Meloz and 89

[mainwheel]

How about some 3 word liners and see if he guess's correctly?
.................?

[SOPS]

:) Its allready locked!!!!!!!!!!!

[Wizofoz]

Aw geeze Woomera, couldn't you have let it go for just a couple more hours? Just till there were at least one or two one sided, vitriolic, revisionist rants by one of the "Usual Suspects?"

then at least I might have had a chance in the pool!!

PS Keep up the good work!!

[greybeard]

Gidday SOPS, still no air too Ruff for a comment or two?

THE LIST, the dreaded and maligned LIST.

At the risk of being Binned, here is I hope a reasonable rant on that item.

The item was produced as an almost correct document to indicate to ALL who might be interested in the particular event in Australia's Aviation Industrial History that certain people DID and certain people DID NOT take a particular stand on the matter at hand at the that time in history.

At a time soon after the matter was seen to be resolved, some people who said they represented the "people on the List" produced a document that indicated that "SAFETY" could possibly be a factor if "on" and "non on" people were mixed in the Cockpits of certain Airlines aircraft.

This among other things prevented certain actions of perceived descrimination being persued, and a minor number of "non list" people were employed to further seal the discrimination argument.

The world went around 11*365 times and behold and lo, the blue part of the list went tits up.

So some people had to revise their CV's and proceed on the well trodden path of employment in other parts of the world.

Many people who had trodden that path were "happy" and "content" in those places, some had even taken a return path to D&G climes.

Now all was supposed to be "forgiven"/"forgotten" and we are all mates again.

WRONG in bigger words than this band width can handle.

Many pages have been written and "Locked" on this subject,
BUT, here is my piece,
-------------
I am indeed a "Lurking PPRuNer" having signed on before the 2000th was reached, and have had a regular session of "Lurking" on this and other sites since then.
The 89's will always be a factor in Aviation History, particularly in Australia, and affect many people whichever side of the fence they found their place was to stay, head up or down.
Unless you were an ACTIVE participant it would be difficult to be well informed on the problem as the day to day events were quite overwhelming at times, and many comments reflect that lack of knowledge and basic understanding.

When you have a meeting which has a 95%+ vote for a particular course of action and find 20%+ don’t follow that decision, you have a case for a mistrust of those people. Many were mentors, course mates and cockpit companions on numerous previous occasions of Company vs Pilot negotiations at all levels.

When you are in conversation with a fellow pilot who you held in high regard and he has indicated his support for the "Cause" in an emotional and tearful speech at a private gathering and you find he has already SC%BED, do you want to sit next to him and believe his judgement on a dark and stormy night. NFW

Do you want to work for, or with, employees of a company who causes some of those employees to activate the following against you as a previous employee?

1. Phone Taps
2. Death threats to you
3. Death threats against your family, with accurate knowledge of there movements. When an anonymous caller tells you to check if the kids horses still have riders when they come home and your kids are actually on a ride, you begin to see life in a very different way. Similarly when an accurate sighting of your wife, car description and shopping habits is reported to your children with, "I hope she gets home OK", there tends to be a long-term effect on your thinking about people and their motives.
4. Accurate reporting of my overseas trip, specific to even the hotel and my supposed liaison with a very pretty girl. Which is where it fell apart a bit, as it was my daughter. However, not bad tracking to try to get me to SC%B.
5. High speed, gravel gouging vans of an International Transport Co invading my semi-rural property at all hours to throw correspondence on my doorstep with no regard to safety of humans or stock.
6. Two years after the 1990 cease fire my mere presence in the domestic terminal caused a security alert and previous workmates in dispatch advised me afterwards, to be seen talking to me was a sackable offence

Would you support a Government/Country, which allowed the ego driven fury of a small number of people to do the following?

1. Bend double the Constitution to allow the Military to operate as it did.
2. Bend the Immigration Laws to allow certain people to enter under a relaxed and unfettered way denied to others.
3. Bend and manoeuvre the Aviation Laws to allow some of those people an Australian ATPL
4. Cause a number of us to be declared "Political Dissidents" which really looks good on a security check.

That’s the abridged version of my passage to the wide outside world.
My REFUSAL to RETURN was not understood by many of my family and friends.
I have gained great personal and professional experiences not available in Australia.
I have a dependable circle of friends and professional peers
I missed my children's late teens and their emergence into a changing Australia.
I missed the last years of my Fathers active life

Apart from the above, the trauma of "resigning" my job, suffering delays to company payouts, trying to remain a useful family member in that time, and since,
I am, in the main, perfectly normal, well adjusted, unforgetting, unforgiving, SC%B hating to the third generation, 89er.

I WALKED THE WALK AND I WILL OCCASIONALLY TALK THE TALK
----------------
Sorry Danny et all if I offend but the presence of some of these cretins in my present Asian company is sufficient to make me PUKE.
Note that the Safety Item has reared it's head in the reverse sense!!!!!!!
I am on the other hand friends with many members of the other disciplines in the defunct Airline and know what the process is to attempt to re establish your life after the shock of sudden unemployment and am assisting as and when I can.











:p :p

[Woomera]

greybeard

Thank you for that very "reasonable rant" and calm exposition of those extraordinary events from someone who was there.

That is as reasonable summary of the issue from the '89er perspective as I have seen and I do recall that post in the past.

I am sure there will be an attempt at a countervailing view and rebuttal of the facts as described by greybeard and if it possible that it can be rendered in the same manner and without resorting to vitriol, not present in greybeards post, we can go forward.

Think carefully before you post, any attempts to derail the thread with vitriol will be deleted, I will remain the sole judge of that, the issue is too important and too many peoples lives are affected for it to be swept under the carpet as an irrelevance.

For those who are tempted to suggest that I, Woomera, am supporting one side or the other, please go back and read my words again.

I may have a personal view, but as Woomera it is not my job to support or not, any or either, just to try and keep it upright.

The simplest course of action to me, would be to just ban anything to do with the issue.

But that would 'disadvantage' one side or the other, the Forum does not provide that opportunity to me or anyone else.

But I will say this, Australia is a very precious and robust democracy that has resisted any number of attempts to make it otherwise.

I was tempted to move this to "Aircrew Notices" but as the issue seem to be still very much alive in Oz aviation I will leave it here for the moment.

PLEASE HELP ME HELP YOU. :)

[Al E. Vator]

Yes indeed greybeard.......thanks for an interesting, all too familiar and sobering post. Good luck.

[Wiley]

Brisboy, I'm looking forward to your contribution to this thread.

[sightboard run]

It seems the opposing view-point to greybeard's (and others') will never win around here but in spite of that, and despite the fact I agree with much of what greybeard has said, I still have to ask:

reference: Phone taps, death threats, high-speed gravel, etc...

All pretty unpleasant stuff, I can only imagine. But I thought most of that behaviour was directed at the OTHER SIDE??? Clackers, items left/interfered with in cockpits on turn-arounds, intimidation in terminals, cars interfered with, phone calls, etc, etc. All intended to induce individuals NOT to sc@b.

Was that not how it happened? Or have we only heard one side of the story when it came to the employment of under-handed, despicable, immoral, illegal, unpleasant, down-right nasty tactics to achieve the desired result back then? (All the sort of acts I would never have thought your average professional pilot capable of, by the way.)

It's a serious question. And like I said before, I support your argument, greybeard, but I don't support the sort of shi.t behaviour you describe having been directed AT YOU. (And others on both sides.)

[Tool Time Two]

It would be remiss of me to disappoint Wizofoz et al.
Did anyone read the Herald Sun and or The Australian today?:cool:

[ironbutt57]

The person I wouldn't want to sit across the flightdeck from would be the one involved in generating the death threats, high speed gravel...etc....etc....hope they are as proud of them selves as greybeard is of himself.....:( :( :(

[Kaptin M]

To deny that there weren`t "incidents" on both sides would be unrealistic and untruthful. 1989 was transformed from an industrial dispute into a "war" ("this time it`s war, boys", the infamous R.J. Hawke, then Australia`s P.M., and a tool of Murdoch, Abeles, and the ACTU), some of the casualties of which were:
TRUTH - as the old adage goes, the first casualty in any war is TRUTH; the long-established representative of ALL of Australia`s domestic airline pilots and many G.A. pilots, the AFAP (The Federation); the careers of 78% of the "combatants".

And now in the medium to longer term, the realisation that, like fish, "pilots EAT other pilots", given the perceived opportunity for advancement. And that the events of that year were successful in removing from Australia`s airline companies, a culture that was (in the main) one of a willingness to accept a seniority system that dictated promotion, rostering, aircraft type, etc, and replacing it with one that REWARDED greed, and instant gratification.

Of the 1642 pilots involved, only approximately 22% "returned" during the 8 month period, the rest were recruited from previous rejects, past employees - comprised of those who has taken "Golden Handshakes", or retired medically unfit ("suddenly, the blind could see, the deaf could hear, and the lame could walk".....with apologies to Brian McCarthy :) ), and those for whom Hawke temporarily broke Australia`s constitution (to save face) and allow immediate entry, the foreign pilots - British, Canadians, Americans, Polish, Hungarians, Yugoslavians, French, etc. All in this group were - and remain today - listed as scabs, for the reason (that) ALL were aware at the time that there was an industrial dispute in progress - it received DAILY coverage in Australia`s media - and that their employment would effectively remove the opportunity for the AFAP pilots to return to their positions. And now we KNOW we`re going to hear the pathetic and ONLY argument that "they" are able to muster, "But you resigned" :rolleyes:
For those oblivious to the REASONS for our resignations, this might hold some water, however the resignations were NOT a tactic - they were a very REAL necessity to prevent all of us from losing our homes, cars, and anything of value one would lose when being sued by BIG COMPANIES!

So yes, there WERE the phone calls (but to my knowledge no death threats, though I don`t disbelieve it). Of course there were, who would NOT want to call someone whom you had believed to be your friend, to demand a reason WHY he was turning his back on you?; the "clackers", although I`M not sure what damage they inflicted; intiimidation in terminals - yes, I experienced that firsthand, from the TNT Security goons; items left/interfered with in cockpits on turn-arounds..can`t comment on that, as none of US were allowed anywhere near the aircraft.

Enough for now - duty calls. Hope you weren`t disappointed, Wiz!! :cool:

[Pole Vaulter]

Well Woomera let us see if the "other side" can take a reasonable rant without the usual hatred that eminates whenever an opposing view is shown.

The events of 89 had had started a long time prior to the event in an effort to extract as much as possible frm the companies prior to deregulation as it was clearly known there would be very little more could be extracted after that event.

The contract at the time of the dispute was already like a copy of "War and Peace" as it had grown from a reasonable document to an almost unworkable document with one section contradicting another section plus numerous letters of aggreement to cover areas not covered in the original document. Obviously if the airlines were to survive in deregulation something was needed to rectify this situation. We had such anomolies as a car allowance each month of $250.00 tax free (even if you did not have a car).

Then the AFAP decided their pay had fallen behind the cost of living (as it had with every other employee in the country) and as they could not get their way with their pay rise (which was outside the accord) which almost every one else had agreed to so the words used were "They pay us office pay so we will work office hours" so started the 9 to 5 campaign. Except it was not really 9 to 5. If they signed on at 9 the first departure was at 10 as it was a 1 hour sign on in 89 and as you had a 15 minute sign off the aircraft had to arrive at 1645. So we effectively had a 10 to 1645 operation. I can remember one memorable event when one "captain" kept finding little reasons in Rockhampton to keep delaying his flight one afternoon, as the ground staff worked their bums off till the point was reached when he advised he could not make BNE until 1650 so he walked off stranding 90 plus people in ROK. I can vividly recall when one of the AFAP hirachy addressed a group of ground staff telling them they had better plan some long service leave or holidays as and I quote "We are going to screw this company into the ground until we get our claims, however long it takes" Just how long could any employer accept such standover tactics without taking some sort of action? Just put yourself in a situation where you were paying an employee to do a job and they openly refused the do the job they were being paid for (and paid very well) would you just sit back and accept it.

Then come the resignations (which were supposed to be used as a threat) and the next thing we know we have all resigned and in effect the dispute is now finished. At this stage would you believe, some even went to management and asked for concessional travel so they could have a holiday until "the dispute is settled" They were totally disbelieving whe told they were no longer employed as they had in fact resigned from their employment. Whether the companies would have taken legal action against their employees would have depended if the continued blatent refusal to do the work they were paid to do continued.

For months after the resignations the daily papers carried full page adds requesting them to return to work but as these were continually ignored the requests were changed to advertisments for positions vacant. The people who accepted these positions were simply filling positions not wanted by the people who previously held them. The reasons they did not apply are their business whether it was because their union told them not to or they elected they no longer wished to work their but what ever the case they did not apply and the companies used whatever methods necessary to recruit.

By the time the AFAP now said it is OK to reapply for the positions the whole matter had been well and truly resolved and no more positions were available. Hence the LIST that does not exist. Everyone who answered an advertisment and obtained employment as a result was now declared a scab.
Up until the collapse of Ansett in the eyes of many the dispute would not be resolved until all 89 pilots got their jobs back.
As to the harrasment, always denigned by the other side There were the midnight phone calls, the weedkiller poured on grass the coin scratches along cars and like said in a previous post I am sure it went on with both side as it was "war".

Unfortunately also as previously stated "Truth" suffers the most as the real story is distorted by what you see as the correct answer. This "War" will continue (unfortunately) until all the combatees have passed into the "Big Hanger in the Sky" as no one will chang the ideas on either side of the arguement. It will live on while ever we live on.

[Wizofoz]

Kap m,

The oft quoted reason for the mass resignation is the legal writs against the pilots for breaching their (legally binding!) contracts.

If the AFAP had agreed to an immediate return to work under their previous conditions while a pay-rise within the accord guidelines was negotiated, don't you think the writs would have been dropped?

[greybeard]

Sightboard Run

It's not that opposing views will not win, it's that opposing views should be allowed to exist and to be sustained as an individual right.

As to the bad things that happened, they form lasting mind-sets and although it's a long time ago, I felt that then, and even now, that MY FAMILY WAS AT RISK at that time.

As to wilful damage and interfering with Operational items, I plead NOT GUILTY, and as I am aware the damage in the "Western Approaches" was to "non listed" people's property, most occurring whilst those members were at a farewell for the many who departed overseas. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to be able to work that out.
We did not cause physical harm, although it was suggested, the result would never have been changed by that method.

I did stand on picket lines as is my right, I did make calls to people who I thought could have needed support, provided financial support to some who needed it, only to find some who took the help bloody well went back.

Some people really are from the shallow end of the gene pool.

I hassled the then PM and some of the "listed people" as is also my right or maybe my privilege(?), and will do so again if the circumstances warrant that action.
I received seriously threatening letters from my previous Employer as to the with-holding of monies due, further legal action even IF they, out of the goodness of their hearts, actually paid it all, IF AT ALL. I was accused of DEFALCATION (look that one up, I had to). The letters began as "Dear ****" and went through the Capt/Sir/ SIR or Madam to Previously Employed Pilot??
As to previous Management of our "Western Outpost", they said in public places that 'I would never work again while they were in charge". The Police at that one "cautioned" the staff involved.
The office of the then PM also wrote at some length in various veins from requests to poorly veiled threats.

I am saddened that people who had my trust and respect in the main could vote one way and go in the other.
There were the Rock Apes who took the chance for "greatness"; there were the "go back or I leave you" pressures from Wives, Concubines, Families, Bank Managers and many others.
Some stood, some didn't, the system went on and History was made.

