PDA

View Full Version : One pilot union for all Australian pilots.


Wear the Foxhat
6th Apr 2018, 03:38
The AFAP has applied to change its coverage rules to once again cover all Australian pilots. One pilot union for all Australian pilots, coverage from cradle to the grave; Student, GA, Aeromed, Charter, Rotary, Regional Airline, Domestic Airline, International Airline. Well done to the AFAP, :ok: let’s hope the legal shenanigans from AIPA don’t derail the unification process. :ugh: Progress at last.

Wizofoz
6th Apr 2018, 04:11
I seem to remember that them being a Union for all meant looking after the airlines while screwing GA.

As an example they were instrumental in a non-airline operation, Cargo Masters, going out if business as it was perceived as a threat to the airlines- in spite of Cargo-masters pilots being AFAP members.

Tankengine
6th Apr 2018, 04:16
The AFAP has applied to change its coverage rules to once again cover all Australian pilots. One pilot union for all Australian pilots, coverage from cradle to the grave; Student, GA, Aeromed, Charter, Rotary, Regional Airline, Domestic Airline, International Airline. Well done to the AFAP, :ok: let’s hope the legal shenanigans from AIPA don’t derail the unification process. :ugh: Progress at last.

On the other hand, Ausalpa already exists as a joint venture and AIPA has coverage of many Australian pilots who are reasonably satisfied.
Why do AFAP want to start any “legal shenanigans”? (I presume they want the subscriptions from all those rich Qantas pilots!)
I think you will find this is a divisive rather than inclusive move.

I for one was an AFAP member a long time ago (well before “that year” so not involved with those “shenanigans”)
and will never be a member of them again for a number of reasons and will therefore back any AIPA moves to counter this.

Street garbage
6th Apr 2018, 05:04
I would join TWU before I would join AFAP.

Di_Vosh
6th Apr 2018, 05:24
Unions like the CFMEU, UFU (Fire fighters), MUA, etc, get more for their workers and broker some pretty amazing deals.

The reasons why these unions broker good deals is that a union is only as good as it's members. Strong union members = strong union.

PISS WEAK MEMBERS = PISS WEAK UNIONS!

Pilots get onto Prune and lament how T&C's are constantly being eroded, threatened by lower cost entities, etc, and then bleat about how their union 'does nothing about it', and how it's all the 'mean managements' fault.

When someone posts about something along the lines of "let's get the unions together" or "let's have one pilot union" the first three responses (and I'm guessing around 90% of the future ones) will be how it's such a bad idea, and stick the boot into the AFAP for good measure (love how the examples used to justify this are from over 30 years ago).

All the pilot unions are weak, because pilots are piss-weak themselves.

DIVOSH!

IsDon
6th Apr 2018, 05:44
After also being a member of the AFAP many years ago I would also go nowhere near them again.

Hopeless!

AIPA have coverage of over 95% of Qantas Pilots. They have industrial strength as a result. Decry AIPA if you like, but Qantas Pilots have the best airline agreement in this country and that didn’t happen by accident.

This move by the AFAP is just out of greed. They see what AIPA have achieved and want part of it. Just go away you useless lot and leave us with a union we’re happy with.

Berealgetreal
6th Apr 2018, 05:53
What a cracker of a reply Di Vosh!

LeadSled
6th Apr 2018, 06:16
Folks,
There were overwhelmingly good reasons why the Overseas Branch of the AFAP broke away, at huge cost, to form AIPA.
Many of those reasons are also the reasons for AIPA's success.
The '89 debacle only reinforced the wisdom of the reasons for the formation of AIPA.
Sadly, many of the attitudes that resulted in the OSB split and '89 have not really changed, all these years later, and industrially, there is no even a half way good reason, let alone a compelling reason, for AFAP to be granted any kind of sole coverage of pilots.
And, I would dare to suggest, it is a political non-starter.
Tootle pip!!

dragon man
6th Apr 2018, 10:30
After also being a member of the AFAP many years ago I would also go nowhere near them again.

Hopeless!

AIPA have coverage of over 95% of Qantas Pilots. They have industrial strength as a result. Decry AIPA if you like, but Qantas Pilots have the best airline agreement in this country and that didn’t happen by accident.

This move by the AFAP is just out of greed. They see what AIPA have achieved and want part of it. Just go away you useless lot and leave us with a union we’re happy with.

I don’t want to get into a slinging match however it was under the AFAP in the 1960s that the Qantas pilots got a North American style seniority based contract. It is under AIPA that the appalling (personal opinion only) deal for the 787 was done which will IMO haunt Qantas pilots for years to come.

blow.n.gasket
6th Apr 2018, 10:42
I believe AFAP has too much historical baggage to go forwards .
There needs to be a fresh start.
Using AUSALPA as a base for this fresh start has merit I believe.
However no point in going down this road if past errors are perpetuated.
Whatever the new constitution proposes , and there has to be a new constitution to prevent history repeating , is it needs a proportional representation clause that combines numbers and financial input for example.
Will be interesting to see where this discussion goes considering the belligerence of some of the old war horses involved.

56P
6th Apr 2018, 11:01
There once was just one union that represented all Australian airline pilots. There was only one prolonged industrial action conducted by that union and that was to support QF pilots. The latter, after achieving their objectives, left the union and formed their own. Enough said!!

Tankengine
6th Apr 2018, 11:32
So how many of you have been long term members of BOTH unions?:confused:
If you have not, then, respectively, you have no idea.:hmm:

The 66 dispute was indeed run by the AFAP, but I would think the “overseas branch” would have had a fair bit of input.:E
Before my time.

Perhaps AIPA should have complete coverage, that would support your idea of
“One union”.;)

leakyboats
6th Apr 2018, 13:09
So how many of you have been long term members of BOTH unions?:confused:
If you have not, then, respectively, you have no idea.:hmm:

I’ve been a member of both unions, AIPA in the past, and now AFAP.


AIPA has coverage of many Australian pilots who are reasonably satisfied.


So long as they work for Qantas – Plenty of Jetstar pilots are incensed with AIPA’s meddling in Jetstar. They do have their useful idiots on the subcommittee who have absolutely no control over the direction of the COM, but continue to wave the AIPA flag, running interference for them, and letting their spies into Jetstar meetings.

How many court cases did AIPA run (and lose) trying to prevent Jetstar expanding into A320’s, Expanding into A330’s, Expanding into an international airline, etc etc etc.

You would be hard pressed to find a union that has been and still is more anti Jetstar than AIPA. Any time Jetstar expansion is on the cards, the venom dripping from AIPA is barely suppressed. Every meeting that AIPA goes to in Jetstar, the details are studiously reported back to the AIPA COM to disseminate, understand, strategise, and plan counter moves. And Rated De thinks AIPA doesn’t strategise.

Beer Baron
6th Apr 2018, 14:10
Well done to the AFAP, let’s hope the legal shenanigans from AIPA don’t derail the unification process.
Oh please, what a crock. ‘Unification process’????
AFAP has not made an application to ‘unify’ the Australian pilot unions. They did not approach AIPA and offer to work together and begin a process of becoming a singular union. No, they are making a desperate attempt to snatch members away from AIPA, not for the benefit of those members but for the benefit of AFAP.

They are starting a war between unions in a time of peace. Fighting the wrong enemy. This is NOT how you ‘unify’ pilots.

Tankengine
6th Apr 2018, 14:12
I’ve been a member of both unions, AIPA in the past, and now AFAP.



So long as they work for Qantas – Plenty of Jetstar pilots are incensed with AIPA’s meddling in Jetstar. They do have their useful idiots on the subcommittee who have absolutely no control over the direction of the COM, but continue to wave the AIPA flag, running interference for them, and letting their spies into Jetstar meetings.

How many court cases did AIPA run (and lose) trying to prevent Jetstar expanding into A320’s, Expanding into A330’s, Expanding into an international airline, etc etc etc.

You would be hard pressed to find a union that has been and still is more anti Jetstar than AIPA. Any time Jetstar expansion is on the cards, the venom dripping from AIPA is barely suppressed. Every meeting that AIPA goes to in Jetstar, the details are studiously reported back to the AIPA COM to disseminate, understand, strategise, and plan counter moves. And Rated De thinks AIPA doesn’t strategise.

Sounds like even more reasons to stick with AIPA!:ok:

Beer Baron
6th Apr 2018, 14:12
How many court cases did AIPA run (and lose) trying to prevent Jetstar expanding into A320’s, Expanding into A330’s,
Zero.

Show us a link to any of these cases you refer to.

LeadSled
6th Apr 2018, 16:37
There was only one prolonged industrial action conducted by that union and that was to support QF pilots. The latter, after achieving their objectives, left the union and formed their own. Enough said!!

56P,
That is quite wrong, you should do your homework.

There were multiple reasons for the split, but most came under the heading of domestic pilots being technical troglodytes, which, in many matters has not changed much, cf opposition to ICAO harmonisation, particularly in CNS/ATM matters --- just some of the changes domestic pilots opposed: glass cockpits, two pilot crews on "jets", flexible thrust on takeoff, LNAV/VNAV and moving maps for arrival and departure, wet runway V1, and, of course demanded flight engineers on any aircraft with more than 100 seats (remember Ansett B767)--- including domestic strike action you have forgotten -- or never knew.

As for "the AFAP" producing the NA style contract out of the 1966 dispute, that was the Overseas Branch (which became AIPA) and a lot of the actions of the then (domestic) President were quite counter-productive --- I know, as a junior pilot is cost me a bleeding lot, over years. The "final settlement" left most of us worse off than the QF final offer that he knocked back, and about half of us more junior F/O-S/O worse off than pre-strike conditions. All the hard work, including members personally guaranteeing the funds to get stranded crews home from around the world was OSB members, nobody else.

The split came along years after the 1966 strike. The AFAP constitution was very lopsided, the OSB members provided about 60% of the funds for less than 20% of the vote at Convention, which was completely dominated by Ansett pilots.

Deleted.

Yep!!, that's pretty much the attitude of too many domestic pilots, it has changed little over the years, comes from working in the aviation Galapagos in Australia.

Tootle pip!!

Airbubba
6th Apr 2018, 21:08
The '89 debacle only reinforced the wisdom of the reasons for the formation of AIPA.
Sadly, many of the attitudes that resulted in the OSB split and '89 have not really changed, all these years later, and industrially, there is no even a half way good reason, let alone a compelling reason, for AFAP to be granted any kind of sole coverage of pilots.

Isn't AFAP the outfit that convinced its members to drink the Kool-Aid and resign en masse in 1989? :eek:

It was the infamous 'don't worry, they can't do without us' negotiating strategy.

I've listened to those sad expat Ozmate tales of we shoulda, coulda, woulda for three decades now. :(

Don Diego
6th Apr 2018, 23:59
If you want to know why they (AFAP) are going down this path then just ring and ask, the load of sh&t that is offered up by the armchair experts here is lamentable.
Di Vosh, well put!!!

Tuner 2
7th Apr 2018, 00:29
If you want to know why they (AFAP) are going down this path then just ring and ask, the load of sh&t that is offered up by the armchair experts here is lamentable.
Di Vosh, well put!!!

Why not just post the supposedly wonderful reason here??

ANCDU
7th Apr 2018, 00:33
Unfortunately while AIPA is AIPA and AFAP is AFAP there will never be a single union representing pilots in Australia, and that’s to the detriment of all of us. This is a time when we could really be making gains industrially, but it won’t happen.

Tuner 2
7th Apr 2018, 00:45
As a QF pilot, why would I want to join the AFAP? They aren't respondents to my EBAs, they've never negotiated any of my EBAs and they have no expertise in my EBAs. They have no meaningful dialogue with my management. I have LOL coverage under my AIPA negotiated EBAs.... who are going to be mainline QF mainline pilot reps on the new AFAP mainline council? How are the finances/governance going to work? If afap somehow has 2400 mainline pilots members contributing 50, 60 or 70% of total subs to the afap, but only has a few votes, how well is that going to work?

AIPA is not perfect but I would rather go to some of their experts in scheduling, welfare etc than yet-to-be-named afap staff who have no knowledge of my agreement and my company.

I need to see good answers to these points before I would even half-consider the afap.

megan
7th Apr 2018, 00:50
I hope the AFAP have changed their modus operandi, our GA company group left the AFAP and formed our own union after the AFAP threatened to send Norm Gallagher and his building union thugs down to sort us out.

LeadSled
7th Apr 2018, 02:00
Isn't AFAP the outfit that convinced its members to drink the Kool-Aid and resign en masse in 1989?

Correct,
The then President of AIPA addressed a mass meeting of AFAP in Melbourne, trying to dissuade AFAP from taking on Bob Hawke and Co. head on. He literally had rotten fruit thrown at him, and was booed off the stage.

Sadly, but quite predictably, everything that said AIPA President forecast, came to pass.

The AFAP "logic" of "The Government can't do 1,2,4,4 and we will win" became the Government did "1,2,3,4" and the AFAP lost, with a huge personal and monetary toll to all involved, promising careers by the hundreds, thousands, summarily cancelled by AFAP.

The vitriol against all AIPA members was disgusting, because we (AIPA Qantas pilots) refused to "go out" in sympathy.

Fact is we had no sympathy for such idiotic industrial behavior. We could all read industrial history, we understood the logic of the Hawke/Kelty "Wages accord". We knew that pilot bashing, like doctor bashing, was always fodder for the popular media, no support there.

We knew the domestics were on a hiding to nothing, you didn't need to be Einstein.

Thank goodness there was not the "social media" of today, because you see in some of the posts in this thread, all the animosity of '89 lives on.

I started off as a member of the NSW branch, transferred to OSB when I got a job with Qantas, and didn't originally support the split, but was one of a group who wanted to reform AFAP along the lines of US ALPA. However, our proposal went nowhere due to the complete imbalance of voting in the AFAP constitution, the complete dominance of the domestics. Of course, my group's views were based on the point that having one union, not two, was the obviously better position, industrially.

