Meloz and 89

[elektra]

Thumbs up

Sorry but I'm still a bit lost here.

If the zillion bucks lost by 1989/90's (and onwards) management decisions and galactic pay rises for returnees wasn't responsible for Ansett's demise then surely it couldn't have helped very much. I know I slept through a lot of accounting lectures at uni but not that many.

Secondly, Qantas wasn't involved in the 1989 dispute (theirs is the death of as thousand cuts that's slowly gathering speed) so they wouldn't have been shaky but Australian Airlines was and it was sold, bankrupt, to QF effectively for nothing.

So maybe there is a common thread in the impact of the costs of the refusal to negotiate with the authorized collective bargaining unit of Australia's domestic pilots and the subsequent demise of the 4 airlines who just couldn't bring themselves to pick up the phone.

As for wanting to see a contract. Again I'm a bit lost here. I voted in a secret ballot NOT to go back to work on an individual contract. So why would it's contents have been of any interest to me at all?

As for the amazing efficiencies you experienced when back at work.....you did well. Others have sought redemption for personal failings through hard work and I hope it got you back on the straight and narrow.

[kwika]

Although a long time lurker this is a first venture into print. PPRuNe provides a window with a view. From it comes an insight and opportunity to follow, analyse and too often discard what is seen and felt by a wide cross section of people representing many facets of flying in different environments and circumstances. Also it provides a degree of insight into the personalities and qualities of those who keep this web-site interesting and informative –and others. It is the “them and us” tone of the subject that is responsible for this posting.

Much has been said about the events of ’89, and so deep are the hurts and feelings of those who were, and are still being affected, it will not be allowed to die. Many have been able to put it behind them due quite often to circumstances and luck. Others have not been so fortunate.

This may come as a surprise to many who were closely involved. Although far removed from the trauma of that time it is a personal experience which offers yet another, and darker side to the tragedy of ‘89. It would not be surprising if there were similar private agendas or taking advantage of opportunities with potentially damaging impact on the careers of others. To what extent one may only guess. What follows was executed in secret under the noses of those whose interests were, supposedly, being protected.

Just over a year after the ’89 action, when a certain degree of stability was evidenced by the operations of the domestic carriers involved, my company wrote to the pilot’s union advising of positions available on wide-body jet aircraft. This was not out of sympathy for any person or group, but purely commercial. We needed first world experience from a sound aviation jurisdiction and there was no doubt that Australia was where experience at a high standard was available, and in quantity. The events of ’89 offered a potential win-win situation for an airline and for unemployed, experienced technical aircrew.

Our letter requested a list, if one was obtainable, of member pilots who had not been able to find flying jobs but were interested and available for overseas aircrew employment. At the time a large displaced workforce of qualified and experienced professional aircrew were still unemployed and available. There were those who had not accepted offers or applied to return to work. Others could not find work overseas.

The initial reply was quick and curt. It asked for full details of the company and a banker’s statement attesting our financial position. In addition the writer claimed that all Australian pilots looking for positions were represented solely by the union, would have to be based wherever they resided in Australia and positioned and returned by first class full fare tickets for their duty flights wherever those flights might originate and terminate. They would be available in turn and in accordance with a seniority list made up by the union. Other minimum conditions were listed for items such as salaries, seniority, vacations, pensions and per diems.

In reply we advised our conditions of service were confidential and only divulged following interest by prospective employees during interview. Employment was being offered to a wide range of people, not only displaced Australians. All employment would to be on standard and identical terms. Applications from Australians still available following the dispute and looking for airline flying would be considered. If they were offered employment the choice of accepting or declining OUR contract terms would be theirs and theirs alone. Applicants attending interviews would be provided with transportation, accommodation and per diems.

A document was returned within 24 hours. It listed four names. Those names which included the writer with three others were union representatives manning the office of the union. There is no evidence that our offer was ever brought to the attention of any members other than those four who were at that time involved in union administrative tasks and “looking after the well-being of the membership”.

No displaced Australians were interviewed. And yes, the correspondence has been retained.

[Kaptin M]

During the dispute, with all 4 airlines' aircraft grounded, James Strong, then Managing Director of Australian Airlines, was interviewed on "Sixty Minutes" (from memory), and was asked by the interviewer if he would be willing to consider engaging enough pilots - through a second party - to get his company back in the air.

Naturally Mr Strong warmed to the idea, but then asked whether the pilots were suitably qualified...Yes....held an Australian licence...Yes...and would meet the CAA's standards..Yes.

The pilots were IMMEDIATELY available, and AA could have their services back in the air almost immediately as well. Strong could see he was on a winner with this one.