The "Listed" are in my Ops Centre, my condo, in many places.
They will receive the operational courtesies, as would any Pilot, that is professionalism and is REQUIRED FROM ALL, on or off the list so to speak, but, I reserve the right to pass the time of day with my choice of friends. Sadly, and I mean this, they cannot now or ever be my friends.

The sad and terrible thing of it all is that the jobs I have had since 1989 and the jobs all others have had, were not there because we had a DISPUTE, but available to all, and the Agency Commissions and many combinations of deals could have flowed into Aust. instead of the Squillions that were taken out.

The whole tenure of Unions, Workplace Agreements, conditions and stability of the Industry was stuffed down the drain by personal agendas we will only find out when the last of the players is dead, and I will **** on his grave!!!!!
THAT IS ALSO MY RIGHT!!!!

To Kaptin M

You are right on

To Pole Vaulter

Possibly the wrong end of the telescope
:p

[Kaptin M]

Simply amazing, Pole Vaulter, that YOU - like the rest on that list - have decided to re-write history as would LIKE the uninitiated to believe!.

But first to Wiz, who asks, "If the AFAP had agreed to an immediate return to work under their previous conditions while a pay-rise within the accord guidelines was negotiated, don't you think the writs would have been dropped?.
As a matter of FACT - something that eludes the Pole Vaulters - the AFAP requested to do PRECISELY that...a "cooling off" period, and a full return to work under the old contract to try to allow some of the heat to dissipate.

Now back to Pole Vaulter re-written events of 1989. As stated earlier, "The first casualty in any war is usually the truth, and Pole Vaulter has exemplified that with,"They pay us office pay so we will work office hours" so started the 9 to 5 campaign. Except it was not really 9 to 5.
The FACT was, it was Abeles who told the AFAP "pilots are no different to other workers, and deserve no extra consideration." And it was, in FACT, one of your contemporaries (from Perth) who suggested the 9-5 campaign to illustrate that IF pilots worked the same hours as other workers the operation of the airline would be far less efficient than it is because of the requirement for pilots to work at ANY time, regardless of holidays. This is one aspect of our job, and I realise that there are many other occupations that also fall into THIS category.
And although YOU were "only an F/o" when the Dispute began, PV (and I`ll BET you had a meteoric rise when you "went back for the family"), even YOU must realise NOW, if you didn`t then, that Flight Planning, aircraft and document inspection and checking, setting up of the aircraft`s systems prior to flight, etc, are a NECESSARY part of trying to provide a SAFE flight!
But then, upon reflection, there was a new and different culture that filled the void when the established group were displaced.

Similarly, "block in" is NOT the end of our duties, and as another matter of FACT, a full planeload of pax with 1 or 2 wheelchairs takes at LEAST 15 minutes to deplane.

Then come the resignations (which were supposed to be used as a threat)

Had I not earlier stated that the sc@bs would try to portray the resignations as something they were NOT. :mad:
The resignations were NOT a tactic!
In excess of 70 writs had been served on pilots for UNSPECIFIED DAMAGES. This was what forced our resignation.
YOU know that FACT, Pole Vaulter - but you and your ilk prey on the LACK of knowledge of others who haven`t read (or were not involved in) about the events of `89.

The people who accepted these positions were simply filling positions not wanted by the people who previously held them.
LIAR! If that had been the case, why did the AFAP (on behalf of the pilots) continue to try to secure our positions.
You have TOTALLY blown any credibility you might have been trying to achieve with that blatant LIE! Thank you. :D

By the time the AFAP now said it is OK to reapply for the positions the whole matter had been well and truly resolved and no more positions were available. Hence the LIST that does not exist. Everyone who answered an advertisment and obtained employment as a result was now declared a scab
The list exists, have NO doubt about that!
But it was formulated from the day the first sc@b re-applied, or confirmed that his non-resignation was due to his desire to work in contravention of the democratic voting system of the AFAP, to which he had agreed to abide.
The "list" was never an official AFAP publication, but a communal effort by ALL the pilots at the time - including some who subsequentl "went back" - assisted by Crew Scheduling, ground school instructors, simulator instructors, and officers in the Immigration Department! :)

Time changes many things, Pole Vaulter, but it NEVER alters the FACTS!

[Wizofoz]

Actually Kap, the offer to return under the old conditions did not come until around christmas, five months AFTER the resignations, when a couple of hundred pilots had been employed by AN and TN, blacklisted by the AFAP and subjected to the intimidation you gleefully admit to.

Obviously to little to late.

My suggestion was that if you had honoured your contract INSTEAD of resigning, the whole episode could of been avoided?

Also Kap, I have had MANY pre '89 pilots, both returnees and not, tell me that at the time they signed their resignations they were told these were a tactic to be used in bargaining, and would not be actioned without further consultation with the membership.

As one guy said to me (and he DID NOT return!) "I woke up the next morning and read in the paper that I'd resigned".

This, and the fact that the AFAP did little to get AFAP members NOT to take jobs elsewhere whilst banning people from joining the Australian airlines (I know one guy who was working for Elliot flying a Biz jet. He was about to upgrade to Elliots 737 when guess what? Two type rated AFAP guys approached Elliot and put him out of a job. Surley you can see that HE had a case to not be very supportive!!) were major factors in many guys returning and many more joining from the ranks of GA and overseas.

[Tool Time Two]

"Well Woomera let us see if the "other side" can take a reasonable rant without the usual hatred that eminates whenever an opposing view is shown." Read on. "The events of 89 had had started a long time prior to the event in an effort to extract as much as possible frm the companies prior to deregulation as it was clearly known there would be very little more could be extracted after that event.” Amazingly partly true. But PV ignores the primary fact that it was Abeles who started the discontent years before. "The contract at the time of the dispute was already like a copy of "War and Peace" as it had grown from a reasonable document to an almost unworkable document with one section contradicting another section plus numerous letters of aggreement to cover areas not covered in the original document. Obviously if the airlines were to survive in deregulation something was needed to rectify this situation. We had such anomolies as a car allowance each month of $250.00 tax free (even if you did not have a car)." Again – amazingly true, but who were also signatories to the LOA? THE COMPANIES no less. And why was the car allowance, et al, placed in LOA? Because that was the only way to try to recover significant lost ground as a result of THE ACCORD. THE ACCORD – that holy icon developed by Abeles, claimed by Hawke and Kelty as their brilliant “take care of low paid workers” plan. Well look at Unions now. The ACTU is an anachronism, thanks to the stupidity of Kelty and Hawke, and their stupid mates.Friend PV and his fellow scabs seem to portray the THE ACCORD as some iconic plan which had to be revered – in hindsight of course. Well, seems to me that they were the first out of it with the scab contracts. These documents were unbelievably lucrative, well beyond ANYTHING the AFAP had in mind, and the truly great thing about it was that after all those months, less than 23% of the AFAP membership involved, scabbed. MOST of ‘em because they knew it was WRONG! "Then the AFAP decided their pay had fallen behind the cost of living (as it had with every other employee in the country) and as they could not get their way with their pay rise (which was outside the accord)" No – the PILOTS decided they had fallen behind, and PV conveniently neglects to record the meetings, and the discontent which was rampant among pilots in crew rooms, on the tarmac, in the cockpit, because of the downgrade which had occurred over the years of THE ACCORD!Make no mistake, the dispute in 1989 was membership driven, and the leadership was acting in accordance with that drive, not the reverse, as PV and his ilk now like to push .….." ‘We are going to screw this company into the ground until we get our claims, however long it takes’ Just how long could any employer accept such standover tactics without taking some sort of action? Just put yourself in a situation where you were paying an employee to do a job and they openly refused the do the job they were being paid for (and paid very well) would you just sit back and accept it. Now, this is an interesting quote from PV.The words claimed by PV as coming from an AFAP rep may, or may not, be accurate, but the venue in which they are alleged to have been used, indicates the usual rhetoric in such contexts. They merely allow PV and his mates to recall them to use now to advance their specious arguments.But then PV suggests the poor old employer is looking down the barrel, and claims pilots were paid very well. Well, clearly PV and the scabs were NOT paid very well, for they scampered back to claim even more – but remember – these failures were not getting their own jobs – but someone else’s and that former colleagues pay as well.The hypocrisy never ceases to astound. "Then come the resignations (which were supposed to be used as a threat) and the next thing we know we have all resigned and in effect the dispute is now finished." Never at any time did the AFAP leadership claim the resignations would be used as a threat.They DID say that they would be used in the event pilots were sued – they were, and the resignations were used.Then comes the stupidity of Australian rejects and foreign scabs alike – “you didn’t want the jobs”! "For months after the resignations the daily papers carried full page adds requesting them to return to work but as these were continually ignored the requests were changed to advertisments for positions vacant. The people who accepted these positions were simply filling positions not wanted by the people who previously held them. The reasons they did not apply are their business whether it was because their union told them not to or they elected they no longer wished to work their but what ever the case they did not apply and the companies used whatever methods necessary to recruit.” Here is another example of ignoring the facts. The dispute existed. PV was a part of it, and still is, just like the rest of us. If he wasn’t he wouldn’t be writing about it now. So here he paints a picture to suggest it didn’t after the resignations- another favourite ploy of scabs.“ "Everyone who answered an advertisment and obtained employment as a result was now declared a scab." TRUE – Can’t avoid the fact, PV. "Up until the collapse of Ansett in the eyes of many the dispute would not be resolved until all 89 pilots got their jobs back." Yep! "As to the harrasment, always denigned by the other side There were the midnight phone calls, the weedkiller poured on grass the coin scratches along cars and like said in a previous post I am sure it went on with both side as it was "war". Amazingly generous of you PV to acknowledge your side might have been responsible for some of this behaviour.” "Unfortunately also as previously stated "Truth" suffers the most as the real story is distorted by what you see as the correct answer. This "War" will continue (unfortunately) until all the combatees have passed into the "Big Hanger in the Sky" as no one will chang the ideas on either side of the arguement. It will live on while ever we live on." And THAT’S the truth! :cool:

Dear Wiz, please research the newpapers three weeks after the the dispute proper began. You will find reports there that the President of the AFAP proposed a return to work under the old conditions under a cooling off period.
Yours sincerely, but with no regard, TTT.:cool:

[Pole Vaulter]

Good old TTT. Your version of the TRUTH happens to be different to mine and a whole lot of others. Fact is Mr TTT I can give you the name (But I dont stoop to those measures) of the AFAP rep who made those statements, I stood there along with about 15 others and listened.

It was also interesting to listen to the AFAP rep who did much of the negotating for AN at the time and his stories of negotating with the hated ABELS. He used to laugh and imitate his accent and tell us what an easy touch he was as compared to Sir Reg when it came to negotating and perhaps one of the main reasons the AFAP continued down their path of destruction was they believed they were invincible. Amazingly when you talk to so many today that did not go back but did not totally agree with what was happening most will admit they were afraid if they did go back and they AFAP won the fight treir carreer would be finished. Of course this would have happened but of course no 89er will admit to that.

Ables, like others who up to that stage has been an easy target suddenly realise they have been used and turn nasty. You Mr TTT would do the same. This all has been stated before but as I have said you have no intention of changing your mind and I have no intention of changing mine but it still amazes me the unwillingness to see what was really happening around you and to this day you still cant see it.

Again the reason the companies gave in to some of the crazy demands is the shotgun tactics worked fine with Sir Reg as he openly admitted if the airline was on the ground for more than 5 days he was history. This changed when the company had the money of your hated Ables and Murdoch.

The great KM has his usual tunnel vision on this matter and as I expected came out with his usual statements. Nothing changes. Also Kap I dont know where you got your info as to I was only an F/O at the time. I have never made that statement. Just keep to the facts

[BAE146]

FACT: Before the dispute started, the AFAP executive assured members that writs would be issued by the companies but they would only be a scare tactic and not to worry about it.

6 days after the dispute started, the same executive handed in to the companies the resignations of 1640 pilots because of the writs!

FACT: The executive advised members the resignations would not be delivered to the companies without further meetings and approval by the membership.

The resignations were delivered to the companies without any further consultation with the membership.

FACT: The AFAP executive assured members in September there was no truth in the rumour that many America West pilots were headed down under for jobs.

Three days later they arrived on our shores and were chauffered to the best hotels in town.

FACT: The executive went to the IRC in October and tried to call a truce - the "war" was not going well. Go back to work in time for Christmas.

Airlines reply - Pilots offer to little too late!

FACT: AFAP try again in December to go back to work - all bets off.

IRC advise media - AFAP are "whistling in the wind!"

FACT: Any pilot who returned to work before the October capitulation by the AFAP is a downright scab!

Anyone after that day were just getting THEIR own , rightful positions back before some low breed foreign SCAB took it offa them!

[MTOW]

FACT: Any pilot who returned to work before the October capitulation by the AFAP is a downright scab!

Anyone after that day were just getting THEIR own , rightful positions back before some low breed foreign SCAB took it offa them! So, BAE146, do I take it from that ‘fact’ that within the ranks of the returnees/blowins, there are degrees of ermmm… heroism? Or should that be hero-iness?

[Tool Time Two]

Heh! Heh! How little you knew RM, PV.:cool:

[Rabbit]

Wizofoz

Interesting suggestion but if you check the media and IRC records of the time you will discover the AFAP President offered on 6 occasions to return to work on the previous contract for a mutually aggreed cooling off period then start negotiations on the matter. And how many times did he also state on the media "All we want to do is negotiate". The Companies in fact refused to respond until almost years end when the companies only response after the many offers was to say it was "to little to late".

As far as the suggestion about honouring the contract. The contract had been expired in AAL for some time and negotiations for its renewal were stopped by ????? guess who. Someone who wanted an "Industry award", the same someone who did not want this some years earlier.

It was not the AFAP that cancelled the contracts was it?

It was not the AFAP that would not negotiate was it?

It was not the AFAP that shutdown the domestic airline system was it?

It was not the AFAP that "stood aside" the pilot workforce was it?

It was not the AFAP that illegally imported foreign pilots was it?

It was not the AFAP that broke the constitution and used the military was it?

It was not the AFAP that declared war was it?

It was not the AFAP that ....and so on ... the list is long isn't it?

BAE146... sorry but your "facts" are not that factual....its this "rewriting og history" that will not succeed as fortunately the truth will in the long term prevail.

"the first casualty in any war is TRUTH" ... is this ever so true, I sat beside a certain reporter from "The Sun", we discussed many things, the following day what was printed in the paper made me wonder if we were sitting in the same IRC hearing. When I confronted the reporter the next day he defended himself by saying that what was written was what the airlines wanted. I said "what about the truth?"...all he did was shrug his shoulders.

WE WILL REMEMBER

[greybeard]

well well well,

The old chestnuts are out and about again.

THE LIST IS THE LIST.

IF YOU ARE ON IT, YOU ARE ON IT

It's as much of the history as any or all of the comments above.

It was used per se to exclude non listers in the main from Aussie jobs, it may well have reared it's ugly head again to their disadvantage this time.

As I recall the listees volunteered to be elligible, were advised/councelled/requested not to place themselves in that area.
All of us have to accept responsibility for our actions, we all dine at the "Table of consequence".
If the table is bare now,

TUFF TITTIES.

It takes 40 muscles to frown, 4 to raise middle finger and it really is a lazy Sunday

C YA
:D

[Fubaar]

BAE146, reference your 'facts' (!) post: let me hazard a wild guess here... you went back in.... Otcober by any chance, after the (first I've heard of it) AFAP 'capitulation' in that month?

One of the many 'facts' quoted by sightboard run in his post I can't let pass without comment if only because it's so damed ridiculous, is the allegation that ...items left/interfered with in cockpits on turn-arounds... Question, sightboard run, (assuming, as it seems to me you are, that you are inferring that the non-returee pilots were the culprits: how in the world did 'non-returnee' pilots get anywhere near the flight decks of aircraft operated by the heroes post Aug 24?