In the end, I supported the split, because we had no choice, operating in an international competitive market we understood that QANTAS could not afford the grossly excessive costs of AFAP operational restriction. Costs just lumped on the long suffering passengers under the "two airline agreement" cost plus domestic arrangement.

Not to mention, the fact that flying in the real world, we had no fear, indeed welcomed, technological change, for far to many in Australian domestic aviation, change is anathema.

I trust this proposal goes nowhere, I hope AIPA does not have to spend a fortune to defend their position, because that would be waste, but they have the funds, and, I am sure, the will, to do whatever is necessary to defend AIPA and its member's interests.

Tootle pip!!

Arthur D
7th Apr 2018, 02:53
But its ok for AIPA - the Qantas Pilots Union, to cover Virgin pilots, Jetstar Pilots, Network pilots etc. Right......

Lots of great history lessons here, including some entertaining revisionism. Astounding that the dispute is called into play as a detractor..... really, 30 years later is AFAP still the same organisation? And what exactly did AIPA do to support their domestic brethein at that time....

AFAP are merely seeking to level the playing field for membership options. Once they have covereage of QF pilots (and they eventually will), QF pilots will be welcome to join, not forced. If you don’t want to join, don’t, real simple. I can assure you plenty will. However, unlike others, the AFAP COM structure will give you control over your own destiny.

AFAP are the only true ‘cradle to the grave’ pilot union in Australia. AIPA have historically not given a tinkers about GA or Regionals. In recent (I say recent cos to some here 30 years ago is still highly relevant) times they have inveigled their way into airline groups of ‘strategic interest’.

Rated De
7th Apr 2018, 03:44
As we mentioned in another thread on this matter, the REALLY interesting thing is that Qantas and AIPA both oppose the AFAP application.

It could be that Qantas prefer to have a 'known known' or simply AIPA are predictable, but when management and the pilot body are on the same side of the boat a critical mind asks why.

Don Diego
7th Apr 2018, 04:18
Tuner, has there been any request for you to be in another association?? I f you want to know the reason then just ring and ask, they will talk to you despite not being a member.

Tuner 2
7th Apr 2018, 04:23
Tuner, has there been any request for you to be in another association?? I f you want to know the reason then just ring and ask, they will talk to you despite not being a member.

Just tried to call and they aren't open today :sad: why don'y you just tell me?

Tuner 2
7th Apr 2018, 04:27
But its ok for AIPA - the Qantas Pilots Union, to cover Virgin pilots, Jetstar Pilots, Network pilots etc. Right......

Lots of great history lessons here, including some entertaining revisionism. Astounding that the dispute is called into play as a detractor..... really, 30 years later is AFAP still the same organisation? And what exactly did AIPA do to support their domestic brethein at that time....

AFAP are merely seeking to level the playing field for membership options. Once they have covereage of QF pilots (and they eventually will), QF pilots will be welcome to join, not forced. If you don’t want to join, don’t, real simple. I can assure you plenty will. However, unlike others, the AFAP COM structure will give you control over your own destiny.

AFAP are the only true ‘cradle to the grave’ pilot union in Australia. AIPA have historically not given a tinkers about GA or Regionals. In recent (I say recent cos to some here 30 years ago is still highly relevant) times they have inveigled their way into airline groups of ‘strategic interest’.

To my knowledge AIPA doesn't cover Virgin pilots. They only seek to cover pilots from the Qantas Group, for pretty bloody obvious reasons.

No one has yet answered why I would want to join the AFAP as a mainline pilot? Is it cheaper? Last time I looked the AIPA negotiated 787 deal in mainline was a hell of a lot better than the 787 pay in Jetstar, negotiated by the AFAP as much as anyone else. Every other AIPA-only negotiated deal is better than any AFAP-only or joint negotiated deals.

Not trying to be difficult, just trying to understand why it would possibly be appealing. Anyone????

Beer Baron
7th Apr 2018, 05:02
Arthur D
But its ok for AIPA - the Qantas Pilots Union, to cover Virgin pilots, Jetstar Pilots, Network pilots etc. Right......
If you are going to berate people about revisionism then you had better check your facts. AIPA do not have coverage of Virgin pilots. So your talk of ‘leveling the playing field’ of membership options is complete garbage.

AIPA only cover Australian based Qantas Group pilots.

As to why Qantas would oppose the application. Well would you rather negotiate an agreement between two parties or three? Much easier to only have to find common ground once.

Arthur D
7th Apr 2018, 05:14
Arthur D

If you are going to berate people about revisionism then you had better check your facts. AIPA do not have coverage of Virgin pilots. So your talk of ‘leveling the playing field’ of membership options is complete garbage.

AIPA only cover Australian based Qantas Group pilots.

As to why Qantas would oppose the application. Well would you rather negotiate an agreement between two parties or three? Much easier to only have to find common ground once.


So you’re telling me that AIPA had / has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with VIPA?

As for your last statement, completely agree! So why does AIPA continue to seek coverage of so many airlines outside of QF Mainline? Who appointed AIPA as the Qantas Group pilot union? ( rhetorical question BTW)

LeadSled
7th Apr 2018, 06:09
Lots of great history lessons here, including some entertaining revisionism

Arthur D,
And what revisionism would that be??

.. really, 30 years later is AFAP still the same organisation?

Unfortunately, the answer is, pretty much: Yes.

And what exactly did AIPA do to support their domestic brethein at that time....

And why would they, and cut their own throats, having warned, in advance, and all too accurately, of the consequences of declaring war on Bob Hawke as Prime Minister.

And everything I have seen and heard in recent years suggests to me that AFAP are very slow learners. Of course, being altogether too close to the mainstream union left in Victoria does not help. I am reminded that, for years, a particular very senior employee of AFAP harbored ambitions to Labor Senate pre-selection for the state of Victoria, which always made many of us very suspicious of his activities.

Tootle pip!!

Iron Bar
7th Apr 2018, 06:56
Leakyboats - sink

"useful idiots" - Nasty little cuss today aren't you.

For what it's worth, I understand the application to cover QF pilots is
driven by a well known cohort inside the AFAP. Apparently they have lobbied sufficient committee members, but do not necessarily have the full support of AFAP Exec or President. I believe the less "centralised" structure of AFAP that allows the various sub committees more independence has led to this embarrassing
and devisive application.

Sadly, but not surprisingly true to form.

jetlikespeeds
7th Apr 2018, 08:47
Management and the IR department are probably masturbating over this thread about pilot disunity right now.

Don Diego
7th Apr 2018, 10:57
So Tuner you have no idea at all but will comment nonetheless??Lead Sled, could you name one person in any management position ( elected or otherwise ) that was there 30 years ago?? You have also forgotten about the disdain that the OB had for non airline operations and the fact that their money was being used to support such, nothing has changed there in 37 years.Megan, the last time I heard that story it was the Hells Angels being sent around to fix the problem. Jetlike you have hit the nail on the head. Where are the red ties?? Oh and while I am at it one of you informed chaps might like to refresh my memory on where VIPA had their first office??

SandyPalms
7th Apr 2018, 13:42
Why? How many Qantas group pilots do they think want to jump to the AFAP? I don’t. And I’ve not heard anybody I’ve worked with, ever, express any interest in the AFAP.

megan
8th Apr 2018, 04:05
Megan, the last time I heard that story it was the Hells Angels being sent around to fix the problemSo, you're saying it happened on more than one occasion then? Norm Gallagher in our case, while at dinner with AFAP in a provincial town. Thanks for confirming it was their modus operandi at the time, early 80's.

maggot
8th Apr 2018, 06:22
Why? How many Qantas group pilots do they think want to jump to the AFAP? I don’t. And I’ve not heard anybody I’ve worked with, ever, express any interest in the AFAP.

This in spades.

Also I don't thinks there's any widespread disgruntlement with aipa. Not pretending they're perfect but I wouldn't even consider window shopping around at this point.

And, aside from mention here and there, I don't really have any idea whom AFAP are nor why I'd be interested in them.

Moving on

Don Diego
8th Apr 2018, 08:12
No Megan I am saying it is utter bulls%it that has been made up.

Lookleft
8th Apr 2018, 09:54
While ever there is an organisation called the Australian Federation of Airline Pilots and while ever there is an organisation called the Australian and International Pilots Association, there will always be two pilot unions (at a minimum) in Australia.

megan
8th Apr 2018, 15:43
No Megan I am saying it is utter bulls%it that has been made upSend me a PM with your email, name, address and phone number and I can give you the details, it's no b...it.

gordonfvckingramsay
9th Apr 2018, 06:47
A colleague of mine recently told me that the AFAP strongly endorsed an EBA for Cobham
pilots claiming it was about as good a deal as those pilots will ever get. Several weeks later and after a group of independent pilot reps started scooping large numbers of pilots who had lost faith in both the AFAP and the TWU, a deal was struck that is now magnitudes better. If the AFAP want to represent the masses in Australia, they’ll need to stop displaying their ineptitude as a union first, TWU as well.

LeadSled
9th Apr 2018, 08:03
You have also forgotten about the disdain that the OB had for non airline operations and the fact that their money was being used to support such, nothing has changed there in 37 years.

Don D,
My memory goes back much longer, and the complete disdain of non-airline members in the state branches by the dominant domestics. And I speak as an office holder in those days, including OSB Treasurer.

In fact, what I well remember to this day, as the occasional AFAP OSB rep. on NSW RAPAC,( which had only just been invented) supporting GA and groups like Gliding Federation against incessant demands other AFAP branches, by domestic "airline pilots" that other operations be restricted when they wanted to use "the air". Always without any detailed justification, just assertions about "unsafe".

"Full Position Reporting" by gliders was always the lulu.

Something else that hasn't changed to this day, demanding responses to "perceptions of risk", when admitting there was no demonstrated risk.

No, I don't think AFAP has changed much, even thought names change, the culture remains.

Tootle pip!!

The Green Goblin
10th Apr 2018, 03:04
You guys obviously don’t understand the structure of the feds then.

If Qantas pilots were a part of the federation they’d have their own independent council under the federation banner. It has the resources of the entire union collective. However is independent in its approach.

So if a weak deal is endorsed by the union - it’s the pilots in the union that work for the company.

If you want a strong union and a good deal. It needs to come from the employees of the company via their representatives.

Funnily enough AIPA could just about continue exactly as they do now as a council under the federation with a few tweaks.

The same can’t be said for the federation operating under AIPA.

megan
10th Apr 2018, 06:42
other operations be restricted when they wanted to use "the air"Not just the "air", but airports as well. Had to take a GA type to the QF hangar at Mascot for disassembly and preparation for loading onto a QF Combi. The screams from a TAA DC-9 that had to delay pushback while we taxied behind him was a thing to behold. Still, I guess we delayed his race with the opposition for bragging rights as to who got airborne first.

Tony the Tiler
10th Apr 2018, 09:58
Revisionists take note. AIPA didn’t exist pre 1981. To those boasting about how good the Qantas agreement is, understand that your agreement finds its foundations from the AFAP agreements pre 1981. AIPA built on the strong foundations that can be found in the agreements pre-split. The young Qantas pilots deriding the AFAP may want to acknowledge that much of the contract they currently work under has its roots in the very union they are decrying. Understand your history; AIPA was created from a splinter faction of a much larger and stronger pilots union.

Rather than reform the union, the AFAP officeholders of the time let unresolved issues fester, it split, and union representation for Australian pilots has never been the same. There is fault on both sides, and ever since, there has been this artifice between representative bodies. People need to grow up and get over themselves, a new generation of pilots deserve far better than the status quo.

To those that deride the rule change to allow all pilots to be members of one union, what is your answer for the new generation?

Respect to the new guard, at least you are trying. From an overseas member and old war horse.

Don Diego
10th Apr 2018, 10:08
LeadSled, yes the "dominant" domestics ran the joint and they tolerated GA, they were never going to be threatened by them, you blokes simply got fed up with others setting the agenda and having your funds being used for anything other than your interests and it is as simple as that. Yes I was there albeit as one of those GA losers and that is why I remember it clearly. The thing that sticks in my craw is that you OB chaps were in the best position of all but were the least willing to do anything for operations outside Q and that is still the case right here right now, I'm alright Jack f%$k you. So as for RAPAC back in 1980 it wouldn't have made a rats ar#e difference to you blokes whether or not gliders gave full position reports so why mention it. Then you say AFAP hasn't changed since those days?? So the question is now who runs the joint, the dominant domestics or who exactly? Do you know the membership numbers and composition? Do you know the structure these days and how voting etc works or do you just guess or assume like so many others on this forum? One good thing the split did was to bolster the coffers of the Fund.
Megan if you want to communicate with me then send me a PM.
So while I am at it, how many of you AIPA lot have been directly approached to change to AFAP. I don't count drunken chit chat in bars on slips, I want to see the invitation with your name on it and on letterhead.

Tuner 2
10th Apr 2018, 10:23
Revisionists take note. AIPA didn’t exist pre 1981. To those boasting about how good the Qantas agreement is, understand that your agreement finds its foundations from the AFAP agreements pre 1981. AIPA built on the strong foundations that can be found in the agreements pre-split. The young Qantas pilots deriding the AFAP may want to acknowledge that much of the contract they currently work under has its roots in the very union they are decrying. Understand your history; AIPA was created from a splinter faction of a much larger and stronger pilots union.

Rather than reform the union, the AFAP officeholders of the time let unresolved issues fester, it split, and union representation for Australian pilots has never been the same. There is fault on both sides, and ever since, there has been this artifice between representative bodies. People need to grow up and get over themselves, a new generation of pilots deserve far better than the status quo.

To those that deride the rule change to allow all pilots to be members of one union, what is your answer for the new generation?

Respect to the new guard, at least you are trying. From an overseas member and old war horse.

