CX management - running scared.

[Kaptin M]

Having spent the last 7 out of 8 days away from home (that means a 3 day-away trip, 1 day off, immediately followed by a 4 day-away trip) under the rostering system of a company that was NON-unionised iniatially, but now has a union set up to represent the pilots - out of sheer desperation, simply becasue the company previously refused to acknowledgs individual pilot's "gripes" - I would like to make a few points.

Firstly, why would any company that intended treating their employees fairly, fear a union?
After all, "The Company" never acts through one individual alone - unless he has been "prepped" by other company staff...a union.
Talk to your company's paymaster - is HE authorised to give you a salary adjustment of his own volition? Of course not - the decision comes "from above" - the "above" being a union of management staff, who represent the interests of the rank and file company owners.
In the same way, a union of the workers speaks through one mouthpiece to the company, rather than a rabble, shouting at different times, and with difering demands.
This SAVES the company a tremendous amount of time, by dealing with only ONE voice, and thereby needing only one company representative to deal with a multitude of employees.

Imagine having NO union, and EACH employee then INDIVIDUALLY demanding time with various company representaives to hear their grievances eg. twenty pilots a day taking up the time of 20 office staff, merely to hear the SAME or similar complaint!

And so now to my old friend - that sheep in wolf's clothing, shorty's reply to the Australian pilots' dispute. Here was his reply":
"Kaptin M. Your grasp of logic is a bit confusing. So now the union which represented pilots from many companies all over Australia represents the members of one company basically in one city. And the vast majority of aviators caught up in the dispute, involving, as is the case here, part time inept union management on one side and full time company management on t'other, have to work overseas or outside avaiation. You say they won? All the rich folk behind the scenes are smiling still and their lawyers and accountants are smiling and the wives and children and children's children of the brave but so naive pilots involved are still scarred. Remember how many took their own lives? The horror of being unemployed with no immediate chance of employment and bills to pay and food to buy and homes to lose fortunes on is beyond shocking. Look at the bigger picture, save the union, there will be winnable battles later when you will get all you are asking for now and more. If you must consider the antipodean situation look what happened to salaries after the dispute was over."

MY grasp of logic is confusing.. :p
Let's look at shortly's "logic":-

Company: " We've gotta get rid of this bloody pilots's union. Tell 'em we REFUSE to talk with them!! It doesn't matter what it costs, we'll bust 'em."

Pilots' reps " Look the grievances we've got here are GENUINE, but if you think they're less than reasonable, let's discuss it."

Company "Nah, 4u)k you ! :mad: . If any of the pilots have got a problem, he can come on his own and talk to the Managing Director!"

Pilots' rep "Well actually it's most of the pilots, and trying to single out one or two guys is pretty intimidating - so why don't we discuss this maturely, on a non-individualist basis - much the same way as you are doing when you represent "The Company."

Company "Nah - if any pilot's got a problem, I'll deal with him individually."

So the impasse continues..........................All the rich folk behind the scenes are smiling still and their lawyers and accountants are smiling.

Rather than negotiate with the pilots' elected representative body, the FOUR companies BLINDLY adhere to the "Union = bad" principle and end up sending their ENTIRE COMPANY down the gurgler.

And so, shortly, you tell me that this is a VICTORY?
The companies ALL succumb - taking "management" and associated workers with them, whilst the union - in this case the AFAP - survived to fight another day! :confused: :confused:

Which lecture in my Accountancy and Economics course was this espoused as being an accepted waste reduction principle??????
Not even the most adept IR advisor would wilfully allow a dispute to progress to the point where the Company is sacrificed.

Take on a union....expend the war chest, and then some more....dissolve the company....lose your (and countless other mignons') positions.....the union continues.....but call it a WIN!

We certainly DO have a chasm of difference in our grasp of logic, shortly.!!

Think it over CX pilots.

YOU have something to SELL to the company - your PROFESSIONALISM, EXPERTISE, and KNOWLEDGE, and CX was willing to pay the price you asked in terms of salary and work conditions.