The bait had been swallowed, and the hook was in.

And so who was the agency that was going to supply these pilots??

When the interviewer told him it was "The AFAP, supplying your OWN pilots", the facial expression said it all.

And so kwika, as good as the story YOU have told SOUNDS good.

WHO ARE YOU? AND WHO WAS THE COMPANY YOU REPRESENTED?

My guess tells me that if you received such a fast response,
The initial reply was quick and curt.
my guess is the Feds had you sussed fairly quickly.

I await your reply.

[kwika]

Dear Kaptin M.

Read my post again. See the timing. Afraid it was well after things had settled down in Oz and the domestics were long since back in business. My company had/has nothing to do with partners/people/investors or airlines in Oz.

I believe you may be in Singapore. If so look around and see which successful airlines in your area commenced operations about a year or so after the '89 fiasco. For what that may achieve, it could provide a clue to my identity. Yes, you know me or at least know of me, and would recognize that I was not in any way involved with any Australian airline – domestic, international or regional.

The facts stand as stated. There are still some shameful skeletons hiden in cupboards. And some of those cupboards are in surprising places.

[elektra]

Kwika,

I think Kaptin M said it all, but in case he's a little off the target let me try.

This concept (being straight up) might seem strange to some from the other side of the picket line but here goes....

IF...and its a big if, but IF the things you say happened actually happened and there was no spin on it...then it was WRONG.

But that doesn't make us all wrong, an implication dripping from most of your post. See, we, the 1300 ish of us who didn't go back, don't believe you have to damn everyone just because a rumour, letter or other "fact" seems to cast someone or even a small group in a bad light. Its the same way with the odd bit of harrassment. Just because some 89'er gave a s#cab a hard time...doesn't mean that every last vestige of our cause and beliefs was wrong.

In any case, have your people call my people to arrange (at my cost) the delivery to me of notarized copies of all correspondence and I will make a generous sum available to the charity of your choice (except the Collingwood Football Club).

[Wizofoz]

Yeah but kwika, the obvious problem is that you imply the (Stands and places hand on heart) AFAP (Wipes tears from eyes!) could EVER have done ANYTHING which wasn't of the HIGHEST ethical standards and to the benifit of MAN KIND ITSELF!!

As you have you must be a SCAB!! Only SCABS don't know that the (Stands, etc.) AFAP never did ANYTHING that wasn't in it's members BEST INTERESTS!!

Why, after getting everyone to resign (A BRILLIANT tactic that would have WORKED except for the SCABS!!! ( Oh and the ILLEGALLY (I know my accountant told me!) elected PM, Qantas, the airforce, the australian public and that guy behind the grassy knole)) it REGULARLY held meetings at which it gave us BEER!!

So don't you EVER sugest the (DEEP SIGH!!) AFAP did anything wrong, or I'll have you rung in the night AND put on a list of people we won't EVER send a christmas card too!!

(Where's that bloody prozac???)

[elektra]

Wiz

A well run, democratic union IS its members and there's probably never been a more inclusive member-driven union in Australia than the AFAP. Nor one that added more value to its industry in safety and technical areas both within Australia and overseas

It is NOT a prerequisite of being a well run, democratic union that it be flawless, faultless, without heated debate and never ever exhibiting the slightest sign of foolishness, arrogance or naivity. The Salvos couldn't pass the test of flawlessness you set up for the AFAP, neither could Mother Terasa or anyone else.

But as a long term member I can say first hand that warts and all, it was of and for its members

[HIALS]

I might be way off the mark here - but here goes anyway.

Kwika posts from China. Mentions an airline starting up in Asian region about 1 year after 89. I am thinking of an airline in Taiwan which goes by a 3 letter name.

I did an interview with said airline in early 1990's. Got told in no uncertain terms that said airline's owners would rather shut shop and put invested millions of dollars on deposit with bank than deal with a Union. My CV which indicated resignation from an Australian airline in August 1989 was deemed proof positive that I was a unionist in eyes of said airline interviewers. Said interviewers were adamant (as if they had been there...) that we went on strike and got sacked. Thus my 'ploy' of feigning a resignation was unveiled...!!

Interview terminated without even a seemly follow through.

If I am correct and this is the same airline as Kwika speaks of - then I would bet my bum they didn't sincerely contact any union in order to try and source pilots. Such would be anathema to their stated stance at the time.

It is interesting to note that said airline eventually set up operations using the skill and expertise of the scabs from Eastern Airlines in the USA.

[Whiskery]

HIALS - I believe you are spot on, I shared the same theory when reading Kwika's post.
To go further, the B747 fleet Captain with this airline is an ex ANSW hero.

