now' Gen Y'er.

titan uranus
23rd Jan 2010, 08:12
That was a productive GEN Y style post now wasn't it!
Stayed awake all afternoon coming up with that one I bet!...

reallyoldfart
23rd Jan 2010, 10:27
Goodonya,

Those days Titan mentioned may be over, But I for one won't get over it particularly when you tell me to - in those days I used to get on any Australian airline as a pax and feel very confident that the guys up front knew what they were doing based on many hours of training and experience. These days, I fly with a deal of concern over the low experience levels and immaturity (aptly demonstarted on this forum) of some of those up front. By the way, I have been flying up front myself for 35 years, so I do know what I am talking about.

Wingspar
23rd Jan 2010, 10:54
Early in the piece when Qantas set up Jetstar, AJ stated he didn't want QF pilots coming over.

Something about polluting the JQ culture.

From these posts, he's appears to have done a pretty good job himself!

goodonyamate
23rd Jan 2010, 12:05
Titan,

Gen X actually...

However I am sick of listening to those in 'early' Gen x crap on about how all Gen Yers are ' i want it now' people... you're probably sick of hearing some Gen Yers crap on about how they should be given a command after 6 months. (for the record, i dont agree with that either...)

I do believe its time some of these guys got over 'how it was done in their day' Fact is, times have changed, Transition Layer raises an interesting point as to one of the roots of these changes....

Enjoy

Shark Patrol
23rd Jan 2010, 12:50
Titan Uranus

Gee, all that stuff just because i dared to use the word "irony" to describe part of your post!!

You must be a pain-in-the-butt to fly with. Maybe that's how you got your handle :E:E:E

Anthill
23rd Jan 2010, 13:47
Drshmoo, thank you for responding. However, I respectfully feel that there are some aspects to your statements that need a response:


sound training standards will cover all your hoodoos over promoting through seniority.


In a perfect training world this statement would be true. The statement also assumes that all of us are created as equals. Clearly we are not.


If you throw away seniority, you'll have pilots from overseas screaming for DEC and will do it at any price to get out of shitholes and raise their families in our great country. I'll bet the QF, Jetstars and VB would love that. The race to the bottom would well and truly be on should seniority be bypassed at infinitum!


This is partly correct. DEC will mean that you will have to compete for positions with people who have greater qualifications and experience than you do. For reasons that I have already described this is reasonable. Many pilots have returned from overseas to J*, VB and VA as DECs. These people have made a significant contribution to the industry over the years and have wealth of experience to offer. On the other hand, the company may well see an advantage in internal promotion based on merit.

Immigration laws prohibit the senario you describe, so you do not have to worry about this in reality. If there were such opportunity, the overseas employers would have to lift T&Cs for their nationals to retain a proficient workforce.

drshmoo
23rd Jan 2010, 14:25
For the record I had about 2500 total, with 1000 IFR PA31 time before I even sniffed a turbo prop F/O slot. Was lucky enough to get a command on a metro after about 500 hours after that. Then was lucky enough after 1000 turbine to jag a B737 F/O slot at VB prior to the first big intake but chose to be an S/O at QF instead because of a variety of reasons. My opportunities at VB would now be well in the rear vision mirror as far as EMB commands go, but Im all about waiting my turn. You hark on about hard yards but I know there are are plenty at Jetstar that have lots of GA and Regional experience. Let the self ritious idiots that the world owes them a command get hammered by the old guard if they don't meet standards but the ones that meet company mins and are approved cause they meet the standard should have first right of command training. I know plenty of Jetstar F/Os that study under my own roof that study hard and with enthusiasm without this Gen Y crap that the old guard go on about. These "the world owes me types" are known to any training establishment worth their salt and will be checked accordingly. If they step up and pass too bad for you. You should be excited for the future of aviation in this country. The future Jetstar commands are sitting there waiting their turn eager (experienced - no moon landings given) and already giving blood sweat and tears for the company.

The realities of my company are a tad different.
12 years to domestic command prior to massive growth of lower paid carrier. Now 767 has gone maybe 20 years to international command on a A330. Dont you lecture my generation about paying ones dues. Transiton Layer and myself did remote piston GA then Regional Airline careers prior to QF and we aren't beating our chest for commands now, even though we have been sitting there waiting our turns for 3 and 5 years respectfully for an F/O slot. This Gen Y crap you dribble on about is indicative of individuals that transend generations. Get off you Zimmer frame and drop the generalisations.

Seniority stops the sychophants that want to go in on days off for free doing company jepp ammendments etc, sucking appendages or nepatism etc to get ahead from usurping seniority for promotion.

AFAP sold out the majority of the Jetstar pilots, whether or not it sold out the majority of its membership at Jetstar (must be at least 10 people) is another thing altogether.

drshmoo
23rd Jan 2010, 14:33
Mr Anthill, I appreciate your take on this but I would agree to disagree on this matter. Companies can offer sub standard deals to Australians cause they live in Australia. Companies can offer crap deals - see Rex and Jetstar EBAs that dont attract experienced pilots within our shores because they are very crap EBAs and then claim that their is a skills shortage. Enter the 457 visa's from South Africa. They will take relatively far less conditions if it means raising thir kids in OZ compared to Joburg. How would this be raising conditions?