"Don't bite the hand that feeds you!" I would say that is PRECISELY what CX "management" is guilty of doing!

[411A]

Well, Kaptin M. with regard to your first paragraph....when you applied, you asked for work, did you not?
And now that you have it, you can do NOTHING but complain.
What's your problem, sport?:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :D

[Al E. Vator]

.........the problem is sunshine that many airline managements in an attempt to destabilise the unions end up destabilising the whole company.

The act of destroying a union becomes paramount and the airline suffers.

Additionally, pilots tend to stay with the one airline for decades. Corporate ladder-climbing management types however like to use the 'drive-by' shooting type managerial process. Come in with a bang, shoot the place up, lift their own personal profile by (for example screwing a union) and then move on to another airline or industry having left the previous airline profitable for that year but perhaps permanently and fatally damaged.

It is idiots like Frank Lorenzo end up destroying once great airlines.

Eastern Airlines, Ansett, Australian etc etc etc.

Pilots may apply for a job but that does not prevent them from improving their conditions whilst employed. God knows the plethora of egotistical managers seem hell-bent on what some accuse pilots of doing - destroying the industry for their own personal gain. Bring back Juan Trippe and Sir Reginald Ansett I say!

[411A]

Well Al, with regard to Eastern Air Lines, (and the others I suspect)...seems to me it was the unions that ..."done 'em in"...especially the IAM at EAL. Seem to remember the unions in Australia gave the companies an ultimatum...their hand was called, and the government made 'em fold. In other words, the unions were in over their collective heads to begin with.

And for Kaptin M....if you had wanted a 9-5 job, you should have been a banker. Unfavorable hours, duty times, etc go with the territory, if you want a flight crew position. Simple as that. Thats why you are paid the big bucks.

[shortly]

Dear Kaptin M. I read your post with some interest. Did I tread on your last nerve or something? Your re-print of my post is a first for me, I have never been quoted in anything before. (I will happily accept the obvious slanging that that statement will bring) No Sir, I am sorry but you neither understand logical argument nor english grammar. I have never said that the Management won in Australia, I would not use a win/lose relationship in such a matter. No one wins an argument. Everybody lost. But the biggest losers, as usual, are the folk who could least afford it. My points are, part time union management must be tightly controlled by the members, the dispute in Cathay has become so blurred as to have lost credibility, the actions taken by the union against the company over the last 8 years were proving ineffective and following union activity escalation the company retaliated and 50 odd of our fellow aircrew lost their jobs. The action taken by the union against pilots who legally joined the company was dreadfully poorly thought out (ASL). The ineffective moderation by the union against vitriolic posts and unsubstantiated lists (Scab and non-union pilots) on their web site is un professional. Unions must pick their fights or lose. The hiring ban is a joke.

[Alpha Leader]

Kaptin M:

The choice of your thread topic CX management - running scared is certainly not reflected in the rather positive business outlook CX recently announced. Hiring 250 pilots, for instance, is not usually indicative of an airline whose management lacks confidence.

[hvy 18 wheeler]

Just like the raw deal in '89, I am wondering when Cx will get the government to start issuing writs!
Defn: what is written; formal written court order to do or refrain from doing specified act; document issued by crown summonising spiritual or temporal lord to attend parliment or directing sheriff to hold election of member(s) of parliment etc etc etc......
Heard an interseting thing a while ago about '89!
The government of the day namely Labour and Mr Hawke issued writs to some/most of the aircrew involved in the dispute freezing bank accounts, taking possesion of assets ( incl.. house and cars) etc etc etc. If that government was able to get away with that then, I wonder have we really sat down and had a long hard think about what the government in HK is capable of?
It appears they looked the other way when CX gave the 49'ers less than the contracted 3mths to repatriate prior to having the strings cut from above them for removals etc........
After listening to George Hopkins speak i really wonder if we are going to be able to get back into bed with this management after all the dust settles or will there be a steady increase in resignations to other carriers!
Funny that it has already started from quite low down in the seniorty list ( off to DJ). Maybe for the more senior ones, they have spent too much time and effort in hk to pull up stumps and try to gain employment at the bottom of the ;ist in another carrier, or maybe i am brushing over the reality that most of them know they wont get the same conditions elsewhere and even if they did they would most likely have to drive in convoys to go anywhere and their wives would have to cover their faces with a veil coz they dont allow that behavior in most of the countries these guys are speaking of leaving to fly for?????????????
Help me out:confused:

[Kaptin M]

411, it's very highly likely that the NOT so subtle point I made of my working in a non-unionised company went way over the top of your head. Or perhaps the pressure of getting that Indonesian airline of your's operational, has drained what little psychometric reserves were left. :rolleyes: Or, on the other hand, the end of your career as a professional pilot has left you envious of those of us still working. :mad:
Lecture over.......the point I was making, was that where INDIVIDUAL pilots are protected from by a "representative" when dealing with their employer - over issues such as inequitous, unfair, or biased rostering :eek: Gosh, does that really happen???!! :eek: - the matter is able to be monitored by a third party. The union!
Yes, I AM paid big bucks - but that doesn't mean that I have to bend over just because the someone else has slipped the roster clerk an extra couple of bucks. Does it?? Or is "Dollar rostering" and "promotion by suction" acceptable work ethics for you, 411A.

If NOTHING else, a union will try to ensure that each and every pilot they represent is dealt with on an EVEN and FAIR basis, by the company, as opposed to the alternative of having a non-monitored system where days off, allowances, and duty times, are at the sole whim of one or two people.
I have worked under all 3 systems, (i)pure bidline, (ii)$$'s buys your roster, and (iii)straight, "I love/hate you this month" scheduling, and can assure you that the less the involvement that occurs on BOTH sides, the more EFFICIENT and UNDERSTANDING of each other, was everyone!

Shortly, in ONE paragraph you have managed to "shoot yourself in the foot" . For the second time, please allow me to quote you again. Looks like you're on a winning streak - and all in one topic;
. I have never said that the Management won in Australia, I would not use a win/lose relationship in such a matter.
.. followed hot on the heels by this,
Unions must pick their fights or lose.

Hmm, that sense of logic again, shortly??"

Had you even lightly skipped through the other posts on this forum - and I get the impression that you might perhaps indulge in "selective reading", or myopia, shortly - you would do yourself a favor by NOT writing blatant mistruths, as you have with the following :". The ineffective moderation by the union against vitriolic posts and unsubstantiated lists (Scab and non-union pilots) on their web site.."
..knowing FULL WELL that the scab list was NOT published on the HKAOA's site.
And that in fact the HKAOA publically denounced the publication of that list.

[fire wall]

Kaptin M, the list was published on the HKAOA website and remained there for 2 days until someone with commonsense and a healthy fear of legal litigation took it off. The public denunciation ( if you can call a notice by "Merlin" to desist on cprune "public" when there is no public access) of the list was absent for an appropriate period of time, many have taken this to hold some meaning.
If you wish to call others to order for so called untruths then perhaps you should be certain of your own content prior to hitting that submit button.
respectfully
FW

[shortly]

Kaptin M. you have missed your vocation. You should have been a politician, or a journalist or perhaps a used car salesman or even an accountant. You can selectively quote from my posts until you are pink in the face but it won't change the facts. In my quote I was talking about two individual but similar disputes. In the Australian dispute no one won, but the ones who lost heaviest were the littlest involved and they are still paying either financially or in mental anguish, in the dispute in Hong Kong we are rapidly reaching the same place, a case of deja-vu prevails for me. To be honest I am not sure where you are coming from, and I doubt you do either. Nonetheless, I have enjoyed reading your opinion, distorted as it may be. It's not over but I wish it was. The upcoming GM will spell out the ending. I want common sense and good judgement to win out over blinkered militancy but I have severe doubts about that. It takes a brave man to stand up to his enemy but it takes a braver one to stand against his friends. And for the quiet majority, never forget silence signifies consent.