If the supposed intention is unity, then why pursue the aggressive rule change path?

Why not come out with a publicly stated ambition of merging the unions, rather than attempting something more like a takeover or attempt to extinguish?

I'd have a much easier time believing this is all about unity if there was some publicly stated desire, maybe with a timeline of 1-2 years, for both unions to have dedicated groups meeting and working together to resolve issues and barriers to merging - rather than fighting. I don't see that and that makes me very suspicious of the supposedly altruistic intent on the AFAP's part.

Don Diego
10th Apr 2018, 11:20
Well the Tuner is back asking the same questions. So you ring AFAP on Saturday afternoon and report back that there was no answer?? Well I rang AIPA on Saturday afternoon and hey presto, guess what?? Well now you have had two business days to make that quick call and get the answers but it would appear that you have not done so, ergo you have elected to remain uninformed. If you wish to stay in the dark then so be it but kindly keep your condescending attitude off here.
Tony the Tiler and Green Goblin well said.:D

Tuner 2
10th Apr 2018, 11:30
What a ridiculous argument and I don't see how anything I've said is remotely condescending.

Why should I have to phone an organisation that I'm not a member of and I have no desire to join to have legitimate questions answered that should be able to be answered by all those pushing this idea here on pprune? AFAP people started the discussion here, so why can't my questions be answered here?

Why would the AFAP disclose its reasons for pursuing a rule change and not pursuing unity to a non member over the phone (who could be anyone, a journalist etc) when it coold otherwise just do you publicly? Or you could do it for them, since you apparently have the answers already?

PS still waiting to hear any reasons why, as a mainline pilot, I would possibly want to join the AFAP. Surprised it's been 45 odd posts and not one reason yet.

Don Diego
10th Apr 2018, 11:49
Hey Tuner you clearly don't know what condescending means so look it up.
I know in detail what it is about because I took the time to find out, you can't be bothered because you don't want to know what it is about. They will explain it to you and you might be surprised, however if you have no desire to obtain facts then that is ok too but just desist, go and annoy your COM person.:ugh:

Tuner 2
10th Apr 2018, 11:55
Let's agree to disagree on that point then.

Any answers on why I'm better of with the AFAP as a mainline pilot?

Wear the Foxhat
10th Apr 2018, 12:40
PS still waiting to hear any reasons why, as a mainline pilot, I would possibly want to join the AFAP. Surprised it's been 45 odd posts and not one reason yet.

Because you may want to give back something to the Aviation grassroots – you know – general aviation.

Because you may want to lend support to someone other than Qantas group pilots.

Because you may be able to learn a thing or two from other pilot groups within the federation that have or are experiencing similar problems to you.

Because you may want to be a part of something that is bigger than your own insular self.

Because you may want to support the entire industry.

Because you may want the industry to speak with one voice.

Because one pilot union in Australia is better than two.

Because one pilot union will be unstoppable.


If you can’t see the value in one pilots union, then collective bargaining, looking out for your fellow aviators, supporting your brothers and sisters across the entire industry, learning from others within the industry, and unionism probably isn’t for you.

Beer Baron
10th Apr 2018, 13:39
You guys really need to drop the language of “unity”. What you are proposing is the complete opposite.

If you want ‘one union for all Australian pilots’ and ‘all pilots to be members of one union’ then you are talking about the complete eradication of AIPA and VIPA.

Since no move has been made to reach out to AIPA to come back in under the AFAP umbrella then it is not a merger or unification you are seeking, you are proposing their destruction.

So stop the bulls#it and call it for what it is.

This is not an attempt at unity, it is a declaration of war.

ruprecht
10th Apr 2018, 13:43
Because one pilot union will be unstoppable.

That might not be the dumbest thing I’ve ever read, but it’s in my top ten. :rolleyes:

Arthur D
10th Apr 2018, 14:33
If AIPA is so fantastic and doing such a great job, then why would anyone leave and go to the AFAP?

Seems to be the AIPA supporters argument.

Assuming the argument to be true, why then are you wasting AIPA members funds fighting the rule change? Given that AIPA is such a wonderful organisation and all members are just super happy, what’s to fear??

free thinker
10th Apr 2018, 16:29
A level of IR success can be seen in Oz airlines stemming from their approach to divide and conquer pilot working groups. A move to just one union might however make matters worse if nothing else changes.

There are currently 3 parties: airlines, pilot groups and unions. Whilst there is a need for pilots to unify their group to address an airline’s willingness to take advantage of any pilot that does not know their worth; airlines would currently find it very convenient to deal with a pilot union rep rather than almost any other alternative.

This is especially so when pilot union reps hold pilot positions in the same airline (seeking an improved role and salary within that airline) whilst simultaneously representing the IR interests of the pilot group of that airline. These roles and responsibilities cannot be shared without conflict of interest and opportunity for corruption.

How many Chief Pilots (a coveted company position) have moved into that role after working as a union rep on group pilot contract negotiations? How many other union reps have immediately received company appreciation and / or promotion after facilitating sub standard pilot working agreements? Whilst few are actually corrupt, perhaps all are part of a very weak negotiating framework (on the pilot side).

Pilot group contract negotiating representatives should be appropriately qualified lawyers hired directly by the pilots they represent and not employed by the airline they need to sit across the table from in negotiation.

Beer Baron
10th Apr 2018, 23:37
why then are you wasting AIPA members funds fighting the rule change?

When an entity essentially sets out to destroy your organisation and take all your members you can;
a) resist them, or
b) assume they will fail and hence do nothing.

I know what choice a competent union would make.

gordonfvckingramsay
11th Apr 2018, 00:48
Pilot group contract negotiating representatives should be appropriately qualified lawyers hired directly by the pilots they represent and not employed by the airline they need to sit across the table from in negotiation.
Totally agree Free Thinker!

When I mentioned that exact thing to my union, I was told that "only pilots can truly appreciate the clauses being discussed during the meetings". That sounds like code for "we don't want to expend the resources required to do that".

Aren't unions supposed to be the barrier that separates employees from the punitive claws of the employer anyway?

megan
11th Apr 2018, 00:49
Megan if you want to communicate with me then send me a PMWhy would I WANT to communicate with you? I merely offered to provide the real information to prove your allegation incorrect, but I'm not going to do that unless I know to whom the information going, for reasons you should be perceptive enough to guess.

Don Diego
11th Apr 2018, 04:30
You put it out there and you won't follow it up. P$ss off you dingbat.
P.S. you can only be had up for libel if what you are stating is incorrect, so aren't you so sure now??

ruprecht
11th Apr 2018, 04:40
You put it out there and you won't follow it up. P$ss off you dingbat.
P.S. you can only be had up for libel if what you are stating is incorrect, so aren't you so sure now??

Is this the unity I hear so much about?

Don Diego
11th Apr 2018, 06:38
Sorry Ruprecht, I guess this is a rumour network so one should never be asked to substantiate even the wildest claims.:mad:

megan
11th Apr 2018, 07:10
one should never be asked to substantiate even the wildest claimsSD, you're the dingbat around here. I offered to give you the information subject to you identifying yourself, it's not for general broadcast because personalities are involved, and they would not wish to be publicly identified. If you have no wish to take up the offer that's your problem, no one elses. You one of the AFAP involved? They do have form if you recall history.Is this the unity I hear so much about? It would be a first if that were the case.

LeadSled
11th Apr 2018, 10:10
So as for RAPAC back in 1980 it wouldn't have made a rats ar#e difference to you blokes whether or not gliders gave full position reports so why mention it

Don D,
Why, because it was an example of the OSB, ie: Qantas pilots, giving a rats about GA and other light aviation, when the domestic "airline" pilots didn't and mostly still don't give a damn for rational risk management, only their own immediate "perceived" risks and interests and anybody else is supposed to lump it.

One thing I mentioned in an early post was all the all the impediments to progress that was AFAP "policy", go back and have a look at what I actually said there. In this day and age, can you imagine still having only "steam driven" instruments, because of the AFAP "ban" on "glass', because it was going to make us all epileptics because of something called flicker.

The OSB certainly did object to our funds being spent on anti-technological progress fights that were directly contrary to our interests, like demanding Flight Engineers on B767. (or three pilot B737).

Not to spending funds on GA matters, GA got short shrift from Ansett/TAA.

As I said in the same post, I supported a US ALPA like structure, not a split, but no way the domestics were going to have that, the "two airline" cost plus technically regressive mentality was all pervading.

Fundamentally, I don't see that the AFAP has changed, deep down, despite any apparent structural changes, the underlying Australian aviation Galapagos mindset is still very evident.

P.S. you can only be had up for libel if what you are stating is incorrect, so aren't you so sure now??


You are obviously not an expert in libel, either??

Tootle pip!!

LeadSled
11th Apr 2018, 11:39
Revisionists take note. AIPA didn’t exist pre 1981. To those boasting about how good the Qantas agreement is, understand that your agreement finds its foundations from the AFAP agreements pre 1981. AIPA built on the strong foundations that can be found in the agreements pre-split. The young Qantas pilots deriding the AFAP may want to acknowledge that much of the contract they currently work under has its roots in the very union they are decrying. Understand your history; AIPA was created from a splinter faction of a much larger and stronger pilots union.

Tony the Tiler et al,
Let's put a few things straight.

Firstly, it was the Overseas Branch of AFAP that put together the first and subsequent North American style Qantas contracts, not AFAP head office in Melbourne.

Be quite clear, these were the same pilots and employed staff that became AIPA, because we could not live with the regressive "policies" of the (largely) Melbourne based domestics.

Any "strong foundations" and they were, were the work of the OSB pilots, not anybody else, often with the active and very negative attempts at intervention by domestics and Melbourne based staff.

There were very big divergences between the domestic AN/TN contracts of the day, to cater for the very different flying Qantas did, there were no 8/10/16/18 day single trips for AN/TN.

So, the AIPA only "walked away" with their own efforts, including the necessary appearances before Aircrew Officers Industrial Tribunal.

There never was any love lost between the AN/TN group and pilots employed by Qantas, it always was quite nasty, and in my view, coming in as an outsider in 1965, largely fomented by the AN/TN group in Melbourne, not by any particular sins of commission or omission by members of the OSB. That last opinion based on my original membership of the NSW branch of AFAP, my moving to the OSB only came two years later.

In too many of the posts on this thread I still see the aggressively and mindlessly anti- Qantas pilots (which now includes much of TN) attitude that was so evident all those years ago.

If AFAP were serious about reforming a single pilot union in this era, they are going about it exactly the wrong way.

Tootle pip!!

PS: In those days (60s/70s) the highest paid pilots in Australia were a small and select group of Ansett pilot, NOT Qantas. I make that statement based on the fact that, back in the day, as OSB Treasurer, I had access to all detailed AFAP financial information. It was a real rip-off of junior pilots and the company.

Arthur D
11th Apr 2018, 12:06
Lead sled, great to hear the history (I mean that, no sarcasm intended).

What I also heard was a lot about AN/TN self interest. At the end of the day, was it not self interest that lead GW, TJ et al together with QF Management at the time to form AIPA?

At that time, Qantas was the only international airline headquartered in Australia, hence Australian International Pilots Association.

AIPA at that time represented a very small percentage of Australian Airline pilots. Today it is very different, AIPA represents pilots whose airline brand controls nearly two thirds of the Australian domestic market, the very market its founders were determined to walk away from.

I think (happy to stand corrected) you have also expressed the opinion that many ex TN AIPA members would prefer to return to AFAP? If so, why should they be denied that choice? Why should AIPA not be forced to compete for its membership dollars, as it has forced AFAP to do in many other airlines ie JQ, NWA, EAA, SSA and even Virgin (come on, lets be honest, AIPA was knee deep in the formation of VIPA)?

I don’t believe competition is a bad thing, even in unions. I am more worried about a scenario where one union, whose structure and rules facilitates one dominant pilot group controlling the agenda as against all union members receiving equal representation.

At the end of the day, AUSALPA can still be the umbrella for issues which suit the common cause.

LeadSled
11th Apr 2018, 15:44
Arthur D,
I don't really know enough about the current situation to make a useful comment on your points, but even the US ALPA has not been universal, with quite a variety of representation models in US developing over the years.

Do the "TN" pilots want out of AIPA and back to AFAP, given AFAP recent performance, why?? To have two unions fighting each other in one airline is a gift to the airline's industrial mob.

Aviation is too small in Australia already, but AFAP attitudes are hardly helpful, they are more likely exacerbate division than heal.
AFAP's contribution on the consultative bodies, in which I have been involved over many years has generally been negative.

The few Virgin pilots I recently worked with on technical issues seem to be happy with their current arrangement, but are they representative of feelings within VIPA, I can't tell from such a small sample.

What I do know is the visceral sectoral hatreds that seem to bedevil aviation (not just airlines) in Australia do the sector no good at all, it is almost like religious doctrinal differences.

Such stark separation simply does not exist anywhere else that I have personal experience, which is UK, CA and US.

Tootle pip!!

PS:
Re. formation of AIPA, re-read what I said about AFAP technical "policies" and how disastrous they would have been for Qantas, these were major issues for our jobs and futures.. As for the personalities, the AFAP President at the time did a great job of throwing fuel on the fire, and he was not short of barrackers in Melbourne. As for "Qantas" supporting the split, if you mean the corporation broadly, I don't think they cared too much, if you mean Flight Operations, the formation of AIPA was well supported from top to bottom, I only recall one management dissenter, and he was anti unions period.

Beer Baron
11th Apr 2018, 21:12
I think (happy to stand corrected) you have also expressed the opinion that many ex TN AIPA members would prefer to return to AFAP?
I certainly didn’t pick that up from any of the posts here. Quite the opposite sentiment has been posted by others.

C441
12th Apr 2018, 01:50
I think (happy to stand corrected) you have also expressed the opinion that many ex TN AIPA members would prefer to return to AFAP?