Shark Patrol
23rd Jan 2010, 19:50
Anthill,

Those that propose or suport the abolition of datal seniority are usually either:

1. Those who have already achieved a command and now want to remove the last obstacles that prevent them getting exactly what they want wrt bidding, leave, etc,
2. Those who want a command and feel that they should be entitled to jump the queue because they feel that they already meet their own definition of someone who's put in the hard yards previously, or are someone who's smart enough to get the job above others.
3. Those who've already jumped the queue and are trying to justify their actions.

I know in your post that you stated that you work for neither J* or QF etc... so these definitions probably don't apply to you. But I'll say again what I've said previously in another thread that talked about datal seniority.

Say it was YOU that wanted the command, and somebody who was younger, "better qualified"/prepared or who had been in the company for less time than you got the job. If you could put your hand on your heart, wish the person well and think to yourself "better luck next time .... i'll just have to work harder", then you have a case (and are probably a much better person than most on this BB.

bonvol
23rd Jan 2010, 21:33
Ok, I have now read the entire transcript of proceedings at FWA and it appears there is more to this than meets the eye.

The following is a direct quote from the transcript. My bolding

"Mr L Cox: If the tribunal pleases, Cox, initial L, for the Australian Federation of Air Pilots, seeking leave to intervene in the matter. We are a direct party to the award and also there are a number of pilots who are providing specific instructions in this matter."

From this it is reasonable to assume that the AFAP were acting on instructions from their members. It also appears that this ROR agreement was well known about but no one took much notice till it reared its ugly head. The DEC's are obviously AFAP members and asked the AFAP to represent them to enforce the provisions of the ROR agreement. This happened to concur with what management wanted and if you read the transcript you can see why.

When you allow management to tinker with a seniority system this is what can happen.

IMO the ROR should never have been agreed to in the first place. If you are on the bottom and you get sent to Darwin or wherever, you stay there until your number gets you out.

I am not in any way affected so feel free to enlighten me if there are other mitigating factors.

Anthill
23rd Jan 2010, 21:43
G'Day Shark,

The points that you raise supporting seniority are not an attack on my arguments. Objective debate demands that we play the issue, not the man.

I realised Seniority was a bad idea about 22 years ago when my Cheif Pilot at the time called me into his office and said "Anthill, we're getting B1900s. You, me, Bill Bloggs and Fred Nurk are going on course as the first crews". This cohort comprised seniority numbers 2,1,3 & 4 respectfully. None of us had flown turboprop or multi crew. I asked whether the 2 new guys (sen. nos. 21 & 22) would be considered as the each had 10,000+ and had flown B200, Do228, CASA 212s, The CP told me that they would get to fly the new aircraft "when they have done their time". My aversion to datal seniority is not new.


Say it was YOU that wanted the command, and somebody who was younger, "better qualified"/prepared or who had been in the company for less time than you got the job. If you could put your hand on your heart, wish the person well and think to yourself "better luck next time .... i'll just have to work harder", then you have a case (and are probably a much better person than most on this BB


Wouldn't it be a better industry if we all would be like this? However, most people go for the short term gain and because of this miss the point that the seniority system serves to reduce our terms, conditions and career options. I am at least selfish enough to see that.

breakfastburrito
23rd Jan 2010, 22:34
Anthill, you have correctly identified that there is a "dysfunctional market" for pilots. However, I'm not sure the seniority/no-seniority arguments encapsulate the actual problem.

The simple problem is there are many sellers (pilots), and in effect only two major buyers (airlines). This is a monopsony (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopsony) - the opposite of a monopoly (many buyers, few sellers). This tends to significantly distort the market power to favour the buyers.

The strength of arguments both for and against seniority/brown-nosing models show that whichever model is used, the dominant market power has a range of tools available to significantly distort the market to favour the buyers.

The only way to remedy this is to reduce the number of sellers, either band together as a single union or as a commercial entity (crewing company).

Shark Patrol
23rd Jan 2010, 23:20
Anthill,

I don't think I've played the man at all. My three "definitions" include the likely emotions of some of the players involved - I have deliberately not made any derogatory remarks concerning those individuals who may fit these three definitions; just laid out my opinion of the likely motivations involved.

You are attemting to debate datal/non-datal seniority without considering the emotion of those involved. When it comes down to who gets promotions, believe me, there will always be a lot of emotion involved.

Although you quoted my question in your repsonse, you didn't directly answer it. If you can say "yes, I would be happy for that person to get that promotion instead of me", then you are an incredibly rare commodity in an industry where the general catchcry is "Every man for himself".

I have no problems with datal seniority, other than leave allocation. In Qantas, we were all told that we were "recruited to be Captains, not S/Os or F/Os". Therefore, everyone is deserving of a chance. Those who feel that they would struggle during an upgrade, do not have to apply for promotions, while others who come up for promotion are required to undergo simulator sessions to determine whether they are suitable (or ready) for an upgrade. So the system already has some checks and balances.

The problem that I see with any other form of promotional system is that I cannot think of one other variant that is not open to corruption and abuse by either the individuals or the system. I'm afraid I also can't see the link between seniority and T&Cs.

neville_nobody
23rd Jan 2010, 23:31
Wouldn't it be a better industry if we all would be like this? However, most people go for the short term gain and because of this miss the point that the seniority system serves to reduce our terms, conditions and career options. I am at least selfish enough to see that.