I'm assuming (always a trap, I accept) that you were a late joiner to AN and I'm further assuming that you have swallowed the self-serving nonesense fed to you by the more senior pilots in the company as they attempted to rationalise the unrationalisable - their own behaviour in blowing in or going back.

[Dogbreath]

Greybeard, your last sentence almost caused a total loss of bladder control!! Beautifully said. :D :D

[Gnadenburg]

The book Sky Pirates mentioned a pilot spy within the ranks of the AFAP.

I think it was an Ansett pilot.

Abeles was a step ahead in some instances.

True story?

[RHLMcG]

Due to the timelag between duplicitous treachery and "appearing" on the "other" side - there were many.

[mainwheel]

Gentlemen!!!!
I was after some 3 word one liners.
"what a shame" and the like.
Please go on........................

[SOPS]

Well, well, we are off and running again, aren't we gentleman?

All this talk of lists, I mean who really cares if there really is a "list" or not. At the risk of repeating myself from another thread, let me add my thoughts.

After the envents of 89, Ansett decided who it did and did not want to employ, as was their right. The flight department management decided what the required standard was, and went about employing those people who met that required standard, as was their job.

The fact that nearly all pilots that had been previously employed by Ansett, when thy reapplied for their jobs (under the direction of the AFAP), were told that they were no longer considered suitable by the company, may seem strange to some, but that was Ansett's right, to employ who ever they wanted. The fact that they had a large group of pilots, that had allready passed all slection criteria, had been trained to company standards, and were all fully quailified on aircraft in the company's fleet, and had displayed their willingness to work for the company by re-applying for their old job back (when directed by their union), the fact that nearly all of these pilot applications were ignored by the company, as I said, may seem strange to some, but that was the right of Ansett.

Many of these same pilots, then went overseas, gained even more qualifications and experience, and some (but not all) kept re-applying to their old Australian employer for a job. I venture to say that everyone of them was not successful (but please correct me if I am wrong). To ignore these people, again may seem strange to some, but again it was Ansetts right to do it.

I am sure that when asked about all of this, "do you have a list of Ex pilots from 89 who you wont employ?" Ansett would have said "No of course not, we are just applying our own selection criteria to each applicant"

So lets go forward to 2002. Some pilots have found them selves out of work, and feel that a "list" is influencing descions made by airlines about who they empoly. They think that because they are current, trained to a (what was until recently) major airlines standards, and in many cases have flown the aircraft that the airline they are applying to is currently operating, that they should be a sure bet for a job. I dont think so.............

All the airlines out there in the world have their own Selection Criteria. Each is different in each airline, depending on the airlines own "culture", and the social cuture of the country where the airline is based. Also many good airlines will take imput from current employees about what the employees feel about the current selection criterias, and how they could be improved. This reults in an overall "makeup" of a required candidate, and the most important thing is "will this person fit into our airline"

If airline ABC decides that a certain person won't fit in with them. I am sure it has nothing to do with any list, they are just applying their own Selection Criteria to an individual applicant, that is their right. Just as it was Ansett's right to apply their own individual Selection criteria to applicants for pilot positions to their airline.

Just because a person meet AN's criteria, it is no sure thing that they will meet airline ABC's, DEF's, or EFG. It doesn't take any list to make this happen, its just the way it is.

Greybeard, I pause for thought................

[mainwheel]

NUH! about 864 too many.........
3!.

[sightboard run]

You're right about one thing, assuming anything not mentioned on a medium like this IS a trap. you know what they say...

Maybe I should've been more specific but the actions I mentioned ("items left in cockpits...", etc) are not FACTS I can prove, they are merely the one-sided version of events I heard about from time to time, as a late-joiner, which you were right about.

No, I didn't simply swallow it BUT it's a bit hard to hear from the "other side" when they were all overseas. I guess history is written by the "victor", and I use the term loosely.

How did they get near the aircraft, how the hell should I know? I can't be bothered listing all the things I heard of being done to intimidate scabs but I do know that what they described going through was comparable to what greybeard describes his family being exposed to. Naturally, I didn't hear anyone admitting to dishing out this kind of behaviour in my few years in AN but nonetheless, it was all pretty sh!tty stuff.

Maybe a "professional pilot" is not too much different to a wharfie? Would I behave the same way in that situation? I hope not but with any luck, I'll never have to find out.

What I WOULD like, though, is to hear someone prominent on EACH side denounce those actions for what they were.

Any takers? KM, PV, TTT, did I miss anyone?

[Richard Kranium]

To the supporters ( of the likes of SOPS, greybeard, Kap M, Rabbit, 2X2 and the rest that perpetuate this nonsence) of the AFAP action of 1989...here is a quote from one of your stalwarts...that is still on a web site...and I by the way, have a copy of "THE LIST"....

"....On the 18th of August 1989, the Australian Federation of Air Pilots (AFAP) embarked on an industrial campain ostensibly in support of a 29.47% pay claim. As part of this campaign, AFAP Pilots imposed on their employers (Ansett, East West, Ipec, and Australian Airlines) a limitation on the hours they were prepared to work in the form of only making themselves available for flying duties within the normal office working hours of 9am to 5pm.

This action precipitated one of the worst and most expensive industrial disputes in Australia's history, now known as the [PILOTS DISPUTE] of 1989.

The Dispute has been conservatively estimated to have cost the Australian economy well over a billion dollars and resulted in the loss of many thousands of jobs associated with the demise of the many businesses indirectly affected.

The Dispute was a significant factor causing Australia to plunge into recession nearly two years earlier than it's trading partners during the early 1990's.................."

So where the hell do you people that support this action come from!!...who the hell are you to do this!!!...who the hell gives you the right to cause such havoc!!!!...and thats what you have forgotten!!!...........IT WAS NOT YOUR TRAIN SET!!!...but somehow you have set yourselves up as Judge and Jury and you still don't see the wood for the trees...everybody was against you, you are employees, you shall do as requested, if you don't like it!!!! you can withdraw your labour and go away!!!...........and some of your collegues could take no more and had a higher sense of duty to family and company, and went back to work, so in your failure, you take it out on them in a gutless act............. in the form of "THE LIST"...

You would have been better at being unionist on a building site, not airline pilots...as was described to me once "Norm Gallagher and his cronies, that could fly aeroplanes...The flying BLF"....you people are a disgrace to use LISTS to stop others to get work for the dreadful mess you created in Australia...............

[greybeard]

Hey Mainwheel,

Looking for some 3 worders to describe the Listees.

Richard Kranium---Tasmania
says a lot for how he appears to hold the facts

Sorry EWL, there are always his sort to drag up interstate rivalries

Every womans dream???

Oh well there you go

Woomera, I know I shouldn't rise to the bait but that one got me in a weak moment

RK, have a good look at the list because in the main it contains the names of the weak and easily led, people who in the main let their MATES down in a big way. Many other Industries have gone through similar behaviour of a small number of their Union Members and the "Fate" of those has been similar.
There is an old story/quotation from a previous dispute in the mining industry where the behaviour was similar and many years later a young lad was told.

SORRY LADDIE, I CANNA HIRE YE, YOUR GRANDFATHER WAS A ****

RK if you are on that list, so be it, I'm not, didn't even give it a thought actually, felt that regardless of the cost to me , there were PRINCIPLES to uphold.
The costs you mention to the Country et all were tremendous, but could have been negated by a little spinal fortitude from a small number, Damn them and their weakness.
I don't drop my eyes and scurry around the corner in shopping centres, go out of restaurants, change my Vet half way through treatment when I see a 'Listee", but the "Listees" do.

It's late, did my 3rd last base check, fooled them again, got to look foreward to a 3 sector day training a S/O on Tuesday, life is a dottle. Thanks to all for some fun on a wet and cloudy Sunday, and SOPS, ta for the E-mail, it's been a ruff/tuff/m*ff of day, and to all a good night.


:p

[SOPS]

Richard K, this thread has been allowed to continue by the moderators, as long as we keep it civil. During my replies I have not yelled or abused, and I would ask you to do the same.

I have never said that this list that seems to worry you so much does not exsist, only that it does not matter if it does or does not.

You say RK, that in 89, it was not "my train set". Well you may be right or you may be wrong, I am not going to enter into a disscussion about it.

You also say that "you are empolyees and shall do as requested" That is a correct sentiment, in times of normality.

These days, you see, it is very much is "my train set", not all of it I would agree, but I get to control nearly all the trains.........and.......I am doing as my employer says "please apply our selection criteria to the best of your abilities".

So, I have the train set (or most of it) and I am following my employer's instructions, the ones that they pay me to follow and the instructions that is my employers RIGHT to isssue to me.

I dont need a list, even if there is one, I just follow my employers guidelines. No lists are needed, no anger, no hassles...just the criteria...and the facts. Makes the job easy.

:) Can I also ask on a friendly note, this thread is going well so far, can we please keep the yelling and stuff to a minimum to avoid a lock Thanks

[divingduck]

Greybeard et al...

you say that the whole battle could have been won by the returnees showing a little intestinal fortitude? (paraphrasing)

If they had stayed out with the rest of the 89ers they would also have been looking for work o/s I should think.

The rest of the worlds pilots and the guys in GA at the time were more than happy to step up to the plate.

I was only involved in a tin-pushing way in the dispute, but to most of the travelling public, the pilots thought they could hold the country to ransom and were rightly stepped on by the government of the day.

I don't for a moment agree with the methods employed, but when one group of workers begins to believe all their own press releases about their omnipitence, pride really does cometh before the fall.

Some have said to me in the past that it (the dispute) reminded them of the miners strike in the UK..Scargill I think it was against the Iron Lady...same result.

I have read just about all the threads on this subject, as have many people here on these boards and get do get tired of the same arguments being trotted out, the same rebuttals and so on.
Before someone mentions it, yes I could choose not to read them, that is my choice after all.

Yes, everything changed after 89, and there has been (IMHO) staggering hypocrisy from both sides, so how about treating it like a divorce...get on with your lives, and don't keep going back to what a bitch she/he was for the rest of your life.

I'm ready to accept being told that I couldn't possibly understand etc etc...but yes I can

I have one further thought...if there were death threats etc being received, were the police informed?? If not, what can I say? Why not?

[Richard Kranium]

Yes, we will keep it civil...and there is no need for abuse or yelling...greybeard! Yes, it is so sad that a quote like that is so true...what was it, Sorry Ladie I can not hire you because your Grandfather was a **** ...because that has happened at VB with one of the sons that I know...and this is what saddens me, to think that you guys expounded during the dispute, that you are such professionals, equal to judges, lawers and doctors...then act according to that quote, in a most basic uneducated and primitive way......or yes Tassweiga, because I'm Richard Kranium...I have another head...as the other one...you know, I have to put a cossie over it...and every womans dream...well once again, the other head has some uses...so I guess its my lot in life.....:confused:

[greybeard]

GOOOOOD MOOORNING PPRuNe,
With a sorry to Robin Williams.

Well said SOPS, good one Mate.

Diving Duck, well now your Para 3 about who would step up to the Plate, they did in droves anyway.

The point is/was an Industrial right had been removed to allow the Union of my choice negotiate on my behalf.
Even before the "resignation" issue took place this had been refused, then to have our awards cancelled and all the other questionable acts of "legalities" pushed down our, AND ALL OTHER UNIONS BY ASSOCIATION, throats, we felt and I was of the opinion that,

THERE WAS A PRINCIPAL AT STAKE.

A NEW WAY OF DOING BUSINESS WAS IN PLACE AND HAS REMAINED.

Do you have better conditions/agreements now as to then?
Do you have the same level of Negotiation ability now as then?
Do you have an Award or the more normal Workplace Agreement?
Do you have Employment or a contract?

Most people who are my contacts as crew do not.
Look at the differing conditions as to Qantas Domestic vs. Virgin as to that one example, the old vs. the "New".

As to a divorce and getting over the drama, yes most others and I have. Life is very different than 1989 expectations, my Xmas card list has a few deletions and many, many additions.
I, and others, have, and are still enjoying working for different Airlines, European, American, and Asian etc. It has been difficult at times, excellent at others.

You and others cannot expect us to, and we will not forget or forgive people who have "Done the Dirty" as we see it.
That is as good an Australian way as I can remember, everyone on face value until events prove different.

Mostly our current Employers do not know, care, or understand what happened in1989, they just need a cohesive workforce who makes them money, preferably large amounts, and will not allow anyone to disturb that cohesion.

The Airlines in 1990 in Aust made that point also, the same applies now in the second half of the game of life.

The death threats were reported, as to action, nothing, as the authorities although privately supportive were under "Sailing Orders" and did a fair job of keeping the peace even so. See my bit on job threats.

The Vandalism and the Recorded messages were passed on, identities indicated, no action taken. We had senior contacts in the Police and were given "The Word". To be fair, we as a group were also given a fairly long rope as to pickets, demonstrations and minor harassment, so as things cooled down I guess we just bore our own burdens as best we could.

Dog needs a walk, cakes to eat, coffee to drink; life is OK for a Monday.

RK just read your bit, it happened to our sons and daughters also so don't feel bad, it's a two way street. Mine was one so effected.
Heads up?

[Richard Kranium]

It didn't happen to all greybeard...I know of 2 sons that joined. and their fathers did not come back....so the companies did not live by the adage...sons paying for their fathers sins...but then you have other experiences........................I'm sad about people that live by rigid principles and dogmas............its called myopic vision...oh how many wars because of this!!!

[greybeard]

Yes, the then PM called it a WAR, couldn't agree more that there lies a large part of the problem in our case.

Coffee was good, cake also

C YA
:p

[ironbutt57]

Why is it that pilot unions will organize labor "actions" in regards to financial issues, and not safety issues, such as unsafe rostering, or the proposed oz legislation regarding cvr's used for prosecution.....nobody won in '89...but i find it incredible a fellow might be denied employment because of his parents union affiliation or lack of...that must be illegal:confused:

[410]

Interesting, (and just a little surprising), to see how emotive this enduring subject remains for some.

I suspect that I’m like the vast majority of those who were directly involved in the events of ’89 from both camps – the subject doesn’t come up every day (or even once in six months or more), but if I was asked whether ‘that year’ has had a major effect on my life, I would have to say ‘yes’ in reply. For me, it involved uprooting my family and moving half way across the world, surrendering a jet command and having to start all over again as an FO in a totally new environment. For my family, the changes were equally huge, but, (they tell me), in retrospect, by no means all negative.

I’m going to attempt to steer clear of emotions here and reply to BAE146’s facts and then list a few facts (as I see them, at least) of my own. I’m sure there will be many – from both camps – who’ll disagree with my reading of some of the ‘facts’, but may I remind such people what someone has said already on this thread: it was a war, (Hawke said so himself), and truth is the first casualty of war, so I suspect that there are many in both trench lines who genuinely believe some of the ‘truths’ that they were fed during – and after – those terrible times by self-interested individuals who were attempting to make the position they took – in both camps – look a little better in hindsight.

Let’s look at some of BAE146’s ‘facts’ for a start:

FACT: Before the dispute started, the AFAP executive assured members that writs would be issued by the companies but they would only be a scare tactic and not to worry about it. I can’t say that I remember this being said by any Union Rep, but I suspect he is quite correct.

FACT: The executive advised members the resignations would not be delivered to the companies without further meetings and approval by the membership. That was certainly my understanding at the time I signed mine. The resignations might have been an appropriate manoeuvre legally, but industrially, I don’t believe they were. Having said that, without them, I suspect the companies would have won the battle in a matter of days, because the personal writs, (from which the Union’s legal advisors were attempting to protect individual pilots by the resignation ploy), scared people half to death – as they were designed to do.