[ironbutt57]

Yup... running scared all right.... that's why they're on a hiring binge...Herald Tribune......got us all worried......maybe they're scared the HKAoA will wise up and stop acting like morons...;) ;) :D

[fire wall]

The very same Frankg, and hardly public with ref the Kaptin's assertion of the HKAOA's stance taken against the publishing of names, addresses and telephone numbers of new recruits (note not replacement workers or scabs) when you need a password to get into cprune......a bloody cowardly act that has done the AOA's cause no end of harm and will long be remembered. Time for a change in leadership and direction.

[Kaptin M]

The fact is firewall, the list (which I did peruse bnefly when a direct link was provided, and that link was to a private web address) purportedly listed the names (and some numbers, that were NOT specified as telephone numbers, and could just as easily have been taken to be residential area codes or seniority numbers), of people who KNOWINGLY defied a ban placed by the CX pilots' representative body, the HKAOA.
Whether the ban is suitable is matter for discussion. Of course it will never be ACCEPTABLE to everyone!

Certainly shortly everyone wishes this matter was resolved, and agree entirely with your sentiments (and btw, I AM "pink in the face") when you state, "It takes a brave man to stand up to his enemy but it takes a braver one to stand against his friends. And for the quiet majority, never forget silence signifies consent."
The direction of the HKAOA must come from pilots the rank and file, and enacted upon by the leadership.
A change in leadership should not necessarily mean a change in direction, firewall - "Don't shoot the messenger" - and it is my understanding that the current leadership is well regarded.

By necessity this has been a war of attrition, with CX management failing miserably in their attempts to goad the AOA into taking "knee-jerk" responsive industrial action.
The needless frittering away of tens of millions of dollars on wet-lease aircraft, the cost of re-training to replace the sacked "49'ers", and the increased operating costs as a result of the loss of "goodwill", has THIS management tagged as Cathay Pacific's most WASTE INEFFICIENT in its history.
Far from being non revenue productive this management is NEGATIVE REVENUE producing.

[fire wall]

Kaptin, the list was on cprune prior to it being placed on the yahoo site. This is not a story but fact. Whether you saw it or not on the AOA site is another issue.
The post also stated ADDRESSES and TELEPHONE numbers with the invitation for some early morning wake up calls.
When have you seen an 8 digit seniority number?

If it walks,talks and looks like a duck then there is a fair chance it is a duck....cut the semantics.

To make matters worse it contained names of 2 pilots who have been with the company for 12 months....duh! Shoot first and ask questions later perhaps, and here I thought we were supposed to be an intelligent educated bunch of professionals.

Finally,I do not recall saying anything about shooting the messenger, just changing both the message and who is delivering it.

[shortly]

Kaptin M. 'I see your true colours shining through'. Just up to a bit of mischief. A vote for increased militancy is a vote for the one hundred and 49ers. I feel, after discussing this with many rational AOA members, whom I call friend, that the AOA has a tenuous hold on a large number of its members. And I re-state, silence signifies consent, so speak out against escalation. If this means the committee has to go then so be it. Take the hard way out and stand up to your colleagues.

[Turtlenest]

posted 16th May 2002 00:44
------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Well Al, with regard to Eastern Air Lines, (and the others I suspect)...seems to me it was the unions that ..."done 'em in"...especially the IAM at EAL. " Guess what 411? Things aren't always as they seem. Instead of spouting off like you always do, why not try reading the books on the subject and educating yourself about it. I don't even know where to begin trying to explain a complicated subjuct to a simpleton like you. You posts are the most ignorant and uninformed on all of pprune. Please, just go away. Burn your laptop, get a life. I'm ready to hurl.

[allthatglitters]

FIRST RULE of MANAGEMNT.....


Divide and Concur!!!!!

[ironbutt57]

allthatglitters....oh boy no wonder we're doomed...i think you mean....conquer....unless you're real management.....lorenzo style:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: ....or 411A

[411A]

"Unions" do have their place...too bad it was in the last century.
A reasonable compromise has to (eventually) be realised...and suspect it will be the AOA that will do the "necessary".
Wish them luck...they will need same.