No. If Seniority was abolished Australia wide tomorrow in all airlines any Australian FO would have to leave the country as we would be inundated by every Australian Passport holder, Permanent Resident holder, Members of the commonwealth who hold jet commands overseas. All that would happen is that you would have to go overseas to get the experience to be able to come back to Australia. Australian aviation is hard enough the way it is without this extra hurdle thrown in.

Don't forget it is not a level international playing field. In Asia, Europe and the Middle East there is no GA. You start in a Jet or possibly a regional. So whilst you battle your way through all the BS over here guys at your same level in Asia/India/Europe are sitting in a jet. Plenty of Australian pilots in the past have been unable to get a Jet job in Australia have gone overseas to Europe/ME/Asia and picked up jet jobs and quick commands. Do we really want to force Australian pilots to go overseas just for the privilege of being able to get a command in Australia?

The other point of consideration is that with direct entry commands Airlines could potentially drill down wages to ridiculous levels by advertising high minimums for jet commands and then sponsor people from third world countries who have the experience and are willing to work for peanuts just to be able to qualify for permanent residency.

I believe REX tried to pull such a stunt a few years ago but couldn't pull it off because the salary wasn't high enough to qualify for the work visa.

maggotdriver
24th Jan 2010, 02:42
Oligopsony I think is what you're after Mr Burrito Man.:E

Taco Bill.

struggling
24th Jan 2010, 05:01
You make a good point Burrito- a combined pilots’ association is absolutely fundamental to creating a level playing field.

Alas, no matter how compelling the economic theory, suspect there are too many near sighted Neanderthals more interested in ego and power for it to happen simply because it’s good for pilots. In the absence of unifying self interest, no doubt union in-fighting and representative short sightedness will continue unabated.

Your idea of a pilot owned ‘labour providing co-operative’ may be able to provide the necessary self interest, but even if the ACCC didn’t rule it anticompetitive, can’t really see AFAP, AIPA, VIPA or the TWU for that matter, providing the funding necessary to give birth to the idea.

An alternative first step would be shareholder support for the establishment of a South West Airlines style operation in Australia that could lead the way, but given that VB hasn’t gone that way and Qantas has set up Jetstar to divide and conquer; regretfully can’t see this embryonic step happening anytime soon.

Then again, necessity is the mother of invention. :hmm:

GADRIVR
24th Jan 2010, 08:46
Sorry....did I miss something??? There's a combined GA/regional union?
Where.....sounds FAR too good to be true!?:eek:

Transition Layer
24th Jan 2010, 10:39
For those who are pro-merit, anti-seniority for promotions, explain to me exactly how you measure performance?

Ranking pilots by their performance in simulators, line checks etc is far from foolproof and extremely subjective. Pilots are often assessed by their peers, their mates and in some cases their adversaries.

Can anyone give an example of an airline where performance is accurately used as a means for promotion? I'm just curious how it works, assuming you have two or more candidates with similar backgrounds and experience levels applying for the same position.

titan uranus
24th Jan 2010, 16:38
Jetstar for one, where senority is a "major considersation". Not the sole consideration. The argument is not to abandon seniority altogether here.

Just about every other carrier in the world, bar a couple of dying legacy carriers works in similar fashion through different variations. I know TL, as I've worked for some.

The point being discussed runs deeper than just promotion though: it relates to change of aircraft type, change of base, redundancy lists, etc.

A myriad of complex scenarios.

The business model at Jetstar is too complex for strict datal seniority.
-The operation is growing too quickly
-Has introduced many aircraft types rapidly
-Has too many bases, which it tends to close/open/vary all too flipantly
-Is a complex mix of operation
-Has a wide range of experience levels
-IS A LOW COST CARRIER

Want strict datal seniority and what it can afford, then there's always QF.

Captain Dart
25th Jan 2010, 03:51
To further add to the mix, Cathay Pacific Australian-based pilots will be 'on-shored' as of 01 July this year. They will probably form their own Australian offshoot of their Hong Kong Association but it will probably also need to be 'attached' to an existing Australian union. CX crew I have spoken to would not touch AFAP or AIPA with a barge pole that had a French letter on the end. My personal experiences during 'that year' (the start of the Great Australian Pilot Race to the Bottom):

AFAP: lost my last job for me, and still not relevant to airline pilots

AIPA: during 'that year', didn't say 'boo' when 'war' was declared on the domestic pilots, flew domestic passengers and Ansett management around Australia, and welcomed the 'heroes' into the fold when TN was wound up. And now not representative of all QF Group pilots.

What price the TWU?

Keg
25th Jan 2010, 04:49
Some of this is a bit before my time so it may not be spot on. It's been gleaned from discussions with my colleagues who were there when it happened as well as some research into the dispute for various uni assignments.

AIPA: during 'that year', didn't say 'boo' when 'war' was declared on the domestic pilots,

That's inaccurate. AIPA said quite a bit to AFAP at the time. They told them not to be bloody idiots in the manner in which they were pursuing what they wanted. They also told AFAP what the outcome would be and explained why they wouldn't be following the AFAP down that path.