As of today there are probably fewer than 10% (maybe less than 5%) of the original TN pilots within the mainline body of Qantas pilots - fewer still if you include the regionals and other Qlink entities.

Going through the process of enabling AFAP to represent those pilots, and the others who may wish to join them, would be inefficient and probably counter-productive when compared to those pilots lobbying their closest* AIPA CoM member to negotiate for the same outcome.

* By closest, I mean any of those of the same rank, on the same fleet, same seniority, same background, same base preference, same age and family demographic…….

Without wishing to sound disparaging, most Pilot association CoM members, AFAP or AIPA, are usually there for somewhat selfish reasons - looked at the right way, that's a good thing. Some are more selfish than others!! The point is though, that these days, you can nearly always find a CoM member to represent your interests as it will often serve their's too.

Don Diego
13th Apr 2018, 04:59
Hey Lead, you assert that Q pilots contributed 60% of the money right?? Revenue from subscriptions as shown on the audited accounts shows a drop of only 9% the year after your departure, please explain.

LeadSled
13th Apr 2018, 09:19
DD,
Are you seriously suggesting that, immediately before the split, OSB pilots dues were only 9% of the dues paid by AFAP members??
To make an informed comment, I would have to see the figures over several years, but the above seems highly unlikely.

Regardless, it is hardly relevant to the current discussion, what AFAP are trying to pull on, and why anybody would think that AFAP could (based on their track record) do a better job for QF pilots than AIPA.

Tootle pip!!

Don Diego
13th Apr 2018, 10:24
Hey Lead, what needs to be explained?? The audited accounts for the year after you blokes left shows a 9% reduction in subscription revenue!! You can remember what year you left so there you go, just explain the 60% you claim you blokes contributed to get 20% of the vote. While I am here could you take to where exactly in this thread I have been critical of AIPA??

blow.n.gasket
13th Apr 2018, 13:19
Interesting figures there Don,
What did the audited accounts show for 1979 and , 1983, that should give a better account of what the OSB contribution was pre/post split , taking out any transitional subscription anomalies should it not ?

LeadSled
13th Apr 2018, 15:57
DD,
Regardless of whatever spin you want to put on it, the "domestics" blocked any reforms that we could live with at Convention, that made the split inevitable.

Neither you, nor any of the other AFAP critics of the split want to address the sundry technical bans that AFAP maintained, which were a complete disaster for Qantas fleet plans ---- how about you find an excuse for that issue --- I have mentioned most of the major items.

This kind of nonsense technical objection to change by "domestics" is not new.

It reminds me of when I first returned to Australia in mid-1960's, the "domestics" were waging a furious battle against the adoption of VOR --- the "technical objections" were quite hilarious for an outsider --- or any members of the Qantas rosters.

VOR was going to cause all sorts of problems, generally the "end of aviation as we know it". No way were they going to permit the doing away with the trusty VAR.

Tootle pip!!

virginexcess
14th Apr 2018, 00:47
I've only briefly scanned the posts on this thread, but (correct me if I'm wrong) the general gist seems to be a fairly substantial pissing contest about who did what to whom and when, sometime in the distant past.
To add my two cents worth, history is important insofar as we should learn from it, but we should not let it dictate our path to the future. I find it terribly discouraging that there is so much venom and vitriol thrown around, when (at its core) the thread really is about building a better future for Australian pilots.

I have some experience from within one of the Australian unions, and that experience has led me to the conclusion that what happened in the past was absolutely necessary (split of OSB from AFAP, as well as the subsequent creation of VIPA and defection of 50% plus of AFAP Virgin pilots). The reason for the Vipa/AFAP split was undoubtedly due to the AFAP executive (of the day) taking their eye off the ball with regard to Virgin pilots. You can argue all you like about the merits of forming a new union, but you can’t argue with the fact that the Virgin pilot group was seriously disenchanted with the service provided by the AFAP. If you consider more than half the existing pilots actually joined the new union and of those that remained, many did so only to protect their MBF contributions. It can be concluded that whatever the AFAP where doing for Virgin pilots, they were not doing it well.

To the credit of the current AFAP executive, this point has been recognised and they have improved their game immeasurably. As a result it can be easily argued that the formation of VIPA has positively impacted the majority of Australian pilots, if you consider that VIPA and the AFAP cover the majority of non-Qantas pilots, and I believe that the AFAP also has coverage of a significant number of Qantas group pilots through Jetstar and other affiliates.

I have no knowledge of the circumstance of the split of the OSB, but the gist seems to be similar lack of regard by AFAP exec of the day toward an important sector of their membership.

I have had many people (AFAP members) say to me over time that it is far better to deal with an issue from inside the tent than to throw the toys from the cot and start a new union. I agree that, in an ideal world, that would be true and would be the preferred path. History seems to suggest the Feds have shown that it is too difficult to achieve.

That’s the short form history.

My other experience has been that it appears obvious to me that all Australian pilots, having benefitted from the splits of the past, would now benefit from a single union. That is born from the observation that industrial muscle comes through the weight of numbers alone. No other aspect of a union has as much influence. Solid financial muscle to fight legal battles is the next most important. Unions are terribly expensive to run and by having three major aviation unions, along with a couple of minor ones, precious finances are being wasted through replication of many costs.

There is no doubt that AIPA has by far the greatest corporate knowledge of the Qantas group, and no other body could hope to understand their issues as well as they do. VIPA probably doesn't have the same grip on Virgin issues, but as a single airline union it could be argued they have a pretty clear focus. The AFAP, while having excellent industrial staff, are across just about every EBA and company in the country, and as such are probably more about just getting through each EBA rather than being really invested in any particular pilot or company. Regardless of that they have substantial membership and resources. So any move toward a single union would absolutely need to incorporate all those valuable resources and corporate knowledge contained in each entity.

We are now in the early stages of a massive global shortage of pilots. The industry cannot train its way out of this in the short term due to the long lead times to recruit and train pilots along with the declining interest in the industry by job seekers. Australian airlines have long sat in the comfort zone of knowing that Australia produces good pilots through the GA and Military sectors which, combined with our high standard of living, has provided a solid pipeline of future pilots. It is obvious that this has changed significantly over the last few decades where we now see the country’s premier airline having to do roadshows to Kununurra and Alice to try and attract candidates. With the pipeline drying up and global airlines having to increase packages substantially to attract experienced pilots, the environment has never been better for Australian pilots to start clawing back many of the conditions lost over the preceding decades.

It has to be acknowledged that Australian airlines operate in a global marketplace, therefore if their cost base gets too far out of balance it will make it difficult for them to compete internationally. That same issue does not apply to domestic businesses. At present we often see domestic airfares so cheap that the cheapest part of the journey is the air ticket, with parking or transport to the airport being more expensive than the flight itself. It is ludicrous that Australian domestic pilots are working their arses off just to provide cheaper and cheaper tickets to the public.

My view is that the only way to address this is for Australian pilots to fight in unison for better conditions across the spectrum. From GA to QF Long Haul, and everything in between. It is difficult for Virgin pilots to argue for increases when their managers point to the bottom line and say they can’t afford it because Qantas are kicking their arses commercially. It is not the fault of the pilots that the management can’t compete. Virgin pilots do the same job as Qantas pilots and Jetstar pilots and Tiger pilots and all other pilots, and that is getting their passengers and cargo safely from A to B. If Australian pilot conditions were consistent across the spectrum, it would simply be a cost of business that has to be passed on to consumers, and if the consumers don’t like it then they don’t have to buy a ticket. We’re all aware that it costs less to fly now than ever before, and part of that has come through the degradation of our conditions. It will only stop when we stop fighting amongst ourselves.

Much of the previous argument in this thread is based on the merits of having representation that is focused on specific airline issues. i.e AIPA looks after QF issues, VIPA after Virgin etc. and having a single union would necessarily mean that internal politics would influence the allocation of resources inevitably resulting in one group being disadvantaged to the benefit of another. History suggests that is what bought about the current situation and I agree that is a concern.

That said, if we look at how the AFAP have dealt with VIPA it seems to provide a template on how we could proceed. The AFAP formed a Virgin specific group. I think it’s the Virgin Pilot Council, but don’t quote me on that. By doing that they ensured that they had a tool to compete with VIPA’s 100% Virgin focus, guaranteeing AFAP’s Virgin members that they were getting the Company specific support they were looking for.

Given that AUSALPA already exists, albeit seemingly irrelevant to the industry, why couldn’t we all form up under that umbrella with individual groups formed to look after specific interests. It could be started from a blank canvas or incorporate existing norms. For example we could set it up on an airline group basis such as QF, Virgin, Rex etc, with a GA section for the smaller operators. Or it could be done on a domestic, international, GA type structure, who knows. My point being that if we were all in the same tent, demanding the same conditions for all pilots across each sector, we would stand a much better chance of improving conditions for everyone. Companies would have to deal with it and pass costs on to the public. There is no rule that says Australians are entitled to ever decreasing airfares so why are we letting ourselves bear the brunt of CEO’s trying to further their own self-interest. It’s pretty obvious that CEO’s have used favourable conditions in the past to erode our conditions, and when the opportunity arose they did so mercilessly if we consider the J* and Tiger experience. The wheel has turned and we need to exploit it in the same manner as the Corporate world did when they had the advantage.

I’m not suggesting this would be easy. This thread clearly shows there is a lot of bad blood and ego involved, but in order to improve our conditions in the manner we would all like, we have to look past that and work towards a better future together rather than as a splintered force. There is no doubt management are laughing their arses off at us as we dilute our industrial strength across multiple unions. A clear and present danger to all of us are 457 visas. If we spoke as one voice and engaged the best industrial lawyers and lobbyists in the country to represent us, we would stand a much better chance of controlling that argument than where we currently stand, being dictated to by the government. There is no doubt Joyce and Borghetti have government lobbyists, and they are getting their way. If we don’t hit back with force, we’ll find ourselves under threat from any pilot with a licence looking for a free ticket to live in Australia and weakening our position along the way. We are probably going to need foreign pilots in the future, but let’s get them here on our terms, not theirs.

For me, a single high level representative body that incorporates separate entities to look after specific sectors of our industry would be a significant improvement on our current situation and I would definitely support it. Funding could be allocated in line with member contributions, but importantly the higher paid airline pilots should be prepared to assist the grassroots GA pilots. Anything of substance needs a good foundation. Good GA conditions are necessary to underpin good airline conditions. Not every pilot wants the tedium of airline flying, but most aspire to it simply for the money. If GA and third tier RPT conditions were improved it would put pressure on airlines to improve in order to attract the quantity of pilots they need.

Make no mistake, the current environment won’t last forever. Pilotless aircraft are coming, but not soon enough to fix the problem in the foreseeable future. It is in all our interest to put differences aside and act now.

Beer Baron
14th Apr 2018, 04:09
Virginexcess, great post, great sentiment!

LeadSled
14th Apr 2018, 09:43
Virginexcess,
Great post.
Fundamentally, what you are proposing is the US ALPA style of organisation, which AFAP domestic pilots refused to consider before the AFAP OSB became AIPA.
Given the "attitudes", I would think that AIPA members would take a lot of convincing that AFAP (members and industrial staff) have really turned over a new leaf.
Entrenched cultures are very hard to reform.
Tootle pip!!

ernestkgann
14th Apr 2018, 11:54
Excellent ideas virginexcess. Each union could be constitutionally bound but financially seperate. Where required they would advocate under the overall name, AUSALPA, but would be responsible for their ongoing interests, EBAs etc

virginexcess
15th Apr 2018, 01:41
AIPA was formed in 1981. Malcolm Fraser was Prime minister and I was barely out of high school.

The Liberal Party was thrown out, re-elected, thrown out and again in power in the period since then.

If politics at the highest level can overcome historical biases and grievances, then there is no reason why we can't do it as well. There cannot be many left that were personally involved in the split from AFAP, so if the depth of feeling is still high, it can only be from others carrying the torch for those who legitimately hold grudges.

The leadership of both organisations has changed many times since then, so there should be no genuine animosity toward the incumbent individuals. Consider the relationship between Japan and the USA, or the UK and Germany. Surely there could be no greater hurdle to overcome than having been at war with another nation, yet all those nations have put national pride and genuine grievance aside in the national interest. Or in other words, in the interests of their constituents.

Surely we can do the same. At the end of the day it is leadership that is required. Unions are only people at the end of the day. Sure they have their individual cultures, but people can be convinced to take a better path when good leaders stand up and lead.

I understand Pprune is no longer a particularly useful tool for conveying serious information, yet it is still somewhat representative of actual opinions and perceptions. I find it enormously disappointing that there is such a lack of will among pilots to be conciliatory in the interests of progress, rather than inflammatory in the interests of perpetuating old grudges. These are general comments by the way, not aimed at your good self.

That aside, as you have stated, models already exist for more united workforce. I hear you when you say the AFAP have previously rejected that model, but make no mistake, the Feds only have to look at the fractured landscape which they had a lot of input into creating, to understand their AFAP first approach has not been in their best interests. I'm pretty sure they would now be open to a discussion on the subject.

What is needed is cool heads and, as always, compromise will be required. It is a huge irony that the most important role of all the unions is negotiation, yet we seem incapable of negotiating between ourselves for a better future.

I would consider the biggest barrier to progress is the pilots themselves and their general apathy toward unions. If the pilot wanted it, they would make sure they voted in the right representatives to progress it.

E.K.Gann
There you go, a couple of ideas already that can be built upon

Tuner 2
15th Apr 2018, 02:33
Well said virginexces, however the AFAP's version of achieving one union seems to be more akin to the 'gun to the head' negotiating style not uncommon of airline management, rather than what you're suggesting.

CaptCloudbuster
15th Apr 2018, 03:11
I’m a QF 737 Pilot and have read through this entire thread and offer the following.

Virginexcess expresses what would happen in an idealised word that I’d like to see happen.