[Alpha Leader]

411A:

Unfortunately, they are still in questionable fashion in some places, such as the homeland of some of the contributors here: The Age (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/06/14/1023864350069.html)

[HotDog]

True to form Alpha Führer. Nothing better to do on a rainy Hong Kong morning than stir sh!t. What relevance has the Victorian labour situation to the HKAOA dispute? This is not the ILO website, mein Herr.

[Alpha Leader]

Thank you for your unusually enlightening contribution, Warm Puppy.

You've obviously been reading far too many post-WWII comics, which has clearly not been helpful in developing your sense of geography. If the objective of your post was to demonstrate your frightening deficiency in this respect, you've certainly succeeded. Congratulations.


As to the rest of your utterances, I hardly see any point in discussing labour relations issues with you - far beyond your grasp obviously :p

Finally: your weather report is absolute cr@p, too. At the time of my posting it was sunny, 31C, 91%RH.

Now go and have a nice day.

[HotDog]

I do like your Swiss sense of humour Alpha Führer, I bet you are the life of the party always!:rolleyes:

[Alpha Leader]

Warm Puppy:

I do find your posts rather amusing - not, of course, for the reasons you might have had in mind, but for their involuntary humour.

[Dexter]

Judging by some of the posts here I think the "wake-up call" might finally have been received.
The call that says show SOME degree of responsibility to the company, the employees, and the SHAREHOLDERS.

That this mANAGEMENT has allowed/encouraged this dispute to drag on for as long as it has, and to impact on Cathay's bottom line is senseless - however perhaps at last SOMEONE has seen it's time to LEAD by example.

[Dexter]

OTOH

Oz Jobs 09.08.02

THE IAC GROUP

*B744 and A340 Capts. Asia based, excellent benefits, immediate start.
*B744, B747, A340, AB6, B738 F/O's Asia based, excellent benefits, positions available soon.
For the above positions please register your details on-line www.iacglobal.com
PH 61 [0]2 6775 0136 Fax 61 [0]2 6775 0215
E-mail [email protected]

[Cpt. Underpants]

China Airlines, Taiwan, ROC. 134 driver positions available.

[Kaptin M]

Not a pre-emptive strike by management, aimed at the heart?!
All the ingredients are there:
- recent announcement of increasing profits - to try to instil confidence in this management;
- a proven beligerent, confrontationist (rather than negotianory) management attitude;
- an overall percentage decrease in the number of AOA CX pilot members;
- a recent (re)election of AOA principal office bearers, signalling "more of the same" wrt trying to achieve a negotiated settlement to maintain pilots's conditions;
- a current surplus of airline pilots.

Would you put it past them?

[Cpt. Underpants]

Absolutely, positively China Airlines. I have several friends in management there (flight ops).

Cathay are incapable of working up any devious plan. It would imply:

1. A plan. Cathay are 100% reactive. Plan = Proactive.
2. An effective plan. Again, beyond their abilities.
3. Secrecy. Not part of the corporate culture.
4. They will continue to blunder from one opportunistic situation to the next.

I respect them for their reactive management capabilities. No-one in Asia is better at it than them. Zen masters of the art of reaction.

(I should proofread better)

[Tool Time Two]

Old 411A must be about the dumbest poster on the forum(s).
His/her assertion that the AFAP folded when called seems pretty dumb, when the AFAP is still cruising along, and not one of the four outfits he/she mentions now exists.
No doubt the membership of the AOA will know what action to take, when to take it, and direct its executive in the process. And old 411A will be hapless to prevent it.
But I do enjoy his/her posts - for the laugh.:cool:

[HotDog]

Old 411A is a he. Although he sounds like a cantakarous old lady most of the time.:rolleyes:

[411A]