AIPA:... flew domestic passengers

I don't think they did. My reading of the dispute (uni assignment) indicated that the domestic legs of international flights were NOT used to fly domestic passengers except for those who were flying (say) LAX-SYD-MEL. IE they were 'through' passengers. I also recall that the reason for this was AIPA standing firm on the basis of Aussie law at the time. It was a few years later that the law was amended to allow pax to fly domestically between international terminals.

AIPA:... flew...Ansett management

Given QF didn't fly domestic passengers then I'm not sure how this would have occurred unless those pax went o/s first. I recall many people flying SYD-AKL-MEL if they had to get to MEL and so perhaps this is what you mean?!? Either way, I'm not sure what they're supposed to do.

AIPA:... welcomed the 'heroes' into the fold when TN was wound up.

This one is something that I didn't cover in my uni work and something that I haven't often discussed with colleagues so I'm not sure how it actually went down. I do know that there are still some SH crew who are not members of AIPA. I do know that there are many SH crew (from '89) who have provided valuable service to AIPA. Whatever occurred, iff this is enough to preclude some Aussie based CX drivers from joining AIPA (who count among their membership about 1500-1600 mainline pilots and another few hundred J* and QLink pilots who weren't even employed by the QF group prior to 93) then they're cutting off their nose to spite their face.

Anyway, whether AIPAs rules would allow it I'm not certain. I know that they're keen to be a part of a more coherent national association.

AIPA:... now not representative of all QF Group pilots.

I'd say they're closer to being the representation of choice now due to the efforts over the past 3-4 years than at any time in their history. My reading on the subject would indicate that they are far more representative of the various 'haul's than the AFAP ever were of long haul prior to the split.

Going Boeing
25th Jan 2010, 05:09
Captain Dart, I totally agree with Keg's response and I'll also add that during the dispute there were 4 non scheduled domestic flights operated by QF pilots because of compassionate reasons - those flights had prior approval by the AFAP executive at that time. If you don't think that AIPA offered any support during that dispute, why don't you go have a chat to the senior executives - I'm sure when they tell you the truth, you'll have a different view.

Now hopefully we can get back to the thread.

Wingspar
25th Jan 2010, 05:46
I was told by an ex AIPA president that AIPA ran everything by the AFAP.

Vorsicht
25th Jan 2010, 06:08
Jesus, can't you guys move on.
God help us if there are still morons out there making their choices based on the events of 20 years ago.

Get over it!

Grey Nomad
25th Jan 2010, 08:06
I don't believe that the guys and girls involved in 89 will ever totally get over 89, although they seem to have mellowed. Hows EK at the moment Vorsicht?Have you completed your upgrade?:ok:

Roger Greendeck
25th Jan 2010, 09:47
Anthill I agree with your take on seniority. I don't underestimate the difficulty of unscambling the egg or that there may be some losses in the short term but in the long term the restriction of our ability to move means that we give away one of our biggest levers, the ability to move our labour.

Its similar to home loans with banks. We don't chop and change our mortgages because of the cost of moving is too high, therefore the banks don't need to work too hard to hold our bisness.

Vorsicht
25th Jan 2010, 20:41
Yep, just about done. EK sad, looking for job back in OZ, so hope the DEC option stays open a little longer.

Mickster
26th Jan 2010, 01:11
Vorsicht, while I agree that we shouldn't dwell on the past, we must NOT forget it and the events that surrounded it. It is a part of history and history will repeat itself if we do nothing different and don't learn from what happened.

Someone once said that the definition of stupidity is doing the same thing over again expecting different results.

It is only a matter of time before this situtation arises again and how it is handled will be dictated by the experiences of the current pilot group.

While there are numerous groups attempting to represent pilots, none do it really well (in my limited experience and from the bitching that goes on in these forums). Until there is an umbrella organisation that unites the various organisations on the major issues that effect all pilots and provides one voice to government/industry then nothing of any significance will ever really happen.

It would mean that if there are conflicts between say GA and Airline pilots - these issues could be sorted out in the umbrella organisation (and not in the public forum) and decided for the good of the industry as a whole and not for a section of the pilot group.

I was 15 years old during the pilot strike and remember it as a time when the government did whatever they had to to keep the image that they were in control. Nothings changed.

The public (travelling passengers and aquaintances) still believe pilots are paid extremely well (like doctors/lawyers) and we don't work much because of our restrictive (in their opinion) flight and duty time limitations. Not once (that I'm aware of) has an organisation representing pilots has ever come out and told the reality of wages or explained how flight and duty limits work (or how they don't). When that happens then perhaps our plight may fall on more sympathetic public ears and government/industry can't peddle out the usual overpaid/underworked line.

I agree with Anthill's take on seniority. I am not aware of any industry in the world where you can be a senior manager in one company, but if you choose/forced to move, say to be closer to a sick relative, then your only choice is to start at the bottom again.

Off soapbox...

Walter E Kurtz
26th Jan 2010, 03:51
Vorsicht, the only DEC positions likely near future these parts are Tiger or Jetstar NZ. You will need a second job at the brothel if you agree to bend over in Aukland. Choose carefully, good luck.

desk
26th Jan 2010, 05:20
When you allow management to tinker with a seniority system this is what can happen.

IMO the ROR should never have been agreed to in the first place. If you are on the bottom and you get sent to Darwin or wherever, you stay there until your number gets you out.

I am not in any way affected so feel free to enlighten me if there are other mitigating factors.