For those of you who were not involved, put yourself in the situation: a knock on the door, usually after 11.00pm, and a bailiff hands you a personal writ that puts at grave risk your home, your pension and much more than all the assets you have accumulated in your life. Scary, particularly arriving late at night? You bet they were – and the late night deliveries were not by chance. They were carefully chosen by the company psychologists to maximize their impact on individuals.

Without the mass resignation, I believe enough would have broken ranks to escape the writs to have caused a collapse of the Union position within a few weeks at the most. 70 were served before the resignations, but I have it first hand from a friend in AN (who was not a pilot) that he saw the 800+ writs addressed to every pilot in AN filling a large table in the basement of AN HQ. They were spread out on the table so they could be served over the next few days after Aug 24th.

The resignations were delivered to the companies without any further consultation with the membership. I have to agree. I was surprised at the time and more than a little shocked, because it had been clearly stated to me that the resignations were not going to be used immediately, but to be held as a threat and only to be used as a last resort. Surprised as I was at the time, with hindsight, I can see that the Union Executive quite possibly had come to a similar conclusion to the one I have now regarding the effect of the writs would have had had they been served to every pilot in the company.

FACT: The AFAP executive assured members in September there was no truth in the rumour that many America West pilots were headed down under for jobs. I don’t remember any such assurance being made, but I willing to accept that this too may well be true. I think we were all surprised at the number of pilots there were in the world who were willing – no, I’d go so far as to say wildly enthusiastic – to come rushing down to Australia for a quickie all-expenses-paid holiday. (Many brought their wives.) To this day, I cannot understand how those America West – and all the Brit and European charter pilots – can face themselves in a mirror each morning after what they did to their own industry. And now many of those very same people complain about the Australian pilots ‘flooding’ into the UK taking their jobs. Here’s a hint for young players, chaps – if you’d all stayed away, there would never have been a flood of Australians to the UK in the first place, for most of us would have got our jobs back when the companies would have been forced to negotiate with the Union because no aircraft were flying. (But I’m straying into emotive territory here, so I’ll desist from going on about that.)

I think the Union Executive were also wildly misinformed about the number of pilots there were outside Australia who would be willing to drop tools and move to (a nice place like) Australia to take a permanent job with AN or TN. In the Union Executive’s defence, I have to say that there was a world-wide pilot shortage at the time – (in the years leading up to the dispute, both AN and TN were losing far too many of their most experienced pilots to jobs overseas because of the falling value of the package offered by the two companies under the misnamed ‘Accord’ – and many overseas airlines were screaming for more). That this pilot shortage was a fact is clearly illustrated by the fact that something between 800 and 1000 of the pilots who did not return to work for AN or TN quite easily found jobs on everything from DH-6s to 747s all over the world.

There were some cases, as in Gulf Air, for example, were some of them were replacing pilots who’d taken the positions in Australia, but these cases were very few and far between. The vast majority took jobs that were freely available to but not taken up by those who came to Australia, and very few of the Australians were eligible to take jobs in the US because the USA had a government that continued to apply its own immigration laws within the American Constitution – unlike Australia. The fact is, those who came from overseas were either unwilling – or unqualified – to take up those positions with European and Third Word airlines. Bob Hawke’s Australia, however, was another matter altogether – the immigration rules, along with those in regard to use of the military in peacetime, were totally ignored. But I’m forgetting, we were at ‘war’, weren’t we? (I think there would be few in AN or TN who would not agree that there were some among the overseas arrivals whose CVs did not perhaps reflect their qualifications or work history very accurately.)

FACT: The executive went to the IRC in October and tried to call a truce - the "war" was not going well. Go back to work in time for Christmas. I recollect them calling for a ‘truce’ far earlier than that. Not able to believe their luck after the resignation fiasco, it was the companies who decided to lock the Union-represented pilots out. It’s important to re-state here that the only reason they felt they could do this was the willing influx of foreign pilots from the US and Europe who kept some semblance of an operation running while they trained the new permanent arrivals from overseas and GA – and waited for the dribble of faint hearted and opportunists to start from the Union ranks. Oh, I’m forgetting the 99.9999% of returnees – those sterling, stalwart individuals who went back only for their families’ sakes and to save the country from ruin.

FACT: AFAP try again in December to go back to work - all bets off. I have no argument with that.

FACT: Any pilot who returned to work before the October capitulation by the AFAP is a downright scab! Without the time qualification, I have no argument with your last comment, BAE146. However, to echo the comments of an earlier respondent – I take it you went back around then, did you?

Anyone after that day were just getting THEIR own , rightful positions back before some low breed foreign SCAB took it offa them! Have to agree in toto with your sentiments about your post 89 colleagues in AN, but you’ll probably have some difficulty to the day you die convincing some of the veracity of the first half of your statement.

At the risk of turning this into a tome, a few more ‘facts’ as I see them: was the AFAP poorly led? It’s a bit like Napolean’s comments about his generals, that went along the lines of “Don’t give me good generals, give me lucky ones.”

On balance, and with 20/20 hindsight, I’d have to say ‘yes’. I’m told by people who were there, up close and personal at the time, that it was very much a one man show with BMcC calling the shots. He made the classic mistake of not giving himself (and us!) a way out when he lay the gauntlet down. (But let me hasten to say that I don’t believe many could have done any better, for he was facing two men, Abeles and Hawke, who’d placed themselves into exactly the same position. Both sides had painted themselves into a corner where they simply had to win of suffer total defeat, and for Hawke, a back down would have been political suicide. Abeles and Hawke had the resources – and were quite willing to go as far outside the law as it took to win.

McCarthy didn’t have the resources, and just as importantly, was unwilling to step outside the law. (Let’s face it, if he or the stay-out pilots had done one tenth of the things some returnee pilots have told their younger, later joining colleagues they did, like ‘death threats’ and ‘interfering with cockpit switches’ (!) for example, the Mudroch press would have emblazoned any such incident in six inch headlines and an overly compliant ABC and the commercial TV stations would have run whole programmes on any such incident. The fact that there was one incident of weed killer on one person’s lawn was about as far at such harassment went.)

Some people here have accused the stay-out pilots of behaving like wharfies in holding the country to ransom. I believe part of the pilots’ weakness was that they were unwilling to act like wharfies, and any who did step even slightly over the self-imposed line were reined in immediately by their peers. I attended a few demonstrations that were organised by the inestimable Julian Hipwell. We weren’t even allowed to raise our voices. (I know there were others, particularly against Hawke, that were not so restrained, but they never turned into a rabble.)

[SOPS]

Very well said 410. And yeh , I had never thought of that, if being employed after a certain date was such a great and noble thing, then those that are on this list should be proud, not screaming to be off it;)

[Kaptin M]

Articulate, accurate, irrefutable, and FACTUAL!
Thank you 410 for devoting your valuable time to a post that should be compulsory reading for anyone enquiring about "that year".

Our "listed" heroes depend, for the most part, on trying to play on the "Iwent back ONLY for my family, and I was victimised" aspect. Yet one doesn't need to dig too deeply to discover from where the ORGANISED THREATS eminated...the "broken hands and legs" that Abeles tried to intimate were being made by AFAP pilots were NEVER part of our culture (as much as Pole Vaulter would have us believe that Sir Peter was a sweet, naieve, old man, unaccustomed to dealing with his workers :rolleyes: ). Nor did the skinned greyhound hold ANY significance for professional pilots - but obviously to the underworld types who were reportedly everyday colleagues of Hawk and Abeles, it signified what might happen to a "scab".
That the "listed" heroes received 24-7 professional security, phone taps to trace ALL callers, and a private, non-listed company telephone number is probably NEVER mentioned, when they recount their tales of "victimisation".

There's no denying there were angry phone calls - my wife was the recipient of one AFTER I had left Australia, whilst she remained back there with our young family. It was something that shook her sufficiently to call me, in Singapore - leaving me with a gut-wrenching feeling of worry for her and our children, and a knowledge of whom the likely, gutless perpertrators - now earning 3 - 4 times their previous salary - were.

Sorry to detract from your erstwhile post, 410. I hope that you will cut and paste it for a repeat reading!

Sui Generis.

[divingduck]

Greybeard...

thank you for your thoughts, it's a pleasure to finally read and discuss the events of 89 without the vitriol that usually follows.

In hindsight, perhaps this was the test case for the "new age" contracts and workplace agreements that the government/big business wanted in place and to curb the power of the unions (very much like Maggie and the Torys).

The government of the day, aided and abetted by big business picked a soft target...a small group of highly paid (to the average joe public) individuals and used this as the thin end of the wedge.

I distinctly remember just after the dispute having our right to strike curtailed under the new "essential services" legislation.

Again, thanks for your thoughts

best wishes to all

[410]

(I tried to fix some typos and the original became too long. Here's the rest of it.)

This (I think misguided) attempt to be seen to be ‘gentlemen’ or ‘white collar unionists’ who played by Queensbury Rules made us neither fish nor fowl. I’m not suggesting we should have done so for one moment, but, for those of you who have accused the non-returnees of wharfie-like thuggery, imagine what would have happened if the first America West pilot to show his face in Melbourne had met with the reception I assume wharfies would have meted out to someone who was doing to them what the American and European charter pilots were doing to the Australian pilots? - or would have been meted out to any foreign pilot arriving in America in the same capacity?

There were threats made, but I believe mostly by the companies or people who sided with them. I was personally threatened by the ‘colourful’ owner of a large, well known tourist island in the Whitsundays who rang me at home one Friday afternoon very early in the Dispute (how did such a person get my home number, you might ask) and ordered me to go back to work. When I suggested he speak to Sir Peter Abeles and have him negotiate a return to work with my chosen representative, he informed me that he would publish my address ‘so that people who’ve lost their jobs thanks to you would know where to find you and your family’. I swore out a an affidavit that same night with a police magistrate and have often thought that I could be a millionaire today if I’d had the ability to make a tape recording of that particular telephone conversation.

Mistakes – huge mistakes – were made by both sides. Both underestimated the resolve of the other party, an often fatal error in any confrontation. However, if you’re asking who held the moral high ground, ask yourself this: despite all their pious protestations that in going back (or blowing in from GA, CAA or overseas), they were doing something noble and courageous, has there been one person who, after fortuitously slipping through the rather strict parameters set in compiling who should be in this ‘list’ everyone speaks about, has to date demanded to be added to the list because it is something to be proud of?

I’m working with an individual now, (who’s escaped being on the list, although many of his peers believe he should be squarely on it because of what they KNOW he did and said at the time, when the ‘go backs’ were in the ascendancy and it seemed they always would be). Despite getting a command in AN on the A320 quite some time ago after joining AN as a new start post-dispute, (which to those with any knowledge of AN post-dispute, should answer whether they consider he should be on the list or not), went so far as to get a letter from the AFAP stating that he was not on ‘the list’.

QED.

[elektra]

Can I offer a few "Facts" too? As seen through my humble eyes.....

Fact 1. I had my eyes open, before, during and after the whole thing. I was not misled, fooled, duped or in any other way taken up the garden path by the AFAP leadership. I was though, fooled by a few "mates" who voted one way and ran the other.

Fact 2. The dispute was NOT over pay...I'd have been far, far better off (financially, not ethically) now had I taken the pay rises implicit within the new contracts

Fact 3. I was completely denied my basic right to have a party nominated by me to negotiate over my wages and conditions.

Fact 4. The airlines used intimidatory techniques including the late night telegrams and "we're back to normal" (lie!) to get us to feel fear.

Fact 5. Had I lost my super and back pay then I'd have lost my house and everything else.

Fact 6. The "Accord" was a myth...it was a setup, totally unsupported by Australia's constitution, to allow Bob and Bill to hand back a large chunk of employees salaries (by the stealth methods of inflation and capped pay raises) to employers. Who gave them the authority (because it wasn't the constitution) to slowly reduce my pay in real terms?

Fact 7. Having gone back to work the heroes BY THEIR INACTION continued the blacklist and denied jobs to fine pilots who had done no wrong except abide by a secret ballot.

Fact 8. Yes there were misjudgements. But the biggest one was a business misjudgement by Ansett that ultimately cost them 17,000 jobs, zillions of shareholders money and the loss of a once great name. They bet against the professionalism of AFAP pilots and lost.We're still here, they're not. (Ditto IPEC, EWA, TAA)

And that, with the pleasant echoes of a fat lady's sonorous tones slowly fading into memory, is it.

Or, perhaps we should be generous and say, in the end Hawke got his way. He said words to the effect of "I'd rather see the entire domestic aviation industry dead than talk to the AFAP".

Well he got his wish. I hope Australia never, ever, ever allows the 80's corporate state to rise again.

[Gnadenburg]

Somebody raised the issue of safety.

Had there been an accident during the dispute, I imagine the government of the day would have expended all its means on blaming the striking pilots of having blood on their hands.

A nasty scenario but how close?

I was told of a serious incident in the circuit in BNE involving a pilot called Fast Eddy or Freddy.The culprit long gone and I just felt the name comical if true.

The DME arrival bust in CNS,crew realised they were a 1000` low but opted to stay there until the next step.Other airline similar weeks later.

Anecdotal suggests other close calls.

I struggle to see how a government would take such risks.

Possibly explained by a perception of bus drivers!

[gaunty]

Gnadenburg

The Govt exposed the pax to huge risks by transporting them in military aircraft, not because the military weren't professionally competent, far from it, just using aircraft not certified for RPT nor most probably insured for that purpose.

One can only guess at the consequences had there been an accident in one.

I don't believe that passengers who were so grateful for the military flights were "informed".
People are always grateful for short term fixes until they get hurt, then the legal fun begins

I also understand that the airlines sought from or were coerced by, (we'll probably never know,) either substantial extra coverage or warranty from or made to pay higher insurance premiums to, the insurance industry to cover the vastly increased risks that anybody with half a brain knew now existed and would for some time under the new pilot regime.

At the time I was too busy dealing with the effects on my business to have the time to sleep, let alone travel anywhere by "airlines", but I do recall making a conscious decision to stay away, mostly in support, but a good part in concern for my own a&rse.

When I did fly airlines soon after, my first flight started with a description by a North American, Capt Speaking, describing "passing over the Indian Ocean en route". :eek:
After checking outside to confirm that we were actually heading in the right direction I said a quiet "Thank God for FMC's.":p
But my overwhelming feeling was one of deep despair and desolation at the loss to this country of its virginity, innocence and way of life that had been visited upon us by our elected representatives in bed with a bunch of crooks.