Speaking about non-existance, ToolTimeTwo, the AFAP may still be around, but the 1300+ that they "represented" 12+ years ago certainly aren't...as in gone with the wind.
And as for the "executives" :rolleyes: in the AOA knowing what to do...well it has been well over a year...so where is the progress?
There is ONLY one way the AOA can make an impression on CX management, and with the current hot-heads "in charge":rolleyes:, they are not likely to try.:cool:

[Kaptin M]

And wrong yet AGAIN, 411A! :rolleyes:

Almost ALL of the more than 1300 (there were originally 1642, however 22% scabbed) are STILL gainfully employed in airline aviation throughout the world - unlike the Ansett scabs who in the main are now out on their @sses in the unemployment queue (along with you, although your's is age-induced).
Sorry to rain on your parade, old timer. :D

I'd be a little careful not to underestimate your (adversarial) management, Cpt. U, I'd be pretty sure that they - like tha AOA - realise that in today's industrial relations one doesn't draw lines in shifting sands and changing tides. A lesson the Yanks were taught in Viet Nam.

[411A]

Yes indeed, KM, they sure are still employed, just not in OZ.
Door seems to be permanently closed for them there.
Sorry to rain on your parade, young squirt...:D :D

[Cpt. Underpants]

KM thanks for the advice, but I do not underestimate their reactional capabilities. As I said, "Masters Of The Art".

I think the AOA needs something of an overhaul in it's management strategies.

[Kaptin M]

I don't know from WHOM you get your misinformation, 411A - or whether you just make it up in that feeble, old mind to try to garner a reaction - but I for (another) one am certainly tiring of the utter claptrap you're posting recently!

Your knowledge of Australia and Australians is SADLY lacking.

Virgin Blue (a company owned mainly by Sir Richard Branson, a British entrepreneur) is Australia's second domestic airline to QANTAS - that's an Australian airline that operates domestically and internationally, old timer - and employs close to a couple of hundred ex-1989 (that was the year of a big dispute, about which I'm sure you're FULL of knowledge :rolleyes: ) pilots.
But sadly, :) NO scabs.

So you see old timer, your statement, "Yes indeed, KM, they sure are still employed, just not in OZ.
Door seems to be permanently closed for them there." is complete CR@P (again), as is the post you've made on the D&G forum stating that "especially as many from "dunnunda" ran away from (for example) SQ".

A couple of words of advice, old man, when posting on here on PPRuNe there are many people who are able to authenticate - or otherwise - statements that are posted. You'd do well to refrain from posting on subjects about which YOU know little or ZILCH - you are fast losing any credibility and respect you MAY have had for the occupation to which you committed a lifetime.
And the other bit of advice, count your marbles every so often, I get the impression a few roll away from time to time. :D

[411A]

Well then Kaptin M, glad to hear that at least "some" have been re-employed in OZ. Goes to show that the hard feelings are starting to fade away I suppose.
You didn't "run away" from SQ by any chance? You seem verrrry testy.

[BlueEagle]

No, I am sure Kapt. M did not run away as he completed six years there, equally I am sure Kapt. M does know of many that did. From 1989 to 1992 SQ did employ a whole lot from Australia of whom about six are left today, all, I think, now captains?

[411A]

Interestingly enough Blue Eagle, when I was with SQ there were a few Australians in residence as well, mostly training Captains. The only others I knew were on loan from Qantas (F/O's mostly), superb operators all. Recall flying into SIN many times in the early 90's when all you could notice on the RT were voices from downunder. SQ must have hired a lot.
Recall meeting one of my F/O's (now senior Captain) from SQ in 1996 in ZRH, and he mentioned that those from OZ did not stay all that long. I wonder why?

[ironbutt57]

Well...right from the moderator's mouth...the success story of the "eighty-whiners" at SQ...like the rest of the industry, they are sick of hearing it as well.......there were NO scabs in '89...you resigned, others accepted...like it or not those are the facts...look up scab in the dictionary...it's black and white..you made a decision that all real pilots respect....now live with the consequences and get on with your lives...