I can think of one mitigating factor...my old mate PK! They have only just got the smell of shite and cloud of self servingness out of the AD rex office and I was wondering where it had floated off too!...Darwin I believe. Some people in Rex couldn't wait like the others to get their command back so pulled the necessay strings to 'jump the que'. I'm sure my old mate isn't really going to commute to DN for the rest of his life, and with a nose as brown as his it looks like he won't have to! Some people never change!

Captain Dart
26th Jan 2010, 05:23
Ansett management were flown by QF pilots, I saw several of them on board a 747 with my own eyes when paxing QF MEL-SYD for a QANTAS interview after resigning from AN in 'that year', and they saw me. (QF job was offered and politely declined to join CX). Also spoke to domestic passengers sharing taxi who were travelling QF. And never heard anything from AIPA to the effect that our actions were not advisable.

Anyhoo, back to the thread. QF, J* and VB pilots are at present fragmented between two unions with the prospect of Australia based CX pilots forming and/or affiliating with a third. Cathay Pacific and Dragonair pilots in Hong Kong have their own 'umbrella' organisation, HKALPA. It is time for a similar setup in Australia as an alternative to the 'dinosaur' pilot unions we have now. Otherwise it's the TWU for me and many colleagues.

wombat watcher
26th Jan 2010, 06:03
Until there is an umbrella organisation that unites the various organisations on the major issues that effect all pilots and provides one voice to government/industry then nothing of any significance will ever really happen.

There was. It was called the AFAP. It covered all pilots in Australia. It had the exclusive right until 1981. It was a forum for bickering pilots. TN V AN, TN and AN V QF, airline V GA, one state branch V another state branch, old captains V the rest who wanted their jobs .
AUSALPA or any other version is no panacea for the perceived ills of todays Australian aviation world.
In the modern era of AIPA covering QF and JQ pilots and in the unlike event of the much touted GOAL being acheived, if all the expansion is in JQ for example, who gets preference for the Captains' jobs; QF F/os or JQ F/Os? Who gets first hack at A330 positions? Does a new hire JQ direct entry Captain recruited last year get preference over a QF F/O whose been in 15 years? Don't tell me datal seniority will rule and don't tell me a system based on merit will be anything other than a quagmire of bitter competing pilots.:eek::eek::eek::eek:

Capt Kremin
26th Jan 2010, 22:40
Ansett management were flown by QF pilots...

So, as a line pilot, you get a complete rundown of every passengers name and occupation before you fly every sector do you? You then religiously go through it to determine the industrial status of each one those passengers?

If a dispute by another union was was in progress you would then unilaterally apply an illegal secondary boycott to those passengers you magically identified and expose yourself to massive damages, as well would you?

No, of course you wouldn't. Neither did any QF pilot.

But don't let ignoring the base realities of our job stop you from making silly statements about people in an organisation you patently know nothing about.

Anthill
26th Jan 2010, 23:42
Ok, slight thread drift..

At companies where Meritorious promotion occurs prospective candidates have been typically identified by the C&T establishment well in advance. It would be 'ethical' to have a promotions committee to oversee the process so as to keep the process transparent and fair. A promotions committee would/should comprise the CP, head of C&T, some check captains, training captains and line captains also a representative of the pilots union (preferably a captain so as to prevent any 'deals' being made).

It is difficult for a management to be 100% ethical, all of the time. High ethics should, of course, be an overiding priority. This should be understood. The application of datal seniority does have as a redeming feature a reduction of personal bias. However, the selection of a candidate for any position is an intrinsically subjective and discriminatory process.

Despite the seeming objectivity of datal seniority, I am aware of instances in absolutely strict seniority companies where Managment has manipulatued the process to acheive an outcome which subverted the so-called 'protection' of datal seniority. Defamation laws prevent me from giving specific details.

As some other posters have pointed out, the topic is a very emotional one. Despite ones person preference towards either system, it is valueable to at least discuss the various options - if only to re-inforce our own preference!

Captain Dart
27th Jan 2010, 04:34
OK, enuff said about 'that year', I was just telling what I saw in response to a previous posting, Capt Kremin. And if my union gave me appropriate guidance I would do what was required.

Now, having stated my own position, with the prospect of several hundred Cathay Pacific pilots 'onshoring' to Australia this year, would anyone from either the AFAP or AIPA care to offer a 'sales pitch' as to should other Australian-based CX crew align themselves with either organisation, if at all?

C441
27th Jan 2010, 05:54
Now, having stated my own position, with the prospect of several hundred Cathay Pacific pilots 'onshoring' to Australia this year, would anyone from either the AFAP or AIPA care to offer a 'sales pitch' as to should other Australian-based CX crew align themselves with either organisation, if at all?

My understanding is that relatively informal discussions have occurred and are ongoing.

Strangely enough the discussions are being conducted through more appropriate channels than Pprune. :rolleyes:

bonvol
27th Jan 2010, 07:09
Partial response from the AFAP. If true shows AIPA as pretty amateur.

"AIPA made this application without notifying the Federation who is the only direct union party to the agreement.

AIPA are seeking to protect QF rights into Jetstar under the MOU which is contrary to strict seniority and will disadvantage many current and future Jetstar pilots. The application has been made under the wrong sections of the Fair Work Act.