[Tool Time Two]

Some contributors, mainly scabs, like to paint the then, now non-existent, companies, as "reactive".
Well, here is a FACT - they were extremely active in precipitating the dispute.
It amazes me that so many contributors seem to forget it.
Someone recently mentioned the AA contract had long expired, and AA was refused permission by Abeles to negotiate until it suited his time frame.
I doubt Abeles was sitting back sucking his thumb waiting for the AFAP to start the industrial action in '89, and any thought that he was surprised is foolish.
Now for the resignations.
No one could not have been surprised to be asked to sign such a document. But when the early (Feb '89 stopworks) comments were made about writs, we were all covered by the IRC stamped awards. Issuing writs did not come as a brainwave to Abeles and Kelty on the morning of 23rd August. It was meticulously planned.
Until the AFAP was placed outside the IRC protection by award cancellation, the writs could not have had any impact, and on such basis the AFAP leadership rightly said they would be torn up.
The impact on other unions would have been far too great a penalty for Kelty to bear, so he had to get the AFAP outside the IRC protection, and that is why he agreed to Hawke and Abeles getting the late disgrace of an IRC President Maddern to rip up our awards. (Remember, Maddern died in the early '90s - from cancer, so who said there is no justice).
So when the rumour of the writs was indicated to the AFAP by the mole inside the companies, the AFAP took the legal advice that required it to advise its membership, and in that process, it advised the membership that the resignations would only be used in the event of the writs becoming a fact. Any suggestion that they would not be used until the membership was further consulted was, and is, wrong, and just think about it.
Why would the resignations be collected and held, only to have yet another meeting to see if they should be used? It simply doesn't make sense, and further, any recollection now that such advice was given is either erroneous, or whoever suggested it was not passing on correct information. In Melbourne it was made perfectly clear that they would NOT be used UNLESS the rumoured writs were issued - they were and the resigantions were submitted. Of all the surprises in the dispute, this was about the only one about which Abeles did not anticipate or know.
Now for famous "back door".
Well, there wasn't a "back door", and yet we still have some people imagining there was the famous "back door".
Have we forgotten that this was no ordinary dispute? Have we forgotten that this was designed to kill off the AFAP and its membership?
Does anyone think Abeles was going to allow the infamous "back door"be available to the very group he despised like nothing else on this earth?
I know of some individuals who thought they went in to check the "back door". Good people too, but still mind set on the old industrial "back door".
There was no "back door" in this dispute, and have you all forgotten that you were told that in the Feb '89 stopworks?
Abeles "back door" was the "scab door".
There will always be individuals who think they are above the group. All the scabs did. They will always believe they acted out of a sense of some moral high ground. That could not be further from the truth, for if there is anything non-lethal on this planet which stands condemmed above all other actions, it is HYPOCRISY. To be a scab is to be a hypocrite, and to justify that means a mind set change to accommodate the act, and it is usually exhibited in "altered facts."
So, who is around today?
Abeles - NO
AN - NO
AA - NO (OK QF DOM)
EWA - NO
IPEC - NO
AFAP - YES.:cool:

[Huw Jorgen]

It is always interesting to watch the waxing and waning in threads discussing this subject. As a senior AN FO at the time, the following things are pretty clear in my memory. I don't know what the situation was at Australian but I would be surprised if it were very much different.

(a) in the lead up to the public face of the dispute AN management set out to break the then contract at many, if not every, turn. For those of us with the seniority it was a nuisance but for those at the bottom of the pile, it was fast becoming dreadful. Those who maintain that the AFAP was the ogre at every turn are either not very knowledgable as to what went on or are just forgetful and/or not very bright.

(b) the writs, which gave the companies their resignation windfall, was their simultaneous downfall. Putting rhetoric and emotion to one side, the history had been that the pilot body was characterised by general industrial apathy and disinterest. Had there been no writs issued, the dispute would have withered on the vine. The writs, however, did what the Feds had never been able to do previously as effectively - it welded the group together and got everyone's back up very agressively. From that point on it was going to be a bloody war of attrition.

(c) that the cobbled together operation came close to disaster on a number of occasions is a matter of documented record. What interests many of us is the question of just how many other near accident incidents occurred of which we have no knowledge or documented record.

(d) we all had to face an extremely difficult and unpleasant time. We all made the various decisions we did. We all have to live with whatever consequences our decisions dictate. At least I don't find a need to duck into dark shop doorways to avoid people in the street. Many of us who chose not to return to the airlines' fold have had the experience of former friends (some of whom went on to become senior management pilots) not having the b@lls to face us in the street - their problem, not ours.


There can be no settlement to the dispute at a personal level as there is now no way that the displaced pilots can return to their previous jobs and this, regretably, is the situation which will exist until the last one on both sides dies.

I suppose that we dreadful non-returnees will, for the remainder of our lives, have to accept the fact that some other people will cross the street with their tails between their legs rather than suffer the embarassment of having to walk past those of their former friends and colleagues who suffered by their selfish and dishonourable actions during 89/90.

Make no mistake about the depth of the feelings - we all wanted to go back to work - but the majority of us were not prepared to prostitute ourselves just for the sake of a quick command and/or a few pieces of silver and, I suppose for some, the possibility of management positions for which they would never have been considered under the previous regime. In fact, there were a few returnees who jumped into left seat roles which they might never have achieved under the old ways - makes for interesting thoughts ?

For those of our brother pilots who joined the airlines some time after the dispute proper, I feel sadness that you missed out on the far superior apprenticeship system which the rest of us enjoyed pre-89.

[sightboard run]

Without the mass resignation, I believe enough would have broken ranks to escape the writs to have caused a collapse of the Union position within a few weeks at the most.

Were the non-returnees influenced to resist returning more by their own individual resolve to stand together or by the collective will of the AFAP and the decision to "resign"?

The fact is, those who came from overseas were either unwilling – or unqualified – to take up those positions with European and Third Word airlines.

You put "unqualified" in bold, as if to indicate you thought this more likely than "unwilling". Why? How were these pilots qualified to fly in Australia but not in Europe?

...perpertrators - now earning 3 - 4 times their previous salary - were.

KM can you back up the "3-4 times" claim with an example?

The claims and comments I want to see clarified all happen to come from one side. Odd. But please don't take this post as a statement as to which side I "support" (and hook in) because you'd be wrong.

BTW, 410, I'm glad to hear your ideas on the differences between pilots and wharfies. Maybe there is some hope but it seems no one will take up my previously posted challenge, despite notable parties having since replied to this thread. Interesting...

[SOPS]

Nice job so far people, some very good facts put forward, keep up the good work......."Sui Generis" regards SOPS:)

[Casper]

Elektra & Huw Jorgen

Excellent posts.

[Kaptin M]

perpertrators - now earning 3 - 4 times their previous salary

"can you back up the "3-4 times" claim with an example?
No, SR! I can give you MANY examples...if it's specific names you want, that's no problem either PPRuNe[/i].] :(
There were quite a few scabs who DELIGHTED in telling the non-returnees how much money they were earning under the individual contract they had signed, flying maximum hours every month when overtime cut in at [b]55 hours, instead of the previous 65.
Probably in contravention of their code of business conduct, accountants who were employed by the "heroes" also revealed to many of us the incredible salaries that their clients were pulling, enabling them to purchase properties and vehicles at the top end of the market.

B737 Captains' salaries of $385k - $420k were paid to previously junior 737 F/O's whose pre-Dispute salaries were somewhere in the $75k - $90k area. "Captain Lightfingers", the Osaka shoplifter, was but one of the better known early examples who typified this example.

This was the "30 pieces of silver" that Abeles and Murdoch believed they HAD to offer, to have the pilots sell their principles.

I have a question for those who "went back", and for those who support them - and it is this:
"Do you believe the resignations were a "TACTIC" (a withdrawal of labour) used by the AFAP to try to force the employers into negotiations?" :confused:

[ANFO]

I am not on any list. I did not apply to Ansett, was not interviewed or accept employment at AN during the period of employment bans. Yet on 2 occassions I was harrased and called a scab at an overseas port whilst in my Ansett uniform by pre-disputers. During the dispute the GA company that I worked at was using captital city terminals and during a turnaround I was assualted by some AFAP picketers who were at the terminal. Another pilot at my company had a mix of dog sh!t and broken glass placed under the door handle of his car. (he is now a captain at QF). I was also hasseled by company security at another airport until the security guard and I recognised each other(we had mutual aquaintances) in any event, I was there for work, not as part of a picket. ( By the way, the hit from behind by the AFAP picketer was the most pathetic slap I can remember. At the time , I was doing full contact sparing 3 nights/week; it didn't hurt me a bit. My 12 Y.O. daughter now has a better punch!:p.) These are actions of some of those who took the "high moral ground". Kaptain M I know that you do not like to be contradicted, but the B737 salaries that you quote above are significantly above the $180K-$210K that was the true figure. Incidently, if I were in the same position as you were, I would also have choosen not to return. For reasons that are my business.

PS I am aware of Ansett employing the sons/daughter of 3 AFAP members, perhaps there were more. Ansett didn't carry on about 'sins of the fathers'. That is now left for others who do the hirin' and firin' :mad:

[Wizofoz]

Kap M,

I enjoy your posts but sometimes you are simply full of ****.

At the time of the collapse I was a B737 Captain. After 12 years of incremental pay rises, my base salary was $144 800 pa for 660hrs/yr.

So IF I flew the max 1000hrs on our exemption, PLUS did a lot of ground duty (Sim, courses etc.) I might have made, say, 144800/660x 1050 equals 230 363.62, plus DTA at around 3.70 per hour on duty. A change in tax law meant DTA was taxed as income if we didn't overnight, and I seem to remember it coming at 400-700 dollars a month net. And this would have been a total of about 20 % above what was being paid in '89.

Fact is I never broke 200k in three years of command. I remember being suprised to see a mate on the A320 (Which had an identical pay scale) had broken the 200k mark. Not complaining, I was on a good wicket, but the figures you are quoting are fairy-land.

From memory a B747 driver (E.g your mate JL) might have pulled about $280k at the end.

I respect and respectfully dissagree with your position re returnees and new-hires to Ansett and Australian in '89.

But if you want to stay credible, don't talk cr#p.

[ANFO]

PPS. A mate of mine (also an ex-AN FO) Had interviews at Emirates a while back. One of the first questions that the panel asked him was "why did you join Ansett during the Pilots' Dispute". He started at Ansett in August 1990, 4 months AFTER the recruitement bans were lifted. :mad:

[Kaptin M]

The figures I have quoted - $385k - $420k - were provided in 1990 by scabs, gloating to non-returnees, AND by more than 2 accountants! That YOU were not making that money in 2002, Wiz does NOT mean that THEY were not making it then!
Comprehend'?!

From "Sky Pirates" (p.69)..."If new contracts were based on 55 hours a month before overtime rates applied, he stood to gain an automatic pay rise of 44 per cent. Some pilots would get 50 per cent pay rises.", and further on " After receiving a copy of the contract....Jull (Mr David Jull, then shadow minister for Aviation) inflated his earlier estimate to claim that new contracts offered pay rises somewhere between 32 per cent and 46 per cent..
The above figures were based on the old 65 hour figure.

I met with Mr Jull a couple of times during the dispute, and he confirmed that the following, as written in Sky Pirates DID occur........Abeles took a very dim view of Jull's position and later telephoned him to voice his displeasure........"Peter Abeles here. I'm very disappointed with you, Mr Jull. I'm going to ring Andrew (Peacock)and have you removed and I'm going to ring Rupert and have you scrubbed out..
So much for the image that someone was trying to promote of naieve, old Cur Peter!!
From memory, the words Mr Jull told me Abeles had used were, "I'm going to have Rupert do a job on you"

Anyway Wiz why don't YOU ask some of the early scabs how much they were grossing? But then again I doubt that none of them could lie straight at ANY time - even in bed!

ANFO, as Amos said to you some time back, you have a bad case of fleas. Where's that powder!! (btw, I think you might have meant "sparring" at that time - perhaps "sparing" is more apt THESE days!)

And so what if your mate was asked that question ("Why did you join Ansett during the Pilots' Dispute") ??
FYI there are a MANY more pilots worldwide who DO have a sense of morality than the mere handful who now find themselves removed from what WAS their bastion - ANSETT.
The big fish in the small pond have now been released into the ocean.

[Dogimed]

A quick question,

How many pilots returned, and how many stayed gone?

ie Who had the majority?

Dog

[Richard Kranium]

ANFO and wizofoz...you guys are right on....Kap M and his ilk are so far of track that they need a dozen FMC's to regain...the hatred carried by the 89's is breathless...I know of about, close to a dozen sons and daughters of AFAP stalwarts that were with Ansett, and one I can remember would not talk to the new pilots....but no one cared...Ansett hired anybody that played by the rules...and harrasement about the dispute on any side would not be tolerated, the guilty would face instant dismissal...so yes there was coldness on occasions from those who supported the AFAP...in fact one always carried an AFAP pin on a shirt and jacket...and guess what, NO ONE CARED...as time went on they opened up and started to comunicate...life just went on, there were better things in life than making up "THE LIST" or carrying it around like the bible...

Now the 89ers are in retribution mode against a lot of people that had nothing to do with it or aginst people that did not agree at what was going on, and yes I have heard this as well about Emirates and also VB when a son was asked wether he loved his father, and how could he after all, his father is a S**B...what is that!!!...what kind of people do this...this is just pathetic to make others pay for their own stupidity after 13 years, same stuff is going on at CX...Kap M, you know very well that the resignation pulled by the AFAP was so that you didn't get sued by the companies on an individual basis...Graham McMahon could not belive his luck, and now could hire who he wanted. The AFAP then wanted to get representation of the Ansett pilots despite the fact the Ansett guys didn't want it, as they formed their own association...the company didn't want it either, so it ended in court, after the AFAP took it to court because its the only way they could get their jobs back...how could you have 2 unions representing 1 group...recipe for trouble big time...could you imagine the working environment....the AFAP had a go and lost...to some the AFAP was everything and more important than their careers...:(

[Kaptin M]

Dogi 1647 total at the start.
347 scabbed (about 22%), of which about HALF (of this number) "went back" during a 10 day period over Xmas-New Year '89-'90.
1300 did NOT!

By ANY stretch of the imagination, pilots at that time could never have been called staunch unionists - as a matter of FACT (something that apparently eludes the 22% when they recount THEIR version of events), most pilots only thought about the AFAP in terms of the cover they provided for "Loss of Licence" insurance.

[BAE146]

Nice post 410.
I had nothing to do with the pilot's strike in '89. My comments were those of a moderate aussie pilot (non scab who we shall name "Bob")that worked here until recently. we shared many beers at the Dilmun Club and Sherlock Holmes bar, you could say, as only you aussies can - we were great mates! He was very bitter about the strike, but his anger was directed more at the main players rather than the rank and file. Bob regarded Hawke, Abels and McCarthy as extreme egotists and all with their own political agenda.
He made the classic mistake of not giving himself (and us!) a way out when he lay the gauntlet down.
Bob was very annoyed with this. He would say "you never go into battle without an escape route". There never was a back door for the AFAP,due mainly to McCarthy's incredible arrogance and confidence of an AFAP win. The tactics used against the pilots were despicable and unprecedented, no one can deny this, however, when you are taking on a government, big business, the union movement and the general working public of australia (who were all bound by this accord) you must expect the unexpected. Bob criticised the decision of the AFAP to continue their futile campaign when it was clear to everyone that the companies were never going to negotiate and were (be it very slowly) rebuilding the airlines with foreigners,new joiners and returnees. Bob never had a bad word to say about anyone, but bring up the names Hawke, Abels and McCarthy and......well,it was entertaining.
He never blamed the blokes that went back after the war was lost - October, I think and reckoned he wouldn't give a ***** about being called a scab,"A man's gotta do what a man's gotta do" he would always say. when I asked him why HE never returned he just replied "I wouldn't work for a prick like Abels, couldn't stand being associated in a union with B.McCarthy in charge and wouold probably punch Bob Hawke in the mouth if I stayed in Australia much longer. That was Bob.
I shall be returning to the UK soon to fly for Virgin Atlantic. I just hope, during my career, I never have to go through what you aussies did in 1989.