LeadSled has provided some detailed well reasoned history.

If the AFAP want me to change completely the Professional Association that (despite some rough patches) has served me very well over the past 20 years then they by their actions and inactions (and the angry Protagonists here) are in fact achieving the opposite.

“You catch more flies with honey than vinegar”

mrdeux
15th Apr 2018, 03:15
There is not the slightest chance of my joining the AFAP.

I guess this comes up about now just to stir up some division approaching EBA time.

LeadSled
15th Apr 2018, 03:22
I would consider the biggest barrier to progress is the pilots themselves ----- Virginexcess,
Never was a truer word said.
Particularly that pilot cohort who only know Australian aviation, and who have a determination to remain supremely ignorant of what happens outside Australia.
This goes to all facets, not just industrial matters, a default negativity towards any reform.
I would not bet on this lamentable situation changing any time soon, despite the very occasional bright spot, as it has changed little in my 50+ years of active involvement.
Tootle pip!!

Don Diego
16th Apr 2018, 00:11
Have any of you naysayers bothered to actually find out what this is all about or are you content to just keep heaping sh%t on everything AFAP?? Lead, Tuner, Is & Beer Baron??

Berealgetreal
16th Apr 2018, 00:37
Virgin 737 and Qantas 737 negotiators in the same room swapping notes and ideas for EBA time wouldn't yield any good results would it? Better off carrying on about 1966 or what ever year it was..:ugh:

Bizarre.

tail wheel
16th Apr 2018, 00:54
Very true Don Diego!

I don't have a dog in the fight, no real interest in the outcome, but much of the debate seems focused on the concept of the AFAP "taking over" union responsibility for all pilots of Australian registered aircraft.

Surely the concept could only be a merger of both unions, if the majority of members of each of the two unions individually agreed? :confused: :confused:

Berealgetreal
16th Apr 2018, 02:04
Merger is what I heard. Take over sounds dramatic and helps naysayers.

megan
16th Apr 2018, 02:05
just keep heaping sh%t on everything AFAP?Might it be that the brand name "AFAP" comes with too much history and baggage attached? Just asking.

Roj approved
16th Apr 2018, 02:22
I think something we all need to think about is “who’s looking after the new pilots?”

Are we giving back to the profession by making sure new CPL’s have some assistance, guidance and representation for the minefield that is GA?

The membership rates of GA instructors and charter pilots is very low, and they are the ones that could use an industrial helping hand the most. History will show these folks will only join when they already have an issue, ie: they’ve been sacked, or underpaid, maybe if they had some guidance earlier, they could avoid the situation.

Should be looking to foster a culture amongst these new CPL of joining a union? As they progress in their careers they can, if they choose, become an active member of the appropriate pilot council.

If they join QF or VA or even JQ, Q’link (DH8) etc, they can then choose which union is for them, be it AIPA, VIPA, TWU etc, but at least they will have some first hand experience with Unions and be able to make an informed decision.

This could foster a co operative attitude toward each other rather than the long held animosity about something that happened long ago.

We are heading into an employment cycle we haven’t seen for a while, with all the companies playing the same IR games, this is not a time for us to be fighting each other.

If the unions can then have a co operative relationship under AusAlpa, then maybe we all have a chance.

Remember:
4743

Don Diego
16th Apr 2018, 07:23
Roj approved,
answer 1- not AIPA or VIPA.
answer 2- see answer 1.

Hey Lead, do you remember Capt. Smithwell??

Beer Baron
16th Apr 2018, 08:58
Have any of you naysayers bothered to actually find out what this is all about or are you content to just keep heaping sh%t on everything AFAP?? Lead, Tuner, Is & Beer Baron??
Yes Don Diego, I do know what this is all about and I stand by all of my previous comments. I have not ‘heaped sh%t’ on AFAP at all, I have only called out the false narrative that you are letting run about this move.

I don’t know why you guys are being so coy about the plans if they are so innocent. AFAP don’t want their members quitting AFAP and joining AIPA when they get a job at Qantas. This will also allow current Qantas pilots/AIPA members to join/swap to AFAP.

So what is this NOT about; ‘Unity’
This is nothing to do with the pilot unions of Australia working together for the betterment of the industry. This is AFAP wanting to cover pilots who would have otherwise been covered by AIPA. It is a zero sum game.

Some posters have tried to suggest that this is in some way a merger or AFAP wanting to work together with AIPA. Will you admit that it is nothing of the sort?

Others have spoken about how good it would be if Qantas pilots and Virgin pilots could work constructively together to improve both their situations. Well this happens already today under AusALPA. A broadening of this sort of collaboration as eloquently described by virginexcess is entirely possible. But will you admit that this is NOT what AFAP is attempting?

AFAP has not reached out to AIPA at all to work together for the industry. And if that is some sort of stage 2 of this plan then starting out by trying to dilute AIPA’s coverage of Qantas pilots seems a very odd way of trying to form closer bonds.

LeadSled
16th Apr 2018, 09:33
DD,
I remember Bert Smithwell very very well, an old fashioned gentleman. Last I heard, Bert was flying with RAOz.
And, of course, I also know his son, Ken.
Tootle pip!!

Tuner 2
16th Apr 2018, 09:45
Yes Don Diego, I do know what this is all about and I stand by all of my previous comments. I have not ‘heaped sh%t’ on AFAP at all, I have only called out the false narrative that you are letting run about this move.

I don’t know why you guys are being so coy about the plans if they are so innocent. AFAP don’t want their members quitting AFAP and joining AIPA when they get a job at Qantas. This will also allow current Qantas pilots/AIPA members to join/swap to AFAP.

So what is this NOT about; ‘Unity’
This is nothing to do with the pilot unions of Australia working together for the betterment of the industry. This is AFAP wanting to cover pilots who would have otherwise been covered by AIPA. It is a zero sum game.

Some posters have tried to suggest that this is in some way a merger or AFAP wanting to work together with AIPA. Will you admit that it is nothing of the sort?

Others have spoken about how good it would be if Qantas pilots and Virgin pilots could work constructively together to improve both their situations. Well this happens already today under AusALPA. A broadening of this sort of collaboration as eloquently described by virginexcess is entirely possible. But will you admit that this is NOT what AFAP is attempting?

AFAP has not reached out to AIPA at all to work together for the industry. And if that is some sort of stage 2 of this plan then starting out by trying to dilute AIPA’s coverage of Qantas pilots seems a very odd way of trying to form closer bonds.

Spot on. The suggestion that this is a strategic move by AFAP to force AIPA into unity talks is bizarre. Clearly that message hasn't translated to AIPA since they are disputing the rule change. If the grand plan is for merger talks then why not just come out and say so, rather than locking in a course of conflict?

Don Diego
16th Apr 2018, 13:34
Hey BB if post #14 is friendly is guess you were just working up to the declaration of war?? Have you ever stopped to think that these new hires may have been satisfied with the AFAP and that they don't want to join the AIPA??
The AIPA assisted VA pilots to roll their own so that those pilots (VA) had a choice, hello VIPA, and they tried the same with the regionals but failed miserably. So it is good for VA pilots to have a choice (because it took members away from the AFAP) but let us not allow any choice if it is going to take AIPA members. If this one doesn't get up there will be another and another and another so hope you are in for the "long haul". I would be more concerned about your boss and his attempts to turn your operation into a "virtual" airline than I would about what the AFAP is up to.
Hey Lead, so you OB lads managed to get your man elected even though those no good domestic chaps dominated proceedings? Perhaps it was all just a myth and way more equitable than you make out?

Tankengine
16th Apr 2018, 14:43
How about a compromise, those VA pilots that feel they should stay with the AFAP also stay at Virgin.
Those VA pilots who want to fly for Qantas join AIPA (like probably 99% of Qantas pilots).
That way everyone is happy! ;)

LeadSled
16th Apr 2018, 15:19
Perhaps it was all just a myth and way more equitable than you make out?
DD,
In that era, Bert Smithwell was not the only OSB President of the AFAP, that didn't have the slightest impact on voting for any reform at convention.

You keep completely ignoring the various AFAP operational bans that would have made Qantas fleet expansion, B767, impossible --- why is that??

As I have said, several times, that was one of the "make or break" issues, and AN/TN were completely intractable, AN got their F/E B767, we were not going to wear that sort of bullsh*t.

I was there, and not fundamentally a supporter of the split, originally, were you???

Tootle pip!!

virginexcess
16th Apr 2018, 22:41
Hey BB if post #14 is friendly is guess you were just working up to the declaration of war?? Have you ever stopped to think that these new hires may have been satisfied with the AFAP and that they don't want to join the AIPA??
The AIPA assisted VA pilots to roll their own so that those pilots (VA) had a choice, hello VIPA, and they tried the same with the regionals but failed miserably. So it is good for VA pilots to have a choice (because it took members away from the AFAP) but let us not allow any choice if it is going to take AIPA members. If this one doesn't get up there will be another and another and another so hope you are in for the "long haul". I would be more concerned about your boss and his attempts to turn your operation into a "virtual" airline than I would about what the AFAP is up to.
Hey Lead, so you OB lads managed to get your man elected even though those no good domestic chaps dominated proceedings? Perhaps it was all just a myth and way more equitable than you make out?

You really don’t want to let the AFAP cover mainline members, that’s will only make things worse, not better. I can’t put it any clearer than IR 101 for management of pilots is “divide and conquer”. Doing it to yourselves is only playing into their hands. There is no doubt that there would be a lot of hostility between the AFAP and AIPA, if the Feds were present at mainline EBA. If you are fighting amongst yourselves, the company will slaughter you. Given the concessions made for the 787, and the changed market conditions, QF pilots need to speak with only one voice and stick it to Mr Joyce.

Don Diego
16th Apr 2018, 22:57
Hey Lead, already answered your last question and therein lies the clue to the other ?? The only tech issue I will comment on is the 767 and you hit the nail on the head.
Virginexcess, so what do you say to those AFAP who wish to stay so throughout their Q career?? The way it is right now the Co is just waiting for them (AIPA) to stick their heads up so they (Co) can give them an absolute hiding. Sad but true.

LeadSled
17th Apr 2018, 04:01
Hey Lead, already answered your last question and therein lies the clue to the other ?? The only tech issue I will comment on is the 767 and you hit the nail on the head.

DD,
What does all that mean?? What comments about the B767. Many various other bans and restrictions were really very important to real world (outside the two airline agreement) operations.

The OSB, over a whole range of issues, could no longer live with the AFAP Melbourne dictated policies. Hence the final unfortunate outcome.

I have had many years since experience of the AFAP representational activities, nothing to do with AIPA, and outside the industrial sphere --- and all I can say is that they are invariably negative, with a vehement defence of the status quo being the default position. No matter how out of step with the rest of the world.

In all of the above activities, the AIPA representative always, in my experience, took logical and considered positions, based where necessary, on rational risk assessment.

As I hope I have made clear, one (but only one) of the most indefensible AFAP positions was demands that "perceptions of risk" receive a regulatory response, even when it was formally admitted/agreed that the risk DID NOT exist.

Another that comes to mind was demand that the word "MANDATORY" precede much regulatory material, based on the claim that the "Australian culture" was that a law only had to be complied with if it was stated as being "mandatory". ONLY the AFAP has come up with the preposterous idea that a statutory provision need ONLY be complied with if it is preceded by "mandatory".

A useful contrast was the AIPA acceptance of ICAO airspace reform and the NAS, versus AFAP complete opposition to such change ----- and I did mention the matter of the opposition to the introduction of VOR, did I not??

I was there, were you??

Quite frankly, over many years, with its entrenched culture, the AFAP has, in my opinion, been its own worst enemy.

Tootle pip!!

virginexcess
17th Apr 2018, 04:25
DD

That gets back to my first post where we need an umbrella organisation that encompasses unions/organisations that represent pilots from specific sectors and/or Companies. Income protection/Loss of Licence/MBF funds could be amalgamated so that swapping from one representative body to another is penalty free, that way, as a pilot changes employer they can be part of the organisation that is most relevant to their employment, but still have continuation of their chosen Licence protection fund.

For us to be as effective as possible in furthering our profession, we need to speak to each management group with one voice and I believe that is done most effectively through a single representative body.

If the AFAP is indeed proposing to hang on to members that are moving to Qantas, then I would expect that will have negative long term consequences for QF pilots.

We need some progressive thinkers from all unions who are prepared to hammer out a solution to the problem. The barrier to getting this done is that most trade unions are focused on self interest first and member interest second, and I admit that would be very hard to change. The only way it can change is for members to want it and to get organised and demand it.

At present I doubt there is enough will amongst members to do it, but it starts with conversations like these and it takes time.

gordonfvckingramsay
17th Apr 2018, 05:52
How many organizations does the medical industry have to represent doctors?

Night Bandit
17th Apr 2018, 06:14
The AFAP's change to their rules was merely to enable current AFAP members from the Regionals, RFDS and GA going into Qantas to retain their membership and consequently their MBF loss of licence coverage. It was never to take over the current AIPA coverage.

Tuner 2
17th Apr 2018, 07:05
The AFAP's change to their rules was merely to enable current AFAP members from the Regionals, RFDS and GA going into Qantas to retain their membership and consequently their MBF loss of licence coverage. It was never to take over the current AIPA coverage.

As opposed to changing the MBF rules to allow them to stay in the MBF? Which wouldn't require a FWC dispute.

Keg
17th Apr 2018, 07:08
Bang. Tuner 2 nails it.

megan
17th Apr 2018, 07:38
most trade unions are focused on self interest first and member interest secondThat certainly came across when the Norm Gallagher threat was made to us in the early '80's, the threat being the reason we dropped the AFAP and formed our own union. We gained state recognition, but not federal because of Bob Hawke's mega union policy at the time. In any event, we ended up dropping our self created union a decade later and came to other arrangements with the company. A search a few days ago found the AFAP was still ratifying our award two decades after we and the company ceased our association.the AFAP has, in my opinion, been its own worst enemyAmen, at least by my experience close to four decades ago.

virginexcess, can only say :ok: to your posts. Eloquently put.