The application is seen as a blatant attempt to raise the profile of AIPA as an organisation which has nothing to do with seniority.

The Commissioner refused the application because he had no power under the legislation or the Agreement to make any orders as sought by AIPA. The Federation ’ s intervention did not influence this outcome. If AIPA ’ s arguments had merit, the Commissioner would have granted its application.

Finally, and hypocritically, AIPA has previously made an offer to the Company to support the ROR policy (offer made in a letter 11 th September 2009) provided that future changes are approved by JPA.

The ROR policy was opposed by the Federation in correspondence to the Company in June 2009.
Notwithstanding our opposition at this time, the Company has the discretion to determine its own policy in accordance with the wording of clause 21.8 and 21.11.

The question is whether in determining its own policy, the observance of clause 21.8 would be expected to meet the company ’ s needs in the circumstances."

A Comfy Chair
27th Jan 2010, 07:29
Bonvol,

I'd argue it makes the AFAP look pretty amateurish. They interverned in the wrong case! Instead of seeking leave to invervene in the hearing about seniority, they decided to back jetstar about relocating crews 3 weeks before a hearing about the legality of it. In order to show their displeasure at AIPA they were willing to put their pilots in the terrible position of being awarded basings and training with no certainty.

I agree with one sentiment, however - them sticking their oar in had no ultimate affect on the decision. That was the commissioners belief that it was on Jetstar's head that they'd have to sort out their own mess if AIPA wins the next case, and that the economics of crewing their aeroplanes was more important than crew stability.

The AFAP will have to argue that they should be allowed to intervene in the case in FEB, as it is an entirely DIFFERENT case in front of a different commissioner.

bonvol
27th Jan 2010, 07:49
Well, one things for sure. It will be interesting to see if AIPA can convince FWA to unscramble the egg.

EXEK1996
27th Jan 2010, 09:22
A Comfy Chair,

Same case Same Commissioner

Vorsicht
27th Jan 2010, 09:39
It looks fairly self evident to me that the AFAP has used the fact that they are respondents to the EBA in a malicious attempt to undermine the majority view of J* pilots for the sole purpose of political point scoring between themselves and AIPA.

Regardless of who is right and who is wrong here, it would appear that AIPA were acting on the wishes of a majority of J* pilots and the AFAP weren't. Which put another way, the AFAP do not act in the best interests or wishes of the majority of their members.

There would be a caveat to the above comment. And that is that it is possible that so many J* pilots have joined AIPA, that the few pilots in Darwin may well represent a majority of AFAP members. In that case, I would have to concede that the AFAP have acted correctly.

V

Capt Kremin
27th Jan 2010, 10:04
Captain Dart, I don't know about the situation under the FWA, but I am pretty sure that if you are Australian based in an airline performing the majority of its flying internationally out of Australia, then AIPA has automatic coverage.
It is one of the reasons that there is no actual airline called Jetstar International. If there was then coverage would have gone straight away to AIPA.
Now whether this applies in your case, who knows.

Captain Dart
27th Jan 2010, 20:56
Thanks Capt. Kremin, we will see...but I am still interested in the opinions of rank-and-file members of both unions on this matter.

Keg
28th Jan 2010, 00:49
As in which association you should make enquiries with? In reality you need to do your homework and do both.

Which do I personally think is able to serve you more effectively? AIPA. It's bigger, got deeper pockets, is used to representing crew engaged in longhaul international ops, has a better idea of the 'big picture' (as evidenced by recent AFAP actions), etc.

Note: I'm a 15 year AIPA member and have never been formally involved at any level with AFAP. I've never served on the AIPA COM (although that may change in the next year or 2). My knowledge on the AFAP is based upon reports on PPRUNE, contributions by Lawrie Cox both here and in the wider media, and discussions with colleagues who have been members of the AFAP.

titan uranus
28th Jan 2010, 21:45
Jetstar Pilots be warned... Qantas pilots bearing gifts!

Caveat: The following is a generalisation; but according to this thread, majority rules right..

A little history regarding AIPA...
I had a bit to do with AIPA some years back, namely the QF pilot integration "dispute". Whereby, it was very easy to prove QF was deliberately pillaging its Ansett owned regional airlines for pilots, however barely recruiting a soul from its own regionals. Makes business sense I guess, but not overly fair for those within the QF regional ranks wishing to further their career.

AIPA's president of the time came to speak to us en masse (by invitation), and made it blatantly clear that his membership had absolutely zero interest in becoming involved in the ensuing legal action, other than to support the company in locking regional pilots out.
I found him, and by default the majority of those he represented to be arrogant, self serving and myopic. AIPA then went further in creating LIFELONG enemies by having a senior 747 Captain take the stand in the subsequent legal action, saying under oath, that regional pilots would not be suitable for a Qantas long haul operation, as they "lacked instrument flying experience". As well as similar comments of idiocy.
Yes, it's true, read the transcript.
Another important note: AFAP supported the regional pilots throughout this legal battle, when ultimately it would have been to their membership numbers detriment had the case had won. Every regional pilot would then have fallen under AIPA's banner on employment.
That's pragmatic representation...no?