[ANFO]

Fleas eh? :mad: . For your information just about all AN FOs knew who was who and who did what, on both sides. My point has always been that there was bad behaviour on both sides. My point is that it is immoral and irrational to deny employment opportunities to people who are utterly innocent parties to the dispute. It amazes me that although I have previously related the stories of being attacked fro behind by an AFAP member in a terminal and of my workmate having his car booby trapped, NOT ONE of your mates or YOU has EVER acknowledged the despicable and pathetic action of these people. How dare these people behave so reprehensivley. I mean it was pretty obvious we were GA. It makes about as much sense as going out shooting the nearest Leb because of Sept. 11. :mad: (By the M, I run a business now and make about as much as I did at Ansett. So sorry to disappoint you :p )( Oh yes, and my business owns an aeroplane too!:D )

[dreamin']

If any of the protagonists here think that '89 is now merely a historical event, with the details the subject of academic debate, they should take look a the **** going down at TransAustralian Air Express. And this one wasn't started by the '89 ers.............................

BTW Did anyone there get paid yesterday? :( :(

[greybeard]

Steady lads. STEADY!!!!!

We may not like or certainly agree with our "South Island" friend or the "Wizz" but lets not call them names.
It's not worth the "LOCK" for a radical or two who has those sort of views.
This is probably running the course of all these things as they do, but as to a few of us preventing others from working in or around a particular location in the world, all of us have the RIGHT when ASKED if we would/could or not work with people and we have the RIGHT to an opinion.

SO IT HAS BEEN, SO IT IS AND SO IT SHALL BE.

I don't now, like some people who were my friends. They made sure I and my Family were dissadvantaged and descriminated against BIG TIME, I can now surely be selective if ASKED, with whom I associate and if possible work next to in my Airline, as others appear to be also.
That is not vindictive, it's my "space" and if I can partially influence who enters it, I will exercise that Privilage.



And Again Lads/Lasses STEADY STEADY
:p

[Kaptin M]

Ahhh...another day on "standby" = another day on PPRuNe :)

ANFO - the "bad behaviour" from the non-scab side was done INDIVIDUALLY, was NOT in any way condoned by the AFAP - and as a matter of FACT was deplored by Brian McCarthy and the AFAP Executive! Nonetheless, pilots could see that their LIVELIHOODS ie. something that they had spent their entire LIFE working towards, was being THREATENED, and pilots = being of the nature they are - are not usually the type who will stand passively and inactively by, if they can see an alternative.
Similarly, pilots are (psychologically) averse to accepting a domineering, over-riding, authoritarian rule.

Personally I think (that) you over-dramatise matters by describing;
Another pilot at my company had a mix of dog sh!t and broken glass placed under the door handle of his car.
as
having his car booby trapped

So ANFO, being an experienced combatant at the time,

At the time , I was doing full contact sparing 3 nights/week;

..how did YOU come to put yourself in a position where you were in THE MIDDLE of what was an OBVIOUS "Hornets' Nest" = a picket line of protesting pilots. (I think I still have that sequence on a video tape, if it was the one at SYD airport, and I know who the guy [Hi Tom] was who tapped one of the "apparent" walk through scab pilots!).
You MUST have been aware of the "heat" at the time, and the OBVIOUS taunt that you, and the others, presented.
Methinks thou doth protest too loudly, ANFO!

Where's the flea powder?

BTW, "Congratulations on your successful (security) business", ANFO!

[Classic Dick]

dreamin, aka Vee Chee, relax son. I'm sure the lads down at Trans air Express can take care of themselves and I have it on good authority there are no 89 problems there!
Give my regards to Ian, we were great pals in SQ.

Wizofoz, you owe Kaptin M an apology!

chin, chin.

Sir Richard II

[ANFO]

Kapn M, Chris t , I think your comments are a bit rich arent they? Booby trapped, YES! Workmates fingers lacerated and infected:not nice! How dare you have the cheek to trivialise such bastardry! As you said I "was in the middle of things". Sure, I was in the middle of minding my own business at work. If you really want to know, I was on my way to get a coffee and a donut between flights. Have you got some mental image that I went up to a picket line blowing rasberries? Get real. Some nasty pasties in the AFAP ranks don't deny it! You probably even think that I recon you're all a bunch of bastards who deserve what ya got. Not true. I was, like most of my collegues in GA at the time, quite sympathetic to AFAP although we were quite aware of certain instances of hypocracy on the part of the 'Feds. Interestingly, you said that AFAP didn't condone bad behaviour. But you haven't said that YOU didn't. I sincerly would like to think that this is the case. Here's your big chance to say. 'Yeah, whoever did that must have been a real Pr!ck'. Personally Kapn I hold nothing against you. I am a bit troubled that yourself and some others have slung off at people who have done you absolutely no harm. Like me. I really wish that you guys get some perspective and take a bloody good look at yourselves. If you're going to discriminate against those who have wronged you fine. Aim your invective at them, not those who were on the sidelines. Fair enough? :) (PS Dont believe anything that JL said . We didn't!)

[greybeard]

ANFO, back up a yard or so, if as you say you were on the sidelines, walking through a picket line means you had become a player.
AN security and the duty airport manager prevented me from entering the then briefing offices in the course of legitimate employment, as you were, at a major airport at the height of the unpleasantness.
You were lucky on the world stage of picket crossers as some of the New York bus drivers I think got a round or two from a 12 gauge to think about???!!!

As to your doggie dodo unfortunate friend, give a thought or two that he/she may have had more "Non Friends" than the Pilots as "listees" were not many peoples cups of tea in many industries or sections of society.
As to the " not me" that you seem to require from individuals on the board, when the Listees, all 347, say sorry, you might be in with a ghost of a chance, but then Hell is not scheduled to freeze over as I am aware.
As I said a few hours ago, STEADY ON, Woomera has given us a really fair go here.
If it's your aim to shut this one down, have the gutz to say so, kitchens are hot places some times.

[SOPS]

:) Well said Greybeard. When the air gets ruff and that old (what was it?) gets tuff, I still remember the things you taught me many years ago. 1. When in doubt,pause for thought. 2.State your case clearly, without abuse, not matter how angry you are. 3.Accept the things you cannot change 4. NEVER let down your mates.

As I said a little while ago, so far we have avoided a lock, please keep it nice everyone so we can continue.

I am going to reply to ANFO shortly, but first, as GB taught me, I will pause for thought.

[Kaptin M]

Confessions

Okay ANFO, I for one am not entirely innocent of some of the "goings on" that apparently prick the consciences of those who willingly SOLD theirs'.
I admit to:
Actively particicpating in airport demonstrations;
Allowing my family to come with me - but NOT making them;
Handing out brochures eg "Welcome aboard. You are about to fly with a scab pilot" in an attempt to get OUR point of view across to a public who were fed by the Murdoch-owned media;
Making 'phone calls to "men" whom I had thought were friends (or at least, familiar acquaintances at work) when I had heard they had scabbed, to ask them to reconsider - but in almost 100% of the cases, they never had the intestinal fortitude to speak to me - leaving answering machine messages unreturned, or wives to cover up;
Demonstrating publically against Hawke for the abuse of power he used, and his GROSS INABILITY to resolve the dispute by MEDIATION, but rather further INFLAME MATTERS by his abrasive, aggressive remarks;

Iadmit to ALL of the above, because I valued the job I had, and I valued Australian democracy - the supposed right that we ALL have to freely express our opinions within a legal framework.

I also admit that I did NOT make any death threats - nor am I aware of ANYONE who might have or did - except for people associated with organised crime, and there are 3 who immediately come to mind...David Jull mentions 2 of them, and the 3rd was a common link!
I admit that I HEARD about 1 or 2 instances of "returnees" being hassled (and really that is ALL it was) at work....one example was of Captain Lightfingers having a plate of mashed potato, with the word "SCAB" drawn in it, pushed under his nose at the staff canteen.
As greybeard commented, "Pilots as "listees" were not many peoples cups of tea in many industries or sections of society." ..let alone within their own company!

In REALITY most of the actions taken against the scabs was sensationalist at best, (eg. the painting of "SCAB" on fences....no, I didn't do that either :( ) and caused no personal physical harm.

Think what YOUR job at Ansett meant to YOU, ANFO - how hard you had worked to achieve it, how hard you worked to maintain it, how much you valued it. And what YOU would do to protect it, if you thought that someone was trying to steal it away from you. In fact, Dick Smith made what I felt to be a very good analogy on a "Good Morning Australia" programme at the time - he likened the dispute between the AFAP pilots and the airlines to a disagreement between a long married couple...something that happens from time to time, but is always finally resolved. However the intervention of other parties was neither needed, wanted, nor beneficial in obtaining a SATISFACTORY SOLUTION, and only widened the gap between the two, resulting in the 3rd parties being despised by ALL involved.

[ANFO]

Thanks for your post M, I did apprieciate it. Your activities: 1)peaceful(perhaps vocal!) demonstration, non-abusive phone calls, passing out pamphlets....Yep. All fair enough. The story about the mash potato raised a chuckle; I hadn't heard that one. My real beef here with you and some others is this; 1) I copped a whole lot of flack some time ago when I said that some returnees had my respect because I thought they had the guts to go back under circumstance of huge pressure. I still think this way. An analogy; My eldest daughter used to hang out with a bunch of other blond-blue-eyed pretty girls at school.(she takes after Mom here). Actually, they where a real bunch of 'Heathers'. The ring leader was a very charismatic kid. This little gang started giving another girl at school a real hard time. Nasty bullying stuff. My daughter dug her heels in and told the ring leader to leave this poor kid alone. The Ring leader said to my daughter "What, you're not friends with Fat Charlotte now, are you?" To which my daughter said "well OK , I choose her over you". My daughter lost all her 'friends' over this but won my undying admiration for having the guts to stand up for what she thought was right under enormous peer pressure. I hold those who DID and DIDN't go back to the companies for the same reason in similar high esteem. 2) I copped flack because I joined AN in late '90. I wasn't my fault that the dispute occured, nor was it the fault of the dozens of others who joined on late '90,91 or 92. At the time that we applied ,were interviewed and offered employment at the airlines, there were no employment bans in force and the companies had made it clear that they were'nt going to reemploy any pre-loved Pilots (the so called dirty dozen were an exception here). What were we supposed to do ? Knock back a job which was legitimately offered? Yet despite this companies such as Virgin and Emirates have an element of '89ers who are actively preventing the employment of those whowere quite simply NOT involved.. I think this sucks. If they are going to discriminate, at least they should have a reasonable basis for doing so; not just say, "Oh , they worked for Ansett, so they must be S78bs". I am aware of quite a number of ex-AN FOs who travelled to Emirates for interviews after the Great Collapse, spending $5000 on airfares for them and spouse, when all along certain ex AFAP guys had no intention of seeing them employed. 3) Many in this group are demonstrably NOT SC#BS, During the AN NZ Pilots lockout a number of senior AN FOs were offered 146 commands in Auckland and $10000US per month, A320 commands on return. All declined. In many ways, it doesn't matter to me in the long run. I am not longer in the airline industry. However, I resent the injustice that I and many others have suffered by the AFAP group here, on the line whilst with AN and in the current employment market.

[dreamin']

Thanks Dick. I’m always relaxed. I hope you’re right and the boys come through OK.

If you haven’t spoken to your ‘good authority’ since 19 August, get an update. Major differences since then. Evolving on almost a daily basis. Very unpleasant situation!

IMHO Late pays in an established organisation usually mean only one thing!

[ironbutt57]

Yes it does ANFO, having wittnessed similar treatment by the US side of the union scene ALPO...they are concerned with only one thing....me...me...me....sad lot really....

[greybeard]

ANFO, now your flag is a little further up the mast, we can see more clearly the colours on it.

Late '90 joiner, OK, legal to apply and to accept employment.
How would you have felt if you were a "Pre-Loved" pilot still out of work, more than likely better operationally qualified than the "joiner"?
I was at that time, 11,500 hrs, 4000 Jet command, training etc, etc.

I could be excused for calling you a suedo "listee".

You were happy to join a Company, which was practicing a blatant and offensive to most, discriminatory hiring processes. A Company with a fractionalised and disorganised operational work force, many people in new and difficult positions of power and vindictiveness, with some very new and untried training/checking personnel in some areas.

Did you mind doing that action, did you feel any moral difficulties with that process?

Time and a lot of water have passed under the bridges since 1990, your choice of employer has gone the way of many such employers.
You were part of the demise.
You took the greatly inflated pay, the legitimate job of some "pre-loved" pilot, the rest is history.

The employment list at the Emirates is about 3000 long, a 10th of that number may get a job, mostly those with command jet time, so the numbers may be the culprit in many cases.

I find it interesting you would join because of and under the protection of blatent discrimination, but object to any thought that it may, in a minor individual form, still exist.

Being out of work is no joy, I have that T-shirt and the cap that goes with it.

Look on the bright side, no death threats, no doggy dodo on the door handle, no Listee patrols, you got the easy road, my son, the easy road by far.

Some of the people on or near the list may feel hard done by the system, even may be semi-innocent victims, but it's a bit like being slightly pregnant, it shows in time. The facts are for all to see and I wonder at the enormity of the errors, duplicity, selective memories and sheer bastardry of past events, which not then, not now or in the future will be totally forgotten or in any way forgiven.

I find it interesting that you admire your daughter for the very principles we adhered to, but could appear to have double standards in your application of similar ideals

You got on the wrong horse, Sunshine, it shed its shoes, went lame and got put down.


:p

[waterops]

Kaptin M:
I for one am not entirely innocent of some of the "goings on"
Don't insult our collective intelligence. Are you trying to paint yourself as the "gentleman activist/protester"?
"Oh, I did make a few cowardly, late-night, abusive, anonymous phone calls but it was ONLY LIGHT-HEARTED!!! Jokes, Mate, just jokes!"
...I valued ... democracy ...supposed right...freely express...legal framework.
Once again, puh-LEASE... I almost fell off my chair laughing when I read that bit. PLEASE DON'T GIVE US THAT ABSOLUTE CRAP. Why can't you just admit you did it all because you wanted to win, you didn't want to have to leave for an overseas job (both good reasons) and because you were GREEDY. It was about MONEY. Admit it. Be a man.

Do you really expect us to believe mashed potato is the worst thing you did or heard of being done to a scab? Apart from THREE out of 1350-odd pilots? Yeah. RI-IIIIIIGHT.

"men", you say, in quotes to denigrate scabs' manliness but anonymous phone calls of that nature are one of the least "manly" things I can think of.

As for "3-4 times the income", are you talking $400 000 p.a.? Give me a break!! Now you ARE talking absolute crap. I'm sorry, but you are.

Oddly, I DO believe your protestation that you didn't paint "SCAB" on fences. I guess you couldn't be everywhere at once.

greybeard: Perhaps you could only call ANFO that if he was covered in a fine, velvet-like (pseudo) leather. (Such as suede.)

[ANFO]

No, you would NOT be excused for calling me or any of my contemporaries a "psuedo listee". I fail to see any double standard, either, simply because the fight was between YOU and the Companies not ME and the Companies. Not only that, but I never said that it wasn't unfair that the 'Feds weren't re-employed. They should have been and I think that my contemporaries would largely agree. But for myself and the many, many others who joined during this period, it would have been utterly futile to not accept an offer. Because their mass re-employment was never, ever going to happen. The way I see it, AFAP picked a fight with the biggest bully at school, got its collective head punched in, then blamed the world for not jumping in and helping. Dont blame those on the side lines for your own mistake, sunshine. It is not a measure of a man by which I am impressed.

[410]

sightboard run, in answer to your question on page 4: (“You put "unqualified" in bold, as if to indicate you thought this more likely than "unwilling". Why? How were these pilots qualified to fly in Australia but not in Europe?”)

I mentioned this because I went to the U.S. to get a US ATR in 1990 and switched to a second school after completing the ground subjects at the first. The Chief Instructor at the first school was not a happy camper when I informed him I wouldn’t be spending some thousands of dollars with him on a (to me, useless) Citation conversion for my licence issue because the second school made me a far better offer using a 737 sim. Rather bitterly, he informed me that the school I was going to had made a fortune over the last six months giving quickie 737 ratings to non-rated pilots who then went to Australia to take up commands with AN and TN.