[Kaptin M]

"Recall meeting one of my F/O's (now senior Captain) from SQ in 1996 in ZRH, and he mentioned that those from OZ did not stay all that long. I wonder why?

:rolleyes: From memory ALL of the ex-dispute Captains completed their first contract, with the majority of the younger ones signing on for a 2nd, and in some cases a 3rd renewal. Ask Blue Eagle, he was there longer, and more recently than I, and is more au fait with the numbers.
The F/O's (around 96 - mainly Aussies, but a handful of ex-Eastern Yanks as well) were hired on expatriate terms, meaning they got extra benefits such as the accomodation allowance, schooling for the kids, an expat "allowance", and a higher salary than those employed on national terms. The contract period was for 5 years following checkout, and was bonded, however SIA released us from the bond after approx. 3 years (because of intensive recruiting of young expats - Brits, Americans, Australians, Norwegians, etc) with the option to leave, or finish the contract (or convert to local terms). Many left early to join airlines that were offering a faster career progression, rather than stay with SQ which stated a minimum of 5 years on local terms would be required, before being considered eligible for command. As Blue Eagle says, about 1/2 a dozen decided to convert to local terms.
There were very few in this group who did a "runner" (where are you, Slasher?) - the early release option legally allowed us to leave by mutual agreement.
Personally, I enjoyed MY time (5 yrs and 7 mos) there, gained some good experience and enjoyed the company of the other pilots.
Hope this clears up more of the misconceptions you seem to have conjured up, 411.

Tinass if you'd like to view the scab list from 1989 I'll refer you to a website, or send you a copy of the little black book with the names. :)

We've gone right off the subject of the topic here btw.

[BlueEagle]

Yes, right off topic, myself in part to blame! Sorry to the CX guys whose thread it most definitely is.

No links to any scab lists please Kapt M, see my 'sticky' at the top of the forum.

[shortly]

Sorry BE. Kaptin do you still carry a copy of that innacurate publication around and make decisions based on its contents? You are a sorry individual. 411A seems reasonable in comparison to you.

[411A]

Looks like the good Kaptin M is still very annoyed about the whole situation, otherwise he would not take up nearly half a page "explaining" himself.:rolleyes:

[KaptinZZ]

Kaptin M,

Sometimes we agree, and sometimes we disagree, but there is one thing on which we do agree, most emphatically.

We all need union coverage.

In my first flying job over 25 years ago, I was bemoaning the fact that the mgt couldn't/wouldn't get along with the pilots in a company opf about 20 pilots.

A much older guy said 'Son, it's a fact of life that when a company has more than one employee, then they need a union. If for no other reason, a problem can be de-identified.'

Many of the other points, including a single negotiating voice, are also true.

There is a problem that can emerge, however, and that is that the union mgt agenda is not always the same agenda as that of the pilots, and then the problems start. Egos drive people in strange ways.

That will never change, and comes under the category of 'human nature'.

[Ramboflyer]

Its easy for you people to kick the Ansett guys while they are down, the 89ers have probably got more of the jobs than the pilots who had nothing to do with 89 explain that.
Also why dont you ever mention the QF (TAA) scabs who got into QF without having HSC and didnt have to do the Psyche tests Qantas is full of them and they are the same guys who screwed you with the Australian tax office but you would rather give it to the AN guys who are mostly innocent and cant get a job not even with Virgin B.

[VR-HFX]

Rambo

Straighten up...try a glass of milk....you may well have a point but I think the way you have put it doesn't quite get it over the line.

Cheers

[411A]

Those who "walk away" or take industrial action against a company will sometimes find that, on application to another airline, the door is firmly nailed shut.
The devil you know...etc.

Some just never learn this very basic fact.:rolleyes:

[ironbutt57]

U an x-wein scab from '77 there 411-a

[411A]

Sorry IB57, in '77 was flying for SQ.

[3 Holer]

Virgin Blue have taken over 40 ex Ansett F/Os since September last year. Of those 40, I personally know four that have been upgraded to Command.

If you are going to have a shot at people, may I suggest you use the correct ammunition.