AIPA were warned that they may have awoken a sleeping giant amongst the regional pilot group with their attitude. It was nothing short of hatred at the time. Naturally, QF management could see this division as a potential windfall, and the seed was sewn for seeking the option of encroaching on the domestic jet market, offering a slightly lesser package to regional pilots. Who naturally would have jumped at the chance.
Ultimately through circumstance, it fell into the lap of Impulse. And full credit to those within Impulse who had the foresight to negotiate the deal. Many owe those people the jobs they now hold within Jetstar.

So ultimately, I feel AIPA is partly resonsible for the creation of Jetstar. And funnily enough, despite all AIPA's venom against Jetstar on it's inception, now want us as "friends" and have us join their spiteful union.

You can't tell me that there isn't an ulterior motive; like the re-establishment of QF ghost numbering on the JQ seniority list. Especially that now it would seem that JQ is the only facet of the business with any real expansion? Or maybe to try and create parity in pay and conditions will ultimately take the heat off QF mainline, potentially at JQ's expense however?
Any which way you look at it, its to serve their own purpose, as it has always been. And if push were to come to shove, JQ pilots are the lesser portion of their membership, and will be out voted on just about everything.

So for those younger generation of JQ pilot who have fallen for the slick spoon salesmen tactics of AIPA and its cohorts within JQ, be warned the Trojan horse.

JQ was formed, exists and will continue to grow because industrially it isn't QF. For greedy pilot's to try and make it such will only see the whole shebang put to bed. And maybe that would suit AIPA right down to their socks.

And for the record, I wonder how many AIPA members are even aware that AIPA is spending a small fortune on this current FWA case regarding Jetstar's (quite legal in my opinion) Right of Return implementation relating to the pilot displacement/base realignment FSO at Jetstar? Certainly those friends of mine at QF weren't aware.

It's all smoke and mirrors: AIPA's case is designed at achieving:
1. To prove to JQ pilot's that they're the schoolyard bully - and that they're the tail wagging the dog where they come from. May get a nasty shock at JQ however...
2. Create mass disruption to JQ expansion plans (tie the whole thing up in a legal quagmire), stifling training plans, costing the company millions.

No one doubts Jetstar senior management made a mess of the base realignment - but lets be pragmatic about its unwinding, as they seem to be.
The irony is, there will be so much expansion if we work WITH the company, everyone will end up ultimately where they want to be, in the chair they want to be in, within the next 12-24 months anyway.

Let's leave AIPA and their agenda out of it.

slice
28th Jan 2010, 23:23
Kremin - AIPA does not represent V Aus crew. As the years go by I think AIPA are going to find themselves swimming in ever decreasing circles, much of it their own making. Don't get me wrong, I am no fan of any airline management or what has happened to Flight crew T & Cs, but AIPA are the QF mainline union, and only ever will be the QF mainline union.

Keg
29th Jan 2010, 01:17
...AIPA are the QF mainline union, and only ever will be the QF mainline union.

I recall a time when the accusation was that AIPA was the QF long haul union and only ever will be the QF long haul union. Just as AIPA has progressed to encompass and effectively represent it's SH operation, so too is it able to effectively represent J* crew, V Aus crew, CX crew in Australia, etc.

Shark Patrol
29th Jan 2010, 01:43
Titan,

Caveat: The following is a generalisation....

Well you certainly got that right!!

And then what a hate-filled impassioned diatribe followed. You seem to be another person who has a log-sized chip on your shoulder because of what was said by some past AIPA President years ago. Titan, he and his mates have long since retired, I'm sure! It's a very different game now and it's time for you to move on.

Over the last 10 years, QF mainline pilots have seen Dixon lie about his intentions for the LCC - "It will never compete against Qantas mainline"; then lie about an international LCC - "We have no plans to form an Intenrational Low Cost Carrier"; and have then seen a contraction of mainline as the expansion and promotions have gone to Jetstar.

Titan, let me generalise about you for a while, because you and your like-minded comrades are pure gold at the moment. You can sit on your hands and do nothing, take the expansion and the upgrades, listen to QF mainline pilots rueing their lack of promotion opportunities and think, "Serves those smug arrogant bastards right!". To preserve mainline, AIPA has no option but to lobby and fight to improve your conditions (and thus remove the relative disparity between the two organisations). So you get the best of both worlds Titan - you get to "stick it up Qantas pilots' while also reaping any benefits in T&C that AIPA may win for you in the meantime. But, hey, I'm only generalizing here.

The Qantas Group is no doubt embarked on a deliberate campaign to cut mainline back as hard as they can. You and your like-minded comrades should be hoping for all you're worth that AIPA can resist, because if Qantas succeeds in gutting mainline, you guys will be next. You don't think that Jetstar NZ, Jetstar Asia and Jetstar Pacific aren't there to keep you guys on the leash? If it happens to us, you'll be next and if past performances are any idication, you'll have to buy your own vaseline when they come after you.

Scooter Rassmussin
29th Jan 2010, 02:20
Well Said Titan.
im sure if the ghost numbers return the JQ F/os will want QF f/O positions in return on QF salary, effectively leaving close to Zero F/Os in Jetstar. Jetstar is a subsidiary and is a separate entitiy to Qantas mainline if you want free passage you should allow it in Easterns, Qantas link, all entities, why pick only on jetstar. At least the displaced Darwin pilots could go maybe on a Dash 8 in their home as it seems they are barely worthy of this.