Beer Baron
17th Apr 2018, 13:30
AFAP's change to their rules was merely to enable current AFAP members from the Regionals, RFDS and GA going into Qantas to retain their membership and consequently their MBF loss of licence coverage.
Retaining the MBF is a bit of a red herring. Qantas already provides loss of licence insurance to Qantas mainline pilots and you can’t claim on two policies (it’s called offsetting). So there is no need for a Qantas pilot to have the AFAP MBF.

(Disclaimer; the comments above should not be relied upon as professional financial advice, everyone’s circumstances are unique and you should speak to a licensed financial planner before making any investment or insurance decisions. As a general rule do not take financial advice from pilots and certainly not on anonymous internet bulletin boards)

blow.n.gasket
17th Apr 2018, 22:16
How many organizations does the medical industry have to represent doctors?

I believe there are two unions representing Doctors in Australia ,
The AMA Australian Medical Association and the
ASMOF Australian Salaried Medical Officers Federation.

PS : there is an interesting past connection between the ASMOF and the AIPA too !
Not a bad question with some interesting similarities to what’s going on here Gordon.

itsnotthatbloodyhard
17th Apr 2018, 23:27
If this one doesn't get up there will be another and another and another so hope you are in for the "long haul".

What an excellent use of industrial time and resources that will be. :rolleyes:

virginexcess
17th Apr 2018, 23:53
Retaining the MBF is a bit of a red herring. Qantas already provides loss of licence insurance to Qantas mainline pilots and you can’t claim on two policies (it’s called offsetting). So there is no need for a Qantas pilot to have the AFAP MBF

Most pilots who want to stay in the MBF do so because of the promise of getting their contributions back when they retire. It is the single biggest factor in most pilots minds when they consider leaving the AFAP, and why the Feds are unlikely to open the MBF up to non members. They would immediately increase the risk of losing members.

This is also an insight into the psyche of pilots where they look to their unions more as an income protection provider rather than an industrial representative.

I have found it perplexing that pilots are far more concerned about a policy which very few pilots will ever utilise, than they are about the document they work under everyday.

Beer Baron
18th Apr 2018, 07:11
Most pilots who want to stay in the MBF do so because of the promise of getting their contributions back when they retire.
Ok, I didn’t realise it worked like that. I stand corrected.

Don Diego
18th Apr 2018, 09:03
Hey Lead, as previously indicated I was there (GA loser) remember? I was far more concerned with working on the sh%t sandwich that was my employer at the time but I do remember the 767 stuff and thinking how is it they want an F/E but the manufacturer doesn't?
Virginexcess, hard to disagree with one "umbrella organisation". You opine that Q pilots will be worse off in the long term if this goes ahead so are VA pilots going to be in the same boat as you have two "unions" at your place?? The thing that is amazing in this forum is the most vocal AFAP critics base their views on what happened 40 bloody years ago. I can tell you the name current AIPA president and the last few as well and have met them all too!! Lead, Baron,Tuner and Megan????
Night Bandit, yes and the whole process is being driven by MEMBERS not the staff.
Tuner, post #104 shows how out of touch you are.
Keg, missed the mark on this one.
Megan, it was the Hells Angels mate get it right or NG will haunt you.
itsnotthatbloodyhard, the union does what it's members direct it to so blame the members not the entity.
virginexcess, the FEDS have no say on what the MBF does, the two governing bodies are autonomous. The Fund would have been "opened up" as you call years ago if there was indeed any desire to do so.
Beer Baron, you ought look at the MBF rules before commenting as you have made another incorrect comment.

Tuner 2
18th Apr 2018, 09:28
How exactly does my question of changing the MBF rules versus an FWC application to change the AFAP's rules make me 'out of touch'?

If the real and sole motivation behind this is to allow former AFAP members to retain MBF access, why not just change the MBF rules to allow it?

In the meantime, attempting to dilute mainline industrial coverage across 2 unions will only serve to weaken mainline pilots' positions in bargaining that has already started in short haul and about to start in long haul. The AFAP knows nothing about mainline EBAs and I don't want them anywhere near my EBAs. There is a reason that Jetstar at its inception sought to exclude AIPA involvement and sought (and got) out a sweetheart deal with the AFAP.

LeadSled
18th Apr 2018, 10:04
---- the most vocal AFAP critics base their views on what happened 40 bloody years ago.

DD,
In the case of my views, you are clearly quite wrong. I would have thought it was clear to any reader that my experience of the AFAP, over many years to the present, was and is very negative.
It is not "forty years old".
As I made abundantly clear, this was based on technical and regulatory matters, not industrial, and the AFAP track record is long standing, consistent and generally opposed to any hint of reform, or recognizing that anything useful can be learned about aviation outside Australia's 12 mile limit.
Australian parochialism writ large.
Over many years, in my view, AFAP has been a drag on technical development.
Tootle pip!!

megan
19th Apr 2018, 01:26
Megan, it was the Hells Angels mate get it right or NG will haunt youObviously an apologist for the AFAP SD. Merely relating history, why would a body of people give up AFAP membership and launch ratification of their own union? If you know so much you can easily provide an alternative answer.

neville_nobody
19th Apr 2018, 05:34
There is a reason that Jetstar at its inception sought to exclude AIPA involvement and sought (and got) out a sweetheart deal with the AFAP

Sounds like some revisionist history happening here. I was always of the understanding that Impulse pilots approached AIPA at the time and AIPA turned them away for whatever reason.

blow.n.gasket
19th Apr 2018, 06:39
I was always of the understanding that Impulse pilots approached AIPA at the time and AIPA turned them away for whatever reason.

That’s because under the AIPA’s Constitution at the time , those pilots were ineligible
for coverage. Nothing sinister or judgemental , purely legal.

Don Diego
19th Apr 2018, 09:37
Tuner, you don't have any idea of how the MBF works otherwise you wouldn't say such things. If you can't figure out why the MBF will not "open up" their membership then write to them and ask them, I am not going to enter into the reasons here because you simply will not accept it ergo it will be a total waste of my time. In the meantime you assert that (post113) " attempting to dilute mainline industrial coverage across 2 unions will only serve to weaken mainline pilots' positions in bargaining that has already started in short haul and about to start in long haul." Is that so?? Do you really believe that?? Oh you do believe that, then perhaps you could explain why the AIPA did exactly that to the regionals back in 2004 and to VA a few years later?? Do I need to tell you the facts in both those matters or will you ring the COM and ask them??
Megan, Gallagher was so far to the left even the union movement threw him out, his only ambition in life was the complete destruction of capitalism and he (NG) saw the union movement a nothing more than a tool to get that very job done. He never had anything to do with AFAP in fact no doubt viewed them as those rotten capitalist bast#$ds.
blowngasket, so the AIPA didn't want to change their rules for Impulse but they sure as hell couldn't wait to do so when a few disgruntled EAA blokes came knocking. I wonder why that was???
So the AIPA has shot itself in the foot.The action that they took back in 04/05 and later with VA will be the very precedent that settles the matter in favour of the AFAP.

virginexcess
19th Apr 2018, 09:39
You opine that Q pilots will be worse off in the long term if this goes ahead so are VA pilots going to be in the same boat as you have two "unions" at your place??

DD

It is exactly that experience that has led me to my current thinking.

It has been my observation that there has been a lot of positives from the two unions, which has effectively been driven by competition in the market place. As a result the AFAP has had to lift its game substantially in all aspects of its operation, and it has done that admirably in most parts (my opinion).

Interestingly, the much vaunted MBF was found wanting in the face of VIPA's Loss of licence insurance, which was evidence of the complacency within the AFAP prior to the emergence of VIPA. It has been stated previously that the MBF is totally independent of the AFAP, which is technically true these days, but was not always the case. And in any case, I think it still has AFAP representation on the board (as you would expect), but I digress.

Competition between the two unions improved the services provided, but then it became clear to both unions that membership numbers would be impacted as a result of positions taken on certain Virgin issues, and both unions took that into consideration when forming positions on those issues.

I am not here to make comments on who I think was right or wrong on any of those issues, but it stands to reason that some decisions were made chasing short term outcomes, rather than developing long term strategies that would serve all pilots well going forward. Populist politics I believe is the current descriptor.

I'm not wishing to sound critical of either union for that. These are the politics that play out when a new union appears and the pool of potential members is small, but it meant that union politics drove some strategy rather than long term vision.

Now that inter-union politics seems to be less confrontational than those days, it appears to me that having two unions has weakened us from negotiating perspective.

As I stated earlier, industrial strength comes through numbers. I am not privy to membership numbers, but using the finger in the wind method, it seems membership is reasonably evenly spread across the two unions. At least I think that's what the company believes. What that means is that the Company doesn't know which union to pander to. And trust me, if they could identify one union as having the numbers, that union would have all the power.

If that situation is allowed to occur, you immediately have a split in the pilot workforce, albeit maybe only a small one. If you allow the Company to see any sort of weakness they will exploit it. If they can get the two unions fighting among themselves, it makes it just that much easier to screw the pilots.

Now, to be fair, I believe that potential threat has been managed fairly well in our case. But if you consider what would happen if one union or the other (under different leadership) started aggressively trying to poach members. Relations would break down fairly quickly I would think.

Now transpose that to QF. If the AFAP were to start muscling in on AIPA's membership base, I doubt very much that would be looked upon kindly by AIPA. I imagine there would be a fair bit of friction between the two organisations, and it would be extremely difficult to prevent that from spilling over into the EBA, as the AFAP sought to push a lopsided agenda favoring SO's, because that would be their entire constituency in the short term.

It doesn't take much imagination to see that what I have described above could happen, and in my view would take an enormous amount of consultation between the two unions to prevent it in the first instance. That was certainly the experience at Virgin where the first few EBA's were fairly confrontational.

Taking all that into account, unless there is widespread dissatisfaction among QF pilots with AIPA (as there surely was in Virgin with the AFAP) I would advocate to try and work internally with AIPA rather than invite a another union on site.

I certainly wouldn't pretend to speak for the AFAP, but I reckon if they had their time again, they would have made some changes earlier. It would not have taken much to prevent VIPA from getting a toehold, but instead they chose to fight through the courts rather than just improve their service. In the end, they improved their service anyway, and spent a lot of members money on a futile legal fight trying to stop VIPA from registering, and are financially worse off through loss of membership dues.

Now I don't pretend to have much knowledge of AIPA's history, but the previous comment that AIPA couldn't cover J* pilots due to their constitution smacks of the same sort of short sightedness that led to the creation of VIPA. Constitutions aren't that hard to change, and I suspect there may have been an air of hubris or arrogance that led to AIPA not wanting to cover J* pilots.

I get that, we are all pilots after all, and pretending we're better than the next guy is in our DNA. With my 20/20 hindsight glasses on, I think that was a mistake. But that's all it was, a mistake. We all make them, but you wouldn't want to compound it further by diluting mainline membership as well.

Again I would state that a good model is the umbrella organisation with specific rep bodies. QF could be, mainline, J* etc. Or it could be LH/SH or it could me Wide Body, narrow body, who knows. But at least you'd have one organisation to speak for you. Imagine the possibilities if we had AUSALPA WideBody that covered all Wide Body flying in Australian RPT. QF LH EBA would become the immediate benchmark and we would have a shedload of expertise to peddle it. Same if we had a AUSALPA NarrowBody, taking the best of VA and QF domestic, and the low cost arm that covered J* and Tiger. With the big picture view of improving Australian pilot conditions across the board while the opportunity exists.

Another point that I believe supports the Umbrella organisation is the cost of running unions. I would like to see our unions become more professional. At the moment AFAP and VIPA rely on a lot of volunteer workers (I'm not sure about AIPA). The problem I have with that is that volunteers are short on the ground, and the ones you get aren't always the ones you want. If pilots were paid properly for their union duties (the value they provide to their fellow pilots) I think we might get more competition for the positions. That's just a bit of a thought bubble, and I imagine there maybe some good arguments against that, but I don't see the volunteer model as being a great solution.

Cheers

Pinky the pilot
19th Apr 2018, 10:43
virginexcess; Thank you for a most insightful post!:ok::ok:


Upon reflection; remainder of post deleted.

megan
19th Apr 2018, 12:40
He never had anything to do with AFAP in fact no doubt viewed them as those rotten capitalist bast#$ds.That I don't doubt. The threat made would have been merely to kowtow we members, unfortunately for the AFAP the pilot who was our negotiator was a not long returned combat experienced aviator, as were a number of us, threats and stand over tactics were never going to work. The fiasco of the events less than a decade later was no surprise to us given our experience.

Beer Baron
19th Apr 2018, 14:55
When I was first told about AFAP’s application to cover Qantas pilots I was told it was pushed by a group of AFAP members still bitter over historical feelings of injustice relating to AIPA.

I wasn’t inclined to believe this idea.

I read this thread trying to get to the true reason but no one on the AFAP side seemed prepared to explain the motive. One had to call AFAP to be told the big secret.

Fanciful notions of ‘unity’ and ‘mergers’ were floated as good natured reasons for the move.
On speaking directly to AFAP I was given a more believable, if disappointing, reason for the application.

However, the more posts I read from Don Diego about how the OSB deserted AFAP back in the day, to AIPA stealing Q-Link members in 2004, helping Virgin pilots create VIPA, turning their back on Impulse pilots, etc. etc. And how excited Don seems at the notion of payback for all of these perceived ills. The more I wonder if that initial reason I was given is in fact far more accurate than any put forward here.

There have been far more words typed about what terrible things AIPA has done to AFAP than anything to do with what benefits AFAP will bring to Qantas pilots. Very telling.

bazza stub
20th Apr 2018, 09:56
Benefits Beer Baron? Like what? What has the AFAP done lately that benefits pilots, specifically?