Please let me stress that I have no way of knowing if what he said was true, but if it was, some – (according to him, quite a number) – of the ‘experienced captains’ from overseas that AN and TN employed were in fact first officers who obtained command ratings on the 737 only immediately before moving to Australia.

If what he said was in fact true, there is no way the Australian companies would not been aware of this unless all these individuals falsified their log books so well that the companies did not pick the fact up, which I find rather hard to accept. This seems incredible, but to lend some credence to it, the story of the American who was accepted by AN even thought he couldn’t furnish them with a log book “because it was classified” it is quite well known, and I understand has been confirmed by pilots within the post 89 AN. (The person said he had flown for the CIA and so couldn’t show them his log book.)

Hope that clarifies my comment.

[Helibloke]

Ah you mean the ELVIS bodyguard, what a load of old COBBLERS!!!!;)

[sightboard run]

yeah that clarifies, thanks.

as for the Elvis bodyguard, yeah I remember that guy. I thought it was hilarious...

[meloz]

Thanks for all the posts.

Everything is so much clearer for me now that I understand what the dispute was about.

Meloz

[Wizofoz]

Hi Kap M,

Just back from a trip, not avoiding you!!

As to your assertions re the pay of early joineew- returnees, I repeat Complete and utter crap!! .

I Have seen original copies of the contract (There was only one, all signed on to the same conditions) that was used in '89 and '90. from memory the base for a 737 Capt was about 119 000. my quote of my salary was to illustrate what some one earned after 12 years of pay rises!!! .

But OBVIOUSLY something that you heard from someone who heard it from someone trying to make a point is going to be more accurate than first hand information from someone who worked there for 11 years!!

Actually, you're right. To earn 385K, all it would have taken was for your theoretical FO to imediatley become a 767 Checkie and then fly 1700 hours for the year!! (our CAO limit was 900 at the time!!)

I'm prepared to accept that people may have different opinions, but to quote simply bull#### figures, then get all hurt when it is pointed out to you smacks of a bit of insecurity, nes pas?

[ico330]

Dear ANFO,

I for one would like clarification on the grey area of those who joined the two incumbent airlines between March 1990 and 1991.
Although you were politically correct to return after March 1990 is it not true if you didnt contact the two airlines prior to the "magic date" you wouldn't get a guernsey anyway. I have that on good authority being personally told that by one of the managers at the time. In his words "what a pity you didn't make contact with us, even a phone could would have sufficed". I believe there exists a group of pilots who lurk around just outside the "list" and profess not to have any involvement in the dispute. After all this time, admit exactly when you did make your application whether by telephone, or in writing. Or if you asked to put your application in the drawer until after the dust settled. I succinctly remember guys in the G.A. company I worked for getting the call up over vastly experienced turbo prop captains, who honourably did not contact the airlines during the protracted dispute. My thoughts are always with that group of gentlemen who still remain in G.A. to this day and are the true "victims" of this whole situation. I am personally sick to death of listening to all of the aforementioned "scabs" whining that they have not been handed jobs on a platter from the likes of Virgin, Emirates and Dragonair. I remember trying to obtain help from some of you in getting my job back but to no avail. The adage "what goes around comes around" appears particularly apt just now. Greybeard, I hope that you enjoyed your cake and the next time I am passing I look forward to a lamb roast. Cheers. :)

[7x7]

Two points come to mind regarding 410’s comnet: If what he said was in fact true, there is no way the Australian companies would not been aware of this unless all these individuals falsified their log books so well that the companies did not pick the fact up, which I find rather hard to accept. Firstly, if some of the ‘blow-in’ overseas pilots had falsified their log books so incredibly cleverly that AN and TN recruiters couldn’t see that they were ‘cooked’, they could have taken those same log books (and their ‘experience’) to any one of the dozens of airlines all over the world who snapped up literally hundreds of the ‘stay out’ Australians.

Secondly, since a pilot can’t fly in command of a commercial jet aircraft without a rating certificate, how do you falsify the date of issue on a US FAA rating certificate?

[Kaptin M]

Waterops - "Oh, I did make a few cowardly, late-night, abusive, anonymous phone calls...........WRONG.
Unlike the gutless, spineless individuals that found it necessary THEN, and NOW, to hide their actions and names, any telephone contact I had....sorry, ATTEMPTED to have - because the weak b@st@rds would never come to the phone themselves, hiding behind their wife, father, mother or answering machine.....any telephone contact I ATTEMPTED to have was preceded by my name, "This is ........ ....... calling."

I almost fell off my chair laughing when I read that bit. PLEASE DON'T GIVE US THAT ABSOLUTE CRAP. Why can't you just admit you did it all because you wanted to win, you didn't want to have to leave for an overseas job (both good reasons) and because you were GREEDY. It was about MONEY. Admit it. Be a man.
I guess it really is hard for non-principled people such as yourself, Waterops, to realise that the majority of humans don`t let their world revolve around money. It was (wrongly) assuming that there were many more people - such as yourself - who would sell themselves for "30 pieces of silver", that gave Abeles and Hawke the incentive to try their luck
As HISTORY showed, only 22% of ALL the pilots involved demonstrated that they were GREED-driven.

Do you really expect us to believe mashed potato is the worst thing you did or heard of being done to a scab?
Poor darlings - "SCAB" drawn in mashed potato, "SCAB" painted on a fence - what a TERRIBLE price to have to pay for being forced to accept rapid promotion and MASSIVE salary increases, whilst at the same time ACTIVELY working to PRECLUDE their former work colleagues from obtaining re-employment.
My heart BLEEDS for them.
Whilst the scabs were out buying new cars, and houses, those non-returnees were SELLING OFF many of their lifetime`s assets to maintain their ONLY HOME, or pay for their kids` education, medical and hospital expenses, etc.

However, Waterops, it would appear that the point I was making went completely over your head (why am I not surprised!), which was the FACT that the mashed potato in the STAFF canteen was pushed there NOT by an `89-er....it would have been impossible for any of us to gain access......but by another Ansett employee who also saw the scabs for WHAT they were.

Wiz - unless YOU are a scab, you were not privvy to the INDIVIDUAL CONTRACTS being offered to previous Ansett pilots to lure them back.
If you ARE a scab, then I wouldn`t expect that you (and the rest of them) have changed over the past 13 years, and lies and deception are the basis of your daily dealings.

I have firsthand knowledge through MY accountant, as to what some of the early returnees were grossing!

(Edit) Posting between sectors sometimes means there`s not quite enough time to include everything I had initiallly intended. And so Wiz do I also have the NAMES of THREE Ansett "heroes" who made a point of telling `89ers how MUCH their 30 pieces of silver translated into Dolllars...and "NO, not through a friend of a friend of a friend", but FIRST HAND.
Two of the species were BNE based - one ended up as an Ansett 744 "Captain" (having returned as a junior f/o.....almost Number 1 BNE crawlback, from memory) and was subsequently fired after having been gaoled in Japan for shoplifting.
Another was a short, permanently imbibed, wa#ker, who`d been lucky with the stockmarket pre-`89 - he, in particular, made several `phone calls to a good mate of mine, trying to convince him to return with stories of "unbelievable salaries" and the guarantee of an immediate upgrade (my mate was an F27 Captain at the time).
The third cretin was still trying to rub salt into the wounds in the early `90`s. Seeing a couple of ex-AN, then SQ pilots in the simulator centre at Garden Drive, Melbourne, he tried to garner a reaction by calling out to them "Thanks for the pay rise!".

[Wiley]

The last post proves that 410’s opening comment in his very long post way back on page 2 or 3 remains all too true – passions still run high (or should that be ‘deep’?) for some over the events of 1989.

I don’t want to engage in the mud slinging, (there’s certainly been enough of that – in both directions), but simply make an observation: a number of ex-AN employees who became ‘ex’AN in 2001 have expressed outrage over the outspoken Amos ‘hijacking’ their thread announcing their get-togethers to commemorate the first anniversary of AN’s final demise.

I know – and believe it or not, understand – that emotions are running high for the people involved in the 2001 debacle as Sept 14th approaches. (I’m also sure there will some among the more recent ex-AN employees who will be quick to remind people like me of how very different they believe the circumstances to be of how the ‘2001-ers’ came to find themselves unemployed versus how the ‘89-ers’ came to find themselves in the same situation.)

It’s over the fact that I, (and I believe most ‘89-ers’), do understand your grief and bitterness that I wanted to make my point.

Anyone who would care to troll through my voluminous posts on this site on the subject of 1989 will eventually come across a comment along the lines of “You couldn’t really understand (1989) unless you were there, and the only way you ever will understand is to go through something similar yourself – and I pray for your sake you never understand.”

Unfortunately, thanks to the demise of AN twelve months ago, the rest of the hapless AN staff now perhaps do have some understanding of how deeply wounded many of the ‘89-ers’ felt as they saw jobs (that they valued no less than you valued yours) disappear. Please understand that the vast majority of the ‘89-ers’ wouldn’t have wished anything like that on any of the rest of the AN staff.

However, after reading many of the posts above, you’ll have to understand that for us, that sympathy could never extend to that small group of opportunists or turncoats who make up that group many of us have come to call with the thickest irony we can muster, ‘the heroes’.

[downtheback]

Surely Wiley, one of the differences in your post is that you claim that AN staff of 2001 and 89ers jobs "disappeared" is that one group volunteered to resign and not go back to work and the others had no choice and had their jobs taken away from them

[tightcannon]

downtheback ("had their jobs taken away from them")

Guess what happens when you make a cake with expensive bad eggs and then try and sell it.

Yes thats right, even though the other ingredients try their best it still tastes like S**T.

So the question is why did the other ingredients not try to stop it being made in the first place, Becuase eventually everybody could see that expensive cake will not survive on the shelf if some of the basic ingredients are bad.
You made your bed out of satin sheets now you lie on cotton, be thankfull you had it good for so long and can still afford cotton. Some people who "volunteered to resign and not go back to work" ended up on chaff bags. But boy could they make a good cake!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I wonder if in the past you might have quoted

"Let them eat cake"


:eek:

[Wizofoz]

Kap,

Interesting that you'd choose to believe what those guys said when it happened to agree with your view of the world. Ever consider they may have been pulling the pre-89 crowds collective chains with regards their earnings? I'm sure you wouldn't believe anything else JL told you (I had to fly with the guy, and I assure you I wouldn't!!).

When you started with your current employer, you signed an Individual Contract Right? But it's terms and conditions were the same for everyone who joined at the same time? Same deal AN and TN until the contract (Singular) became the basis for the new award. Everyone was on the same deal, the contract spelling out terms and conditions for each rank on each "Group" of types.

So if your accountant was told by another accountant (And him then telling you makes the info 4TH hand, not first!) that AN guys were making 385-420k (Now, you quoted Sky-pirates as saying some one got a 44% increase. High school math is a few decades in the past, but 44% isn;t 3 to 4 times now, is it?) then he was MIS-informed.

How do I know? Firstly it's public record as the contract became the AN award in 1990. My Best Man joined as a DE 767 FO in late '89, knew all your mentioned notables, and was later on the APA committee. I had dealings with EBA committees and can assure you the earning capabilities of everyone up to and including checkies was public record.(Now management! There's a different story!!)

I don't expect any of this to convince you. Someone told you something that re-enforced your hatred and bitterness, and I know nothing, including publishing group certificates (You'd be SURE they were fake!! Your accountants cousin swears they were!!) will change your mind.

As such I will not respond to any more of your posts ever.

If I feel the urge, I'll find a brick wall and talk to it. On the whole a lot more reseptive to alternate ideas and flexible in opinion.

[Thumbs up]

KAPTAIN M

I've quietly sat on the side lines for a while,but now have to decided to make a contribution to this thread.

Don't forget the dispute was initated by us (AFAP) over money (29.3%,from memory).So your ranting and raving about greed is flawed.
I can clearly remember at a Fed meeting an obtained copy of the (new) AN contract being waved around and being told that there was no way this contract could be worked to.Interestingly none of us were allowed to peruse this obtained contract.But now people like yourself are claiming that it was a good Contract.
................so which is it Kaptain ?............

It was a good Contact,for the Company as well as Pilots.Personally I was well paid to do the same hours in that first year back as I did in the three years total prior.Certainly not a Contract that was completly unacceptable as we were led to believe.
Mashed Potato incidents were far from the worst harrasment received by returnees,in fact as a junior Pilot at the the time it disgusted me at what some of the non-returnees would do.A so called professional group with vindictive,callous("bleeding heart",hey Kap) acts such as I know that you are aware of,and how did I know about these acts?.Amazingly many of these people couldn't get back to the Fed office fast enough to boast of their actions.

Kaptain M, ...why is that your only reasoning for people returning is to solely benefit themselves over others?.Do remember in the February of that year when we held our one day stop work meeting,and we were told we may have to be prepared to strike for a month?.Well I do and I voted for it,then in August I then voted for protracted action as seen fit by the executive,but I never,never was going to give up a job I dreamed of,and worked hard for (just like you), for years, for bad decisions made by the AFAP!.As I said before I proudly walked into my AFAP office and announced of my intention to return,I even gave them the opportunity to talk me out of it by giving me an iron clad guarantee of a job back with Ansett,Guess what ?....

I and most like me whish the dispute never happened,intentions for greater than normal advancement were not the agenda as you would believe,(unless your accountant says so!!).
I like a lot of the hundreds of unemployed ex-Ansett Pilots are going through the process of disposing Assets to pay bills,something you may have had to do 13 years ago.The difference is you and your merry men are revelling in our (read all Ansett) loss.
How sad for you kaptain M.

[KaptinZZ]

Kaptin M,

We've occasionally agreed in the past, but on the issues of salaries, they never reached anywhere near what you quoted. I suggest that you, or whoever alleges he heard thise figures, was being wound up, and the accountants had their heads in their a***s. It's just not reality.

An A320 Captain, and I was one, never, NEVER, grossed more than $230K, and that was only in the last full year of operation. The shoplifter may have reached $270 - $280K, but NEVER more.

The hourly rate multiplied by 1000, and an added month for holidays simply couldn't give a higher figure, and that's assuming that he actually flew maximum hours which few did.

Sometimes your posts are good, but when you run off at the mouth with figures such as these, you lose credibility totally, just as you do with the scab rhetoric.

Keep it clean; keep it factual; keep it nice, and people will listen. Post as you just have, and most will think you're a ********; those who were in doubt will have it confirmed.

[ironbutt57]

Kaptin M is good with the union rhetoric, and bad with the facts...everybody KNOWS what he is...

[whyfly]

a billion dollars worth of damage to the economy

we must have been worth the pay rise

[ANFO]

ICO 330, I have read your post several times now. I am really not sure how to commence answering your demands that I "admit exactly when you did make your application whether by telephone, or in writing. Or if you asked to put your application in the drawer until after the dust settled." When you phrase things this way, it makes me think that you have probably made up your mind that I somehow was up to something sinister and given the tone of your question(if that is the tone that you intended), I will not answer it.(A bit like me perhaps demanding that you admit to when you stopped beating your wife, no?). As for the assertion that "after March 1990 is it not true if you didnt contact the two airlines prior to the "magic date" you wouldn't get a guernsey anyway." This is demonstrably not true. I was talking to an ex-collegue (an Group 2 capt) who started in late '90and says that he should have a good chance at Emirates because he has a dated letter from Alf Gloster acknowleging his initial application. This letter is dated July '90. It is probably true that there were some in GA who were calling up the airlines every 5 mins during the dispute, but I have no evidence to support such a conclusion. I didn;t myself and have heard of no-one doing so.That you "...have that on good authority being personally told that by one of the managers at the time. In his words "what a pity you didn't make contact with us, even a phone could would have sufficed" may not mean anything, Perhaps they didn't like your application or for some other reason you( or your collegues on turbo-props) did not meet the required profile of the time. (This shouldn't been seen as a personal failing.If your handle reflects your current type, then you haven't done badly in the long run). I hope that the evidence that I can present (the friends letter) clarifies the issue for you regarding your suspision that only people who were in contact with the Airlines during the period Sept '89 to March '90 were employed during '90- '91. I myself know that this is not true.