Have also heard more DECs are coming to Jetstar ,guys overseas already called for interviews on wide and narrow bodies due to a lack of experience in JQ .Om 1 requirements to change again thanks to many unneccessary diversions and damaged Aircraft. Jetstar has one of the most hail damaged fleets in the world i have been told, a very visual indication of inexperience.
personally ill be staying in QF as an F/o while the salary and conditions remain the same. No Qantas captain will ever go to Jetstar so more DECs will be required, a 15 year f/o unfortunately has less experience than a DEC.
that is why everybody hates the DECs and the only weapon against them is seniority , use it wisely.

Keg
29th Jan 2010, 02:36
im sure if the ghost numbers return the JQ F/os will want QF f/O positions in return on QF salary,

I find it disappointing that they don't have them! There is no reason why they shouldn't.

if you want free passage you should allow it in Easterns, Qantas link, all entities, why pick only on jetstar.

Again, I've not heard an AIPA member disagree with that sentiment.

titan uranus
29th Jan 2010, 06:26
Shark Patrol

I think you strike right at the heart of what's different between you and me (and a few others here..).
I've never been one to sit on my freckle in an organisation if it isn't working for me. If your employer isn't cutting it for you, then there's a whole world out there.
A spot on a list doesn't mean you're entitled to diddly, and absolutely no-one is going to carve your career for you. That's certainly the case at QF these days, and that's a reality a few here seem to have trouble coming to terms with.

And as for DEC's being the nemisis. Well ... again, the world doesn't operate nor really care based on hurt feelings, little devils on your shoulders and sensless whining.
If you were serious and still are serious about preventing DEC's from joining, where is your IFALPA backed recruitment ban?
You see; you guys are trying to retrospectively undo your now perceived ills of times past.

But it's all too late;

*AIPA did stuff it ALL up a long time ago, created resentment and distrust - and no they're not "all retired"...

*How can the one union honestly represent two operations so obviously designed to internally compete?
If you didn't see that coming, then sorry, but you are naive.

*DEC's; were employed legally under the terms of either the then EBA or AWA. There was no industrial action to prevent their arrival. You could sooner hold back the tide than prevent experienced Captains from coming home, so long as the gate is open. Many would not have come if you had been organised in preventing it industrially at the time. So don't cry over that spilt milk now, let alone try and punish them through denying the morality (and legality) of a RoR. The "realignment" wasn't carried out in order of strict datal seniority, so why the hell should it apply now its happened?
The reason is obvious - it's OPPORTUNISM...


Some of you will need to grow up beyond your very tiny perception of how the world works if you are to succeed in this business.

To use the word "hated" and DEC in the same sentence implies nothing but insecurity and jealousy.
The savvy guys who were lucky enough to get a left seat as DEC's, are worldy and mature enough to see that for what it is.

The reasons DEC's were needed at JQ has been covered extensively in previous posts.

Shark Patrol
29th Jan 2010, 08:02
Titan,

Sorry, but you've got me confused. Where did I say anything about DECs? What I talked about in my most recent post was "promotions" - there is a bit of a difference there.

I suspect that you are a DEC yourself and you seem a bit paranoid about it. Having said that, you display some very interesting logic in the rest of your post.

I particularly liked the bit about "well you (AIPA) didn't do anything to stop it happening industrially". That's sort of a bit like blaming the police for not stopping a criminal offence from happening. "Well, it's not my fault for stealing if you didn't stop me".

Secondly, I assume that before you took up your DEC slot in Jetstar that you were overseas. Anyone who's been in Australia continuously for the last 10 years would know that indutrial action during the Howard years was next to impossible.

I'm also intrigued by your "well if you don't like it, then leave" attitude. Maybe you're Dixon trawling for fun on PPRuNe in retirement. That was his entire justification for his "reign of terror". "Well, things can't be that bad if nobody's leaving. Let's ratchet it up another notch or two!!"

You seem to me to be a person who's happy to go wherever there is personal advantage to be had. Good luck to you! Many pilots in Qantas don't want to move overseas, but that is becoming more of a real possibility with every announcement of Jetstar expansion.

So enjoy your little patch in the sunshine. When mainline's gone, they'll come after you. But I guess you'll have already left for greener pastures by then.

dodgybrothers
29th Jan 2010, 10:05
scooter please stay at Qantas, the rest of the world doesn't need a disease like you.

Scooter Rassmussin
29th Jan 2010, 10:18
Sorry dodgy,
hurt your feelings. well a group of mates from overseas have offered to fly JQ Aircraft on 5 year renewable contracts for less money than you , similar to how impulse undercut in the begining now its on again. they dont care no-mortgages etc a bit of a pay cut wont hurt. jetstar seem to like it.
The next EBA will probably not exist it will all be contract with the same pay cut.
good reason to stay in QF .:rolleyes:

Rabbitwear
29th Jan 2010, 10:55
A lot of Agro here, how about closing the thread...............

titan uranus
29th Jan 2010, 19:44
Shark, here's some mail! The reason you're "confused" is because not all of my post was directed at you specifically.
And mate, quit it with the hopeless paraphrasing and childish assumptions, a little more thought may suit you better.

Scooter, some mail for you too... Being that you're a pillock and all, maybe you should stay put, it's a big enough place to avoid blatant exposure.