Arthur D
20th Apr 2018, 14:26
BB, are you suggesting you reap what you sow?

Interesting perspective

Beer Baron
20th Apr 2018, 14:38
No, I’m suggesting that AFAP’s motives are more based on petty rivalry than advancing the interests of their members or the industry.

Your comment only reinforces that assumption.

Don Diego
21st Apr 2018, 09:34
Virginexcess, when AIPA changed their rules to cover Q regional pilots the pilots that they embarked on this for were not even their members, they had some dodgy "give us $50 now and the rest later" so there is a huge difference between then and now i.e. AFAP acting to retain it's existing members.
The bargaining power aspect is interesting, one would like to think that AIPA thought of this prior to the rule change and that if in fact there was any negative effect then they would not have proceeded. Then a few years later you could ditto VA, so either they don't consider having multiple unions covering the same group of employees in one business is counterproductive or they just don't care?? The latest stunt from their offshoot (VIPA) and the rule change there suggests to me the latter. The numbers are interesting and AFAP has considerably more members, and as I wrote earlier this is about giving those who wish to stay with AFAP the right to do so.
I am with you on the volunteer thing, it has had it's day. The notion of an umbrella type organisation is not without merit.
Beer Baron, that is just history, no hint of payback from me, too busy doing constructive things.

Lucerne
15th May 2018, 08:18
Why applaud a trade union for making any type of maneuver? The only result will be one in the best interest of either AFAP or their opposition union(s). The sooner the industry is rid of unions and union minded pilots then the better the industry will be for all.

itsnotthatbloodyhard
15th May 2018, 08:25
The sooner the industry is rid of unions and union minded pilots then the better the industry will be for all.

Your name’s not O’Leary, by any chance?

Lucerne
15th May 2018, 10:20
"Your name’s not O’Leary, by any chance?"No. No it's not.

Chadzat
15th May 2018, 10:28
Strongly, strongly, STRONGLY disagree. You arent management are you Lucerne?

Lucerne
15th May 2018, 10:43
Strongly, strongly, STRONGLY disagree. You arent management are you Lucerne?
No I'm not currently management.

Chadzat
15th May 2018, 10:57
Without getting into a unions vs no-unions thread drift here -

Why is it that in nearly every country with strong Pilot Unions the professions terms and conditions (and bonuses) are all going up strongly in this emerging global shortage.

Now look at some regions where Unions are banned or ineffective and what is happening at those companies? (Middle East, HK etc).

Unions may not be perfect but they do way more good than harm.

benttrees
15th May 2018, 12:58
Why applaud a trade union for making any type of maneuver? The only result will be one in the best interest of either AFAP or their opposition union(s). The sooner the industry is rid of unions and union minded pilots then the better the industry will be for all.

You must be drunk or seriously misinformed. Could you explain how the industry would be better off ? I like the way you say you are not “currently” in management ! Your intentions are clear.

IsDon
15th May 2018, 13:38
“Manoeuvre.”

Not that difficult to change your dictionary to English, rather than what Americans consider passes for it.

Lucerne
24th May 2018, 04:07
Without getting into a unions vs no-unions thread drift here -

Why is it that in nearly every country with strong Pilot Unions the professions terms and conditions (and bonuses) are all going up strongly in this emerging global shortage.

Now look at some regions where Unions are banned or ineffective and what is happening at those companies? (Middle East, HK etc).

Unions may not be perfect but they do way more good than harm.

In a way you have answered your own question here. You have referenced the increasing remuneration levels in the same sentence in which you have also referenced the increasing global pilot shortage. Market forces are currently allowing flight crew some bargaining power albeit limited by an equally increasing competitive, in many cases, market. This is also occurring in sectors of the aviation industry where unions do not participate and/or for flight crew who do not belong to a union. A number of these sectors do not operate in parallel to schedules as those of the airlines or similar sectors where unions allegedly determine the status quo.

If that is not the case in the Middle East or HK there are obviously flight crew showing a propensity to continue their availability within a workplace where financial reward is flowing at less than its potential. They are not negotiating effectively. This is the same phenomenon as those scenarios where newly licensed pilots render their services available for a reward in 'flying hours' as opposed to financial reward.

I don't agree at all with your last comment "Unions may not be perfect but they do way more good than harm". Many thousands of workers involved in what used to be Australia's car manufacturing industry would now be beginning to question that view. The smart ones would be at least. They too experienced "professions terms and conditions (and bonuses) are all going up strongly" until they were negotiated out of an industry by their 'illustrious' union representatives.

I firmly believe that unions inflict a great deal more harm than good upon both their members and the industries in which they participate.

Lucerne
24th May 2018, 04:13
You must be drunk or seriously misinformed. Could you explain how the industry would be better off ? I like the way you say you are not “currently” in management ! Your intentions are clear.

I don't believe I am misinformed at all and I am certainly not drunk. The industry would be far better off without the destructive influence of unions. The individual's remuneration and conditions could be negotiated far more relevantly and effectively by that individual without a union representative 'spitting poison' throughout the operations in question.

My intentions are my own. I firmly doubt that you have a clear picture of what they are at all.

Lucerne
24th May 2018, 04:15
“Manoeuvre.”

Not that difficult to change your dictionary to English, rather than what Americans consider passes for it.

Clearly you have assumed that I am not American.

Chadzat
24th May 2018, 04:24
Your last 3 posts are just absolute rubbish Lucerne. You ave obviously never tried to negotiate your own contract with an aviation company individually before. I can tell you from experience that in a profession where there is very little to really set you apart from another pilot in the same rank (in terms of what you can bring to the company different to another guy doing exactly the same job) you are negotiating from a position of very very little power.

You seem to to live in a Utopian world where apparently company’s and employees bargain at a table that is fair and just and each party respects the other one! Rubbish......

neville_nobody
24th May 2018, 06:27
The industry would be far better off without the destructive influence of unions. The individual's remuneration and conditions could be negotiated far more relevantly and effectively by that individual without a union representative 'spitting poison' throughout the operations in question.

If you mean by 'the industry', airlines you would be correct. No Union/Individual contract would see poorly remunerated, loosely defined contracts handed out on a 'take it or leave it' basis. They would take advantage of the massive cashed-up Australian Expat workforce who would take the contracts just to get home. Then they would target foreigners and those with work visas, then they will hit up the government for some imported labour.
All ranks and jobs would be viewed in isolation and to get promoted you would probably have to move airlines (and city) to gain experience at a lower pay level. Then you would have to compete with expats to get a jet command somewhere. Basically it will just become Australia GA on a grand scale with bigger aircraft and imported labour. You would also see little Cabals develop and move around the industry together, as someone gets a management gig they bring along all their mates from XYZ airline or the RAAF.

By scrapping Union contracts you would just create a massive glut in the short term and no incentive for anyone to be a pilot in the long term. Not to mention all the nepotism, commercial pressure etc that would go along with a non seniority based system.

Street garbage
24th May 2018, 06:49
Individual Contracts...pfffftttt.
Lucerne, please define "relevant" and "effective" that you mentioned in your post.
Please also define "spitting poison".
If you are not currently in Management ie you used to be, or will be, you should be able to clearly define all three of these in the context of negotiating with Unions.

Lucerne
24th May 2018, 07:36
Individual Contracts...pfffftttt.
Lucerne, please define "relevant" and "effective" that you mentioned in your post.
Please also define "spitting poison".
If you are not currently in Management ie you used to be, or will be, you should be able to clearly define all three of these in the context of negotiating with Unions.


By 'relevant' I mean a negotiation that is relevant to the individual negotiating the terms as opposed to those terms negotiated by a union thug on behalf of many. By 'effective' I mean the successful negotiation of a meaningful outcome for both parties. That is the only recipe for a sustainable agreement.

By 'spitting poison' I refer to the habit of union officials which sees them 'demand' position 'X' with regard to terms at all costs regardless of the relevance of that position to either party. This creates the divide between company and employee within which significant animosity is frequently cultivated by union representatives in order to guarantee the 'sustainability' of their own position.

I have filled numerous corporate senior management positions over the course of my career in aviation. At no time have I ever had the displeasure of dealing with a union and nor would I ever intend to.

Lucerne
24th May 2018, 07:45
If you mean by 'the industry', airlines you would be correct. No Union/Individual contract would see poorly remunerated, loosely defined contracts handed out on a 'take it or leave it' basis. They would take advantage of the massive cashed-up Australian Expat workforce who would take the contracts just to get home. Then they would target foreigners and those with work visas, then they will hit up the government for some imported labour.
All ranks and jobs would be viewed in isolation and to get promoted you would probably have to move airlines (and city) to gain experience at a lower pay level. Then you would have to compete with expats to get a jet command somewhere. Basically it will just become Australia GA on a grand scale with bigger aircraft and imported labour. You would also see little Cabals develop and move around the industry together, as someone gets a management gig they bring along all their mates from XYZ airline or the RAAF.

By scrapping Union contracts you would just create a massive glut in the short term and no incentive for anyone to be a pilot in the long term. Not to mention all the nepotism, commercial pressure etc that would go along with a non seniority based system.


By using the word 'industry' I mean all of the aviation sectors inclusively. The same would apply outside of aviation. Other industries would do well to significantly limit the reach of their associated union groups as well.

As for the other alleged outcomes that you have suggested, networking is an effective way in which to avoid exclusion as a result of just about all of them.

C441
24th May 2018, 07:58
By 'relevant' I mean a negotiation that is relevant to the individual negotiating the terms as opposed to those terms negotiated by a union thug on behalf of many. By 'effective' I mean the successful negotiation of a meaningful outcome for both parties. That is the only recipe for a sustainable agreement.

When was the last time anyone who could even remotely have been called a "union thug" was involved in a Pilot EA negotiation?

By 'spitting poison' I refer to the habit of union officials which sees them 'demand' position 'X' with regard to terms at all costs regardless of the relevance of that position to either party.

When was the last time you could genuinely suggest a Pilot union official in Australia had behaved in this manner?

Beer Baron
24th May 2018, 08:14
At no time have I ever had the displeasure of dealing with a union and nor would I ever intend to.
You really have no idea what you are talking about. Your ideas on unions are completely out of date. We are talking here about unions representing professional pilots. This is not about the CFMEU or the old Painters and Dockers. By your own admission you have had no interaction with a pilots union so your comments on their worth to the industry are based on your biased assumptions rather than reality.
“Union thugs”, “spitting poison” What ridiculousness. You certainly have an active imagination.

Street garbage
24th May 2018, 08:20
Lucerne..
Definition of thug: a violent person, especially a criminal.
EBA negotiations between AIPA and QF management are lead by pilots...
I would give to you the latest "negotiation" between AIPA and QF Management, where a "comfort letter" was given..for one reason or another, but that's for another thread..by AIPA. The Union body gained nothing. Hardly spitting poison, definitely not criminal behaviour.
Your take, like most in Management, is defined by union behaviour of the 80/90's.
"Meaningful for both parties" Really? By Individual Contract?

Lucerne
24th May 2018, 08:55
Lucerne..
Definition of thug: a violent person, especially a criminal.
EBA negotiations between AIPA and QF management are lead by pilots...
I would give to you the latest "negotiation" between AIPA and QF Management, where a "comfort letter" was given..for one reason or another, but that's for another thread..by AIPA. The Union body gained nothing. Hardly spitting poison, definitely not criminal behaviour.
Your take, like most in Management, is defined by union behaviour of the 80/90's.
"Meaningful for both parties" Really? By Individual Contract?


Yes. Really.

Lucerne
24th May 2018, 08:59
You really have no idea what you are talking about. Your ideas on unions are completely out of date. We are talking here about unions representing professional pilots. This is not about the CFMEU or the old Painters and Dockers. By your own admission you have had no interaction with a pilots union so your comments on their worth to the industry are based on your biased assumptions rather than reality.
“Union thugs”, “spitting poison” What ridiculousness. You certainly have an active imagination.



You have the right to hold your 'world view' with regard to unions in aviation Beer Baron. However, I don't share it. I simply hold an alternate view. I also have quite an informed idea regarding 'what I am talking about'.

Your attempt to insult by using the word 'ridiculousness' and siting my 'imagination' are also examples of 'spitting poison'. I therefore rest my case. Cheers.

Lucerne
24th May 2018, 09:03
When was the last time anyone who could even remotely have been called a "union thug" was involved in a Pilot EA negotiation?



When was the last time you could genuinely suggest a Pilot union official in Australia had behaved in this manner?


Quite simply the last time such representation was made.

Tankengine
24th May 2018, 09:19
Quite simply the last time such representation was made.
Which union? Have you had a psych evaluation recently?

Beer Baron
24th May 2018, 09:31
You have the right to hold your 'world view' with regard to unions in aviation Beer Baron. However, I don't share it. I simply hold an alternate view.
You have formed your view despite proudly boasting that you have never dealt with a union. My view is based on many years of close interaction with an Australian pilots union. I guess it is up to others to decide which experience would lead to a more accurate representation of reality.

And if words like ‘ridiculousness’ and ‘imagination’ are too hostile for you then it is little surprise you would rather deal with a meek and compliant workforce with nobody to stick up for them.

Lucerne
24th May 2018, 09:54
You have formed your view despite proudly boasting that you have never dealt with a union. My view is based on many years of close interaction with an Australian pilots union. I guess it is up to others to decide which experience would lead to a more accurate representation of reality.

And if words like ‘ridiculousness’ and ‘imagination’ are too hostile for you then it is little surprise you would rather deal with a meek and compliant workforce with nobody to stick up for them.