[fartsock]

And the real ongoing tragety of all this is that some of those who did $cab for TN have ultimately been rewarded with ongoing career progression via the A330 and ultimately (as seniority allows) with commands on the B747-400 in QF

[mut]

Fartsock
Just a quick question. Did you fly any domestic sectors in 1989 or 1990?

[greybeard]

Well now, we are nearly at 100 posts so the course is probably nearly run.

As the almost starter of this one, just a few words toward the end.

The list?? As SOPS has said who needs it, we know who our friends are anyway.

347 of the group were at least able to join our old employers and accept the "Paint Job" of being a person of a particular colour, there are a few of 1990 vintage who surely have some serious over-spray on their coats.
Both lots accepted the really putrid document to not allow "loved" and "pre-loved" Pilots to be in the same cockpit on "safety" grounds.
That is actually the bit that sticks in my throat, you nicked my job and then set about ensuring that I could never work in Aust again, just to make sure the theft could never be reversed.

The wheels fell of half the situation, behold and lo, we were supposed to be "mates" and accept you into the wide, wide world of Aviation again.


BULLSH*T, it was "unsafe" then and what has changed, you need a job that's all.
Some have a job, some will get one and some will never work in Aviation again,
Same Sh*t, different year.

The Pay, I got 100K the last year in Ansett, the new scales allowing for a few wrong figures published in haste, were double in round figures. 30%???, just 30 bits of Silver, at least the original receiver had the Balls to own up.

Just a question, how much financial support from your Q mates is flowing to help you keep your yachts, BMWs etc?
We put 100K on the street in the "Western Approaches" to help prevent loss of houses etc.

A little story to finish.
She who is obeyed and I were shopping at a centre nearby, went our ways and re-met for the coffee 'n cake as mentioned.
Said She "Don't look around, but a bunch of "347ers" are in that coffee house"
They were, but the rub is, spotted a wife first she did, had the feeling it was a "347" type one and observed the group until I came along.
She did not know anyone of that group, EVER, before seeing them that day.
You and yours have an "aurora" that was spotted 13 years later by a complete stranger to that group involved.
A list? Nah not necessary.

Sui generis.



:p :D

[7x7]

When this thread opened, I was hoping it might avoid the usual traps and actually be informative for those who are too young to have been there or remember. However – predictably – it ended up going in pretty much the same direction as earlier threads on the subject, with people on both sides becoming bogged down in minutiae and personal agendas. On one side, we’ve had the old chestnut of just how big each of the thirty pieces of silver really were, (who really gives a damn whether it was 50% or 400% more – te fact is, it was substantially more than the Union was asking for in its ambit claim, and spare me the old chestnut that you had to work harder to earn it.) On the other, we had ANFO aggrieved because one small group of intemperate stay-outers called him a nasty name – and therefore, all stay-outers are really nasty people.

However, despite that, there were a few gems in amongst the dross, and I hope that those who opened this thread to learn, rather than to reinforce a fixed preconception about the events of 1989-90, (like I did!), managed to sort the wheat from the chaff.

I’d like to join one of the very earlier posters in saying it’s a shame ‘Brisboy’ hasn’t added his tuppence worth to the renewed debate. I found his comments on earlier threads regarding 89 among the most lucid and unemotive of any arguments on both sides.

Oh, and it’s worth noting that ‘Wiley’ in his last post was spot on in his prediction that someone wouldn’t be able to resist pointing out the difference they perceived in the way those who lost their jobs in 1989 differed from those so similarly affected in 2001. In case it needs spelling out, 2001-ers, I believe ‘Wiley’ was trying to say that, disregarding any differences you may perceive on that point, the 89-ers really do understand the sense of loss the 2001-ers felt and continue to feel. The big difference was that you have the sympathy of the nation. Rightly or wrongly, we had anything but.

The ‘list’ certainly exists, and I believe it will continue to exist until the almost last player in the events of 89 is dead and buried, but I think anyone who believes that overseas airlines in search of pilots would take any notice of any such unofficial document is searching for excuses as to why he failed to get a job. And if any heroes are still feeling aggrieved about ‘the list’, consider this - at least you don’t have a sorry excuse of a Prime Monster adding your names to an official international list of political dissidents.

[fartsock]

Mut,

No.

Although I am aust born and have an aust passport, I was working in europe at the time

[Kaptin M]

I admit I made a MISTAKE.

The figures I quoted earlier on - and that have been the cause of not a little dissent - were NOT Australian Dollars, but Singapore, when the exchange rate was around the AUD1 = SGD1.46 (mid-late 1990).
The reason being that at that time I and the fellow who was being pestered by the little Wa#ker to join him as a scab, were both in SQ mode, and were comparing the salaries we would receive vs those we could have received.

The $385K-$420K that I erroneously cited converted back then to Aussie Dollars to approx. $260K-$285 - and from that I WON'T budge!

And certainly that WAS a 3-4 fold INCREASE for the 737 f/o's that went back and were almost immediately upgraded to "captains".

HAD THE DISPUTE BEEN ONLY ABOUT "GREEDY PILOTS WANTING MORE MONEY", IT WOULD HAVE ALL BEEN OVER WHEN THE CONTRACTS WERE FIRST OFFERED!

And to backtrack a little, ANFO your story of the dogsh!t with broken glass sounds good at first read, but then a few questions really need answering to determine how TRUE (or feasible) it might be.
Where was the car parked, when this incident occurred? It would have been impossible to have tampered with it when it was parked in the staff car park. And had it been at his house, I'm certain it would have been locked away in a garage.
And who made up this delightful mix - scooped up the dog poo, mixed in the broken glass, and then pushed it under the door handle, without cutting his OWN fingers (let alone putting up with the stink!)?

And to the story of the eggs being thrown over a wall (?) at the Hammo Hotel...actually when I read this one on another thread, it purportedly occurred in Melbourne!!......
How do you know it was '89-ers who did it? Or are we now responsible for EVERYTHING that happens to our sensitive scabs?

The so called "incidents" that were reported during the Dispute were listed with dates and times, and just co-incidentally I happen to have the list.
Many were plain bs, such as the names of a dozen or so pilots seen at the airport "distributing brochures", or "taking notes".
Others report events such as "answering machine recording male voice saying 'You're nothing but a @#*>ing scab' ".
"SCAB painted on xxxxxxx' fence".
"SCAB written with weedkiller on the lawn of xxxxxxx"
"Capt 'Lightfinger's' wife was asked "Where's your husband? He's nothing but a scab. Why doesn't he write it on his forehead."

The "worst" description of a property damage incident that was OFFICIALLY DOCUMENTED was yellow paint thrown over a car.

Much of the rest that is (and was) ASSERTED as happening, is - I believe - FABRICATED to try to achieve SYMPATHY! Furthermore, I don't believe that ANY '89-ers were charged with any of the alleged incidents.

The FACT is NO-ONE suffered any physical abuse (although ANFO claims that HE came close to it).

[ANFO]

Well, actually M , a few posts ago you said that someone got biffed in Sydney, didn't you? The car and the dog poo: GA pilots operating at Melb, used the car park near the old freight hangers (as did the CSO and air freight staff). I cant remember the month, but maybe early '90. the car park was dug up and the staff car park near the terminal was made available for GA pilots for a time. It was in this car park that the poo incident occured; It wasn't fenced. I have no doubt it was a case of 'mistaken identity', if ya know what I mean. I still shouldn't of happened though.

[ironbutt57]

Just a tidbit to add some perspective...during the Continental strike of '83, two striking crewmembers were arrested for placing pipe-bombs in the mail boxes of strike-breakers.....

[chimbu warrior]

As a diligent reader of this topic, I am pleased to see it progress to so many posts without getting the padlock. Very well written by both sides.
7x7, particularly enjoyed your post.

[OhBehave]

My contributions are thus,

The new contract at Ansett handed to returnees represented huge efficiency gains. The hourly cost pre 89 was far higher.

Kap M is re writing history - the acts of vandalism and intimidation/threats by AFAP members are well documented.

The dispute ended the day HP 737's touched down in Oz. Its called - the writing is on the wall boys.

The AFAP lacked political savvy more than any other union in oz. Its arrogance and ignorance was breathtaking. Its members were duped by management. They still think they acted correctly even though it resulted in most members losing their jobs. The end game was a pay rise - was it really worth it.

[Pole Vaulter]

Dear kaptin m,

Re the incidents at the Hammo you need go no further than your "mates" at DJ and ask a few of them about the incident. They will be happy to give you the names. I once again could but I dont stoop to that level like others. You could also ask a few of your more liberal minded 89ers (who got caught in the mellee) but I guess you dont talk to them as they associate with Sc%bs.

Great to see you admit to a few little "actions" also. You did not mention the sc%b stickers all over th car park at a shopping centre close to where you used to live. I guess that was just a coincidence that it used to happen when you were visiting Aust.
Keep up the ravings. You are loosing the last bit of credibility you may of had with your recent outbursts.

[elektra]

OhBehave...welcome to Prune. Where have you been hiding?

Good to see your post. Still a bit puzzled though. If the new contracts were so productive why didn't the Ansett (and Australian) negotiators present them to the legitimate collective bargaining representatives of their employees. Seems silly to spend lets say $500 million (each airline) to implement something that a fax and a beer could have fixed by August 23, 1989.

Second, if indeed the new contracts were so efficient...WHAT HAPPENED TO ANSETT?

Third...I know from first hand discussions that AA 737 and AN 320 drivers had all flown up to the then ANO limits in the year or two prior to 1989 to facilitate the introduction of the then new fleets. This was done at the old pay scale. Why was it necessary to pay a different bunch of guys far, far more the year after 1989 to do the same job? I mean how much more efficient could they have been?

[Thumbs up]

Elektra,
1)Good point....why won't we presented with the new contracts.As I said previosly,at my AFAP office they was a copy being waived around,but interestingly enough we were not allowed to peruse it.We were only fed the Union banter of it being a discrace,unworkable and if memory serves me right it was even called illegal.Now I know the Contract was available for anyone at the time to look at by simply asking the Companies,no obligation.

2) This may come as a surprise to some, but the Dispute was not the reason that Ansett fell over,and you would have a difficult job convincing 99% of the population otherwise.Indeed Ansett (and others) was hurt by the dispute,but any Financial shortfall would have (or rather should have)been reflected in the Sale price after due dilligance by Air New Zealand,and Singaopre Airlines before they were Gazumped.The downfall of Ansett was due to many reasons,none of which was the dispute.If that theory held any ground then Qantas should also be looking shaky.

3)I can tell you from first hand experience that prior to the dispute I was doing no where near the hours your first hand discussions were claiming.In fact a quick check of my log book reveals in the 2 years prior to I did 540 hours (including a conversion) and that was from someone who wanted to fly.
Talk about efficiency,I also recal flying with a Brizzy F-27 Captain who bragged about having done 1100 hours in 11 years.You know who I'm talking about and you know it was true.you would also know there were plenty like him. On my return I did 800 hours in the first year back and grossed 70% more than the 12 months (flying) before.Thats effeciency!!!.

[Kaptin M]

What was 1989 all about? (wrt Australian domestic aviation).

It was about ALL of Australia's domestic airline pilots - employed by Ansett, Australian (TAA), East-West, and IPEC - who were represented by the AFAP (the Federation) attempting to achieve the same thing they had done for the previous 3 decades. A NEGOTIATED revision and renewal of their ESTABLISHED, previously negotiated and agreed-to (by ALL parties) contracts of employment.

It was also about the AFAP, deciding IN CONSULTATION with the pilots, that "The Accord" - a Federal (Hawke) Government initiated, ACTU backed agreement that limited SOME (not ALL) workers salary claims to a fixed increment (6% from memory) - to which the AFAP had VOLUNTARILY agreed to participate for a period that ENDED in 1989. Incidentally, Abeles held a position of authority on the Accord committe (for which I'm sure he would have received ample remuneration).

That the pilots union, the AFAP, was not an affiliate of the ACTU (in spite of repeated attempts by the latter to get us to join them, and which stuck in the ACTU's craw) meant that there was NO further obligation for the pilots to continue under a system of wage restraint that was clearly disadvantaging us.

The AMBIT CLAIM[/b] (ie. the first "offer") wrt salary was a 29.47% increase, to make up for the "relativity" pilots' salaries had lost - "relativity" meaning before, and up to our VOLUNTARY joining of "The Accord", we were able to draw near comparisons between our incomes and incomes of other groups.
Unfortunately for us, pilots are envied by some workers in other jobs who believe that we are simply overpaid [i]prima donnas. Tough!! That's what I invested MY TIME, MY MONEY, and MY BRAINPOWER in obtaining - anyone else who wants to do likewise is quite entitled to do so.

The FACT is, pilots who were employed on the Individual Contracts were granted far in excess of the 29.47% AMBIT submitted by the AFAP, on behalf of its pilots!

The pilots never withdrew their labour completely - there was a limited 9am - 5pm work action that ran for almost a week, before the Airlines "stood aside" each and every pilot, effectively shutting down ALL operations.

The airline companies than began suing pilots on a one-by-one basis, issuing writs for "unspecified damages" (effectively meaning each pilot would be "taken to the cleaners" - Abeles had done this previously in New Zealand to his employees, a group of seamen in a company named "United Bulk Steamships").
Using the best legal advice available in Australia, the Federation was advised that to protect their members from any further, ongoing claims, they (the pilots) would have to become non-employees ie. RESIGN.

Although lucrative in dollar terms, the Individual Contracts took away what was, and still supposedly is, the individual's right to be represented by whomever he chooses - in OUR case it was and ALWAYS had been the AFAP.

The AFAP continued to represent the pilots in court cases with the airlines for all of 1989 and 1990 as the Dispute continued, and pilots remained hopeful of a NEGOTIATED settlement.
Other pilots who "stuck their noses" into our business were KNOWINGLY interfering in an industrial dispute, and consequently were termed "scabs" - not only by the affected pilots, but also by OTHER Australian UNIONS.

Stories of harrassment received plenty of airing, however one only needs to read back through this thread to find that the majority of this "harrassment" consisted of telephone calls, name-calling ("SCAB"), and the latest from Pole Vaulter, " scab stickers all over th car park at a shopping centre.. - but nothing like the "broken arms and hands" thuggery type stuff Abeles tried to imply was going on.

And it was the last year I paid Australian Income Tax :D

[Richard Kranium]

Kaptin-M...mate!!! hmmmm bad choice of word...any of your ramblings and utterings should be put on the Qantas verbal reasoning test for the new hires, as I can't understand what the **** you are on or talking about....but then its probably why I didn't pass.......I think you like to see yourself in print, with visions of grandeur some where... but certainly not in aviation...........:confused:

Lets keep to the thread issues shall we, not the personality, lest you become eponymic. :) W

[Woomera]

This topic has gone past the 100 post limit, but as so far it has proceeded politely for the most, for that I thank you, I am going to split it to allow the discussion to continue.