[sightboard run]

You've lost a supporter with your last post.

Hearing about your wife's spitefulness after all these years was sad, mate. REALLY sad....

[greybeard]

sightboard run,

not spiteful, just a remote observation that an "attitude" can be observed even after all these years.

I SAY AGAIN, SHE DID NOT KNOW ANY OF THE GROUP AT ALL, and I only knew 3 of the 6/7 pilots involved at that place at that time.

We have not, are not, and will not "do" anything to abuse accuse or any other thing to disturb these people who as I have previously said my airline has chosen to employ.

We still eat at the same places, they are the ones who have decided to move as they have done before, see previous posts.

I don't give a tuppenny damn, where they go, who they ignore or if they stay or go.
The world is a free place, BUT if you stick out like dogs nuts to a stranger who hasn't seen a sort of person for years, who am I or YOU to say it's spite.

IT'S A FACT THEY WERE DIFFERENT, ARE DIFFERENT AND WILL ALWAYS BE DIFFERENT and be easily recognised.

:p

[gaunty]

sightboard run

I operate at a pretty high level, in another industry, which to operate succesfully, requires very fast and accurate "assessment" of type and personal characteristics in real time and a fairly short frame at that.

Believe me it is possible and with much life experience you learn to trust your instincts, in fact, you ignore them at your financial peril.

This does not mean that you classify people as "good or bad" and deal with them in "black and white terms" accordingly, but simply move onto another plane of awareness in your dealings with them, unto the point at which you get to a polite, thanks but no thanks for the association, for any amount of money. :rolleyes:

Any "deal" or "action" in life that disadvantages, causes or results in a "loss" to another party, is not a "deal" at all.
It is plain and simple robbery.

Lifes too short to have to live with that. :(

There is a bit of angst about the Arab world around at the moment, but in more civilised times an Arab business friend of mine taught me a very important lesson in life and that was "to always leave something in "it" (whatever) for the other person" that way you could always come back, anytime, anywhere and be greeted cheerfully and with respect.
Ask "Chainsaw Al Dunlap" how he feels about that as a life philosphy now? :eek:
The London "City" works pretty much the same way and you don't get into that "club" any other way.
Not a bad way to live a life eh. :)

[elektra]

Sightboard,

I think Gaunty said it well.

I'm not bitter or spiteful about the possibility of losing an engine at V1 or 3 hours out from an ETOPS alternate. I just know that history has taught me to be prepared because these things happned once and can happen again. Don't confuse legitimate wariness and remembrance with spite. SPITE is what the companies used on the AFAP.

[CitizenXX]

Elektra,

Economics student or not, if you believe for a second that the pay rises post 89 contributed even slightly to Ansett's demise, you are indeed delusional.

It's been posted here many times by infinitely more astute people that I, those who were there, that the ACTUAL hourly rate for an Airbus/B737 Capt prior to 89 was in excess of $300, and post 89 only about $220. They earned the bulk $$$s by dramatically increasing productivity, but the hourly rate actually went down as a consequence.

Bleat otherwise, listen to the 89ers, but the fact is that the hourly rate went DOWN, and the cost to Ansett per pilot was much, much less than pre 89.

This argument rears its head ocasionally, but is fallacious.

[RHLMcG]

Interestingly, though, if one reads from at least two annual reports in the early post-89 period, Ansett reported that crew costs amounted to something in the order of 10 percent (of DOC as I recall). This was, I suggest, somewhat higher than best practice and, I suspect, higher than what was the case before the dispute upheavals.

I have no idea why Ansett's crew costs would be so high.

[Kaptin M]

"the cost to Ansett per pilot was much, much less than pre 89."

Completely untrue, Mr XX.

Pilots post `89 were paid FAR more than those pre`89. That is an acknowledged FACT by all parties, including the ACTU.
Pre `89, overtime rates did not cut in until after 65 hours. Post `89 they cut in after 55 hours.

Going by the numbers of pilots Ansett employed immediately prior tp their demise, it would appear that the number of crews per aircraft was almost the same as up to 1989.
It also needs to be remembered that for the 5 or 6 years leading up to 1989, Ansett was in a transitionary period of introducing new types - the B737-300 (to replace the 737 -200 "advanced"), the B767, and the A320 - meaning surplus pilots were needed.

[Flat Side Up]

You need to make a distinction between Technical Crew costs and overall Crew costs which would include Flight Attendants. As has been pointed out Tech Crew costs were much less because of greater productivity. Pay was based on STICK HOURS and not CREDITED HOURS!!! And there was n need for reserve pilots.