Far from it BB. I would rather deal with a workforce, and co-workers for that matter, who have the inclination to row their own boat rather than hide behind union thuggery.

fearcampaign
24th May 2018, 11:09
Mr Clifford please don’t jump online after drinking Scotch.
The majority of the pilot body would of told Qantas to get stuffed if threatened with aircraft orders without comfort letters.
It was in fact the union who panicked and gave in to unreasonable demands.
Careful what you wish for. Hardly got a militant union. To have that would take leadership, courage, organisation and some strategic ability. Been a large void after Chris Manning left and changed sides.
Enjoy your bonus and Johnny Blue. Perhaps read the children the comfort letter from AIPA tonight. Your smashing the pilots even in a global shortage. Can’t comment on the AFAP but imagine they will get plenty of members should they win in court.

Street garbage
24th May 2018, 11:31
Far from it BB. I would rather deal with a workforce, and co-workers for that matter, who have the inclination to row their own boat rather than hide behind union thuggery.
Well you obviously don't work for QF then, anyone who is not a yes man (person) (or perx) (etc) (etc) gets shown the door.
Please enlighten in your wisdom then as to what a Pilot would GAIN if offered an IC?...and how this would vary between individual pilots....last time I checked, I do the same job as everyone else of same rank and same fleet (with extremely minor variations in days worked.
Didn't go so well at Rio did it?

Street garbage
24th May 2018, 11:33
Quite simply the last time such representation was made.
I'll call that statement for what it is..complete and utter crap.

Pinky the pilot
24th May 2018, 11:39
I'll call that statement for what it is..complete and utter crap.
Seconded.

And for what it's worth, I call out Lucerne as a (management) troll.:*

Lucerne
24th May 2018, 13:21
Seconded.

And for what it's worth, I call out Lucerne as a (management) troll.:*


Not nearly PtP. Poor attempt.

Street garbage
24th May 2018, 23:46
Not nearly PtP. Poor attempt.
I'll call that for what it is..crap.
I'll ask the question again, how would a pilot be better on an IC rather than under an EBA?

itsnotthatbloodyhard
25th May 2018, 00:31
Was it the red ties, the PAs to the passengers, or the ‘continuing to monitor the situation’ that you find most disturbing, Lucerne? Because that’s about as militant and thuggish as I’ve seen AIPA get. Still, let’s not let reality get in the way of a good narrative, eh?

C441
25th May 2018, 00:45
Quite simply the last time such representation was made.
They were both quite genuine, non-aggressive questions asked as I believe the Pilot's Associations have conducted their last few - indeed most that I recall - negotiations in a civilised manner*. You obviously disagree and I'd be interested in your specific examples.

Are you referring to the 'Red tie & PA campaign' AIPA conducted? Hardly thuggery. It had little or no impact on the commercial or operational efficiency of Qantas unlike a decision made by another group (or person) at about the same time. I'd be interested in exactly which campaign you consider was overly aggressive, or from which association came a 'union official' "spitting poison". The last Qantas Longhaul EA negotiations were apparently conducted in a very cordial manner. Disagreements yes, but solutions found without any poison, bile or thuggery.

I regularly meet with a Senior official of AIPA and a Senior manager of Qantas on company business. What impresses me most about the two of them is the way they can disagree on an aspect of the business that we discuss, but in an amicable way, reach an agreed solution through formal and informal communication. More than most employees in an airline, Pilots have a long term (often 30+ year) view of the ongoing viability of the business - in most cases significantly longer term than most managers. That should be treated as a positive, not a threat!

*Unlike other groups, particularly in the building industry, of which I have recent experience.

ExtraShot
25th May 2018, 02:35
. Your attempt to insult by using the word 'ridiculousness' and siting my 'imagination' are also examples of 'spitting poison'..

Haha! Really? Wow.

neville_nobody
25th May 2018, 03:13
By using the word 'industry' I mean all of the aviation sectors inclusively. The same would apply outside of aviation. Other industries would do well to significantly limit the reach of their associated union groups as well.

The problem with the your theory is that Businesses are just likely to operate as a union as the workers are which is where your argument falls apart. The AMA, The Pharmacy Guild, The AA4A, Business Council of Australia etc etc all influence decision making for their respective members, and in some cases actively prevent competition in certain markets acting just like union.
And given how weak Pilot Unions are I would argue that most Business Unions wield more power than the pilot unions.

Di_Vosh
25th May 2018, 05:43
I'm not sure why any of you are bothering to give Lucerne any oxygen on this.

He's obviously either a Troll, Management stooge, Angel or an American (surprising amount of Americans share his views on unionised labour).

If you don't reply, he'll get the last word (and anyone of intelligence will see their lack of worth) and you can get back to discussing the thread.

DIVOSH!

Lucerne
27th May 2018, 08:00
I'll call that for what it is..crap.
I'll ask the question again, how would a pilot be better on an IC rather than under an EBA?

That would depend on the individual SG. That's the beauty of individual agreements. They are not diluted among the masses or brought down by the average.

Tankengine
27th May 2018, 09:10
That would depend on the individual SG. That's the beauty of individual agreements. They are not diluted among the masses or brought down by the average.
That shows the ignorance of what airline agreements are like that non airline pilots may have.
Apart from a very few management positions this is utter bullshit.

Lucerne
27th May 2018, 09:13
That shows the ignorance of what airline agreements are like that non airline pilots may have.
Apart from a very few management positions this is utter bullshit.



You can thank your union for that then can't you? If the non-unionised sectors allow greater flexibility of the individual agreement then that's just one reason why the unionised sectors offer disadvantage to both employers and pilots alike.

Fool Sufferer
27th May 2018, 12:43
Attempting to reason and engage in constructive discussion with the above individual appears to be an exercise in abject futility.

Hard evidence, rational argument and irrefutable fact, have nil effect on the “thinking” of a zealot and fundamentalist, for whom ideology will always trump reality.

Rated De
28th May 2018, 00:23
You can thank your union for that then can't you? If the non-unionised sectors allow greater flexibility of the individual agreement then that's just one reason why the unionised sectors offer disadvantage to both employers and pilots alike.

It is actually a very 'flexible' agreement that saw young children coal mining only a short while ago.
Perhaps the best example of 'flexible' agreements saw people turn up stand in line and hope for a job for the day. Is the modern day 'gig' economy a variant on this theme?

Unions have lost their way, captured by a political movement that increasingly is red team blue team. It matters little which side is voted for, the real wage will fall as more rent is extracted for main street feeding the insiders.
When one considers the rate of transition from unionist to politician, or indeed unionist to airline manager, the collective advancement 'promised' by membership to unions usually fails to materialise: Both sides are captive to the corporate.

Advancing the interests of a profession sometimes necessitates standing against the corporate management, not as apologists.
Interestingly SouthWest Airlines has a heavy union presence, a productive workforce and indeed remuneration that recognises the role of the need for an airline for people.

Qantas modern management represent nothing that the founders would recognise as 'leadership'. The Qantas founders would be very disappointed in the modern corporate method.
Ironically they would likely express a similar disappointment in the leadership of the labour movement.

Tuner 2
29th May 2018, 09:24
Back to the issue at hand, I heard that the AFAP may not have even correctly complied with its own rules to make the rule change - possibly throwing the whole thing out? Not sure if I would trust an organisation that might not be able to change its own rules to change my EBA.

Iron Bar
18th Jun 2018, 05:06
AFAP application dismissed by FWC today.

Tuner was right - insufficient votes for the proposed rule change under their own rules.

The good people at AFAP again embarrassed by the inept.

Ratherbefishintoday
24th Oct 2018, 23:40
The AFAP has voted to change its coverage rules to once again cover all Australian pilots. One pilot union for all Australian pilots, coverage from cradle to the grave; Student, GA, Aero-med, Charter, Rotary, Regional Airline, Domestic Airline, International Airline. Well done to the AFAP. 👍

The technicality that had the last proposal dismissed has been rectified. Thank you to AIPA, Qantas and the TWU for pointing that out🤡

ITCZ
25th Oct 2018, 09:09
You can thank your union for that then can't you? If the non-unionised sectors allow greater flexibility of the individual agreement then that's just one reason why the unionised sectors offer disadvantage to both employers and pilots alike.
Folks, why feed this troll?

Here we have a fellow that only tells us he is a pilot aged 41. He freely offers his 'opinion' whilst denigrating unions.

I'll give you a tip - he's not a man, he's not a grownup. His is the entitled mind of a teenager in a grownups body.

What is a grownup?

A grownup is someone who goes out there and pursues the right things, in their own names.

Every pilot union rep in every company has done something that this wally actively avoids.

They put their name to their actions, popular or otherwise.

Every union rep at every australian airline company is known to the management. They push for what they believe in, and sometimes things they dont believe in but their constituent members tell them they have to push for. And they do it on the public record.

I normally don't bite when [email protected] like Lucerne start spouting sh!te. Twenty first century union reps cannot be thugs - old style CFMEA thuggery gets pilots fired and out of the industry. Lucerne has his opinion and opinions are like a~~holes, everybody got one, everybody thinks theirs is important, and not too many other people are really interested in yours.

I'll start paying attention to people like Lucern's opinions when they take the step that every pilot union rep past and present has done. Grab his company ID card, hold it up and take a selfie and post it here so we know who he is, who he works for, and what he represents. The basic step every pilot union rep he critiques has taken.

My money is on the fact that he won't. He won't have the courage and won't measure up to the men and women he disparages.

machtuk
25th Oct 2018, 09:34
Australia is a heavily divided nation in all walks of life inc aviation. The grubby Co's thrive on this, to create division as it stalls any meaningful negotiations, drags it out. causes in-house bickering, division, it's just the way businesses handle the ever boiling "them & Us" scenario These days the one thing that is able to be manipulated & variable is the work force, everything else the Co's can do little about to improve their situation. Unions don't have the clout anymore as they don't have the member support. '89 proved when push comes to shove on a large scale nobody wins !

ITCZ
25th Oct 2018, 10:02
Hmm, machtuk, understandable reaction if you subscribe to some of the opinions here.
It is popular to think that division is natural.
The truth is - to the frustration of the neo-conservatives amongst us, that community and self sacrifice are common traits in the natural world, not just some groups of humans.
I'd also like to think that the professional pilots that read these pages, would not give up flying a crippled aircraft because he/she was clearly finished!
In fact I've heard of many fatals where the crews kept trying to fly their fatally crippled machine right up to the point it hit the water/ground.
They were in it, they had nothing to lose and everything to gain.
This is our industry. After 15,000hrs, 10,000 of them in jets I don't want to give up on professional aviation.
The conditions I enjoy, are conditions I inherited, off the backs of others that came before me.
I'll resist degradation, and seek improvements, using lawful means, so long as I'm in it.

theheadmaster
25th Oct 2018, 19:04
The AFAP has voted to change its coverage rules to once again cover all Australian pilots. One pilot union for all Australian pilots, coverage from cradle to the grave; Student, GA, Aero-med, Charter, Rotary, Regional Airline, Domestic Airline, International Airline. Well done to the AFAP. 👍

The technicality that had the last proposal dismissed has been rectified. Thank you to AIPA, Qantas and the TWU for pointing that out🤡

So riddle me this: how do you expect things will play out now? How exactly is this going to lead to one pilot union? Some GA pilots that think that there is benefit in the MBF may be tempted to stay with AFAP when they get a job with Qantas, but I don’t expect a significant portion of any other group to seriously contemplate AFAP as the union of choice for Qantas mainline. I can also confidently say that if this was voted up in the expectation it would ‘force’ some kind of merger, that will not happen. AIPA has the resources and experience to represent mainline pilots. A merger that kept the AFAP structure would be too much of a risk for AIPA to contemplate.

Tankengine
26th Oct 2018, 02:08
Didn’t work in 1981, REALLY didn’t help in “that year”, can’t see it working now.

Ratherbefishintoday
28th Oct 2018, 04:19
Didn’t work in 1981, REALLY didn’t help in “that year”, can’t see it working now.


Of course it can Tank. The MAIN problem here, as you have stated are the 'Pre 81 / 89' class.

Time to build a bridge:)

GWhizz
28th Oct 2018, 04:39
the AFAP structure

Can you elaborate on that?

Pinky the pilot
28th Oct 2018, 09:57
Time to build a bridgehttps://www.pprune.org/images/smilies/smile.gif

Indeed, and I have no argument with that comment, Ratherbefishingtoday. :ok:

Otherwise I fear that the day is coming where if the Professional Pilots of Australia are not all hanging together, that certain sectors of Employers of these Pilots will ensure that they all hang separately!:eek:

Who was it that coined the phrase, Divide and conquer.? :confused:

Livinthedream320
28th Oct 2018, 10:23
Simple really !

If your union isn’t representing you as they should then resind your membership with them...Then request a full refund for all the moneys you have contributed to that organisation for your membership, as there is no point paying in advance for representation if your not getting a return for your investment. Your just throwing good money away.

You would achieve far greater results by contributing towards a kiddy for a no win no fee Lawyer.

Just my thoughts.

wombat watcher
28th Oct 2018, 10:39
Simple really !

If your union isn’t representing you as they should then resind your membership with them...Then request a full refund for all the moneys you have contributed to that organisation for your membership, as there is no point paying in advance for representation if your not getting a return for your investment. Your just throwing good money away.

You would achieve far greater results by contributing towards a kiddy for a no win no fee Lawyer.

Just my thoughts.


See! Pilots are too too selfish, too tight, too arrogant, too ambitious, too psuedo independent,too willing to promote their own promotional advancement over others, too egotistical. That is why AIPA was formed in the first place. At least with that event, the selfishness, the arrogance, etc was reduced in exposure.

Derfred
28th Oct 2018, 10:45
AIPA has provided a very good return for my investment.

LeadSled
29th Oct 2018, 01:27
AIPA has provided a very good return for my investment.

Folks,
Based on many years experience of union membership, there is one thing I can safely say: If there is to be one pilot union it will NOT be AFAP.
And I do think one EFFECTIVE union would be better than the present setup.
Tootle pip!!