[BrisBoy]

Thank you Wiley and 7x7 for the mention. I have been home in Australia for days off and did not venture near a computer.

I read this new thread in one sitting and then started to write a post. This turned out to be quite lengthy but then again the dispute was a complex affair. When I read it through I found that whilst I had discussed various points from different angles using different words and related my arguments to current events, all that had really been produced was a "word" document that was nothing more than a re - hash of all that had gone before.
Anyone genuinely wishing to know what really went on in The Airline Dispute of 1989/90 can find it in what has already been written. It would require some filtering and research. It would also require some knowledge of our democratic procedures and institutions and rights afforded us under our constitution. A feel for, if not complete understanding of, our tradition of "mateship" would also be necessary as would a keen sense of balance.

Harassing a young family from their country for the crime of not foregoing their principles and standing up for what they believe in does not justify the poor behavior, and result, of combining a motor vehicle and dog poo in a single parking space. Neither of these actions can be condoned but which is the greater offence?
One would have to wonder what goes on when the boss gets 30%+ and the employee gets a writ. Or when a Prime Minister sees fit to almost destroy the economy so that the economy will not almost be destroyed. He then completely blows his argument out of the water by taking the very pay rise (wot accord) that was supposed to result in economic destruction of near nuclear proportions.
Those of us from the old Ansett had two (joint) managing directors. The second not as visible as the first but never the less active. One of his smutty publications in the UK printed and sensationalised a diary of a teenage girl. This caused such distress to the young boy mentioned in it that he slipped to the depths of despair and ended his life. The diary was subsequently proved to be fantasy and when confronted with the image of a fourteen year old boy hanging from the family's cloths line this fine upstanding example's only comment was along the lines of, oh well we all make mistakes.
This person's Australian publications were used in the main to keep the general population "informed" during the dispute. Even someone of slight intelligence would be expected to draw some kind of Dracula/Blood Bank analogy from this.

This whole affair was of great importance and significance, not only for the participants, but all Australians. Even if it had not I still don't think I would have liked my name listed to be on the same team as that of Abeles, Hawke, Kelty and Murdoch.

What a low point in our history this was when the corridors of power were occupied by filth and vermon and our parliament reduced to a seething cesspit of self interested scum.

[Tool Time Two]

Yet again, another excellent post from Brisboy! :cool:

[Wizofoz]

Bris boy,

Everything you say about RM (The Tabloid King, not RM AN) may well be true, as may what many others have to say about "Zerr Peeder", but unless you were working for Ansett prior to 1978, YOU were a willing employee of these men. Indeed, if they had calculated that giving you a 29.7% pay increase had been more economical than enduring the dispute, you would have CONTINUED to willingly work for these men.

Are you suggesting that you would have quit in disgust upon hearing of the unfortunate youth in the UK? Or would you have continued to do your professtional best to ensure you worked for a profitable company in spite of the morals of its' owners?

This is the continuing furrfy that the '89ers put up-That because the owners of AN were somehow immoral, this made it wrong to work for them. Yet after March '90, once the Feds retreated, MANY AFAP stalwarts applied to do just that. (I would be VERY interested to know if Kapin M, Tool Time Too, Bris Boy and their ilk re-applied after March. Their cries about what a bad lot RM and PA were would ring a little hollow coming AFTER they had exhausted every avenue to attempt to go back working for them!!)

Kap M derides Bob Hawke, then went to work for Lee Kwan Yue!!

Lets keep things in perspective. People in '89 broke a Union ban. The reasons for that ban are well documented, but it's implementation was ultimatley futile. The fact that individuals realised this before the Union itself should not be reason for their eternal villification.

[Sly'n Smiley]

I recall these events as a young slightly nieve 20 something, and thinking "the govt. can't do this stuff,can they? Well, they did. The actions of the ALP govt. where despicable.:eek: This was a time when many of us observed the machinations of govt.and big business at their worst.

[Kaptin M]

Wiz, for as long as you have been involved in debating the 1989 dispute, it STILL appears that you believe money (the 29.47%) was the stumbling block.
IT WASN'T!
And whilst we're on that subject, your statement;
"Indeed, if they had calculated that giving you a 29.7% pay increase had been more economical than enduring the dispute, you would have CONTINUED to willingly work for these men." is totally erroneous.
Abeles & Co offered MORE than the 29.47% ambit claim, logged by the Feds, with their Individual Contracts.
The crux of our whole dispute was trying to MAINTAIN the same rights afforded every other worker - the right to be represented by our LONG ESTABLISHED REPRESENTATIVE, the AFAP.

For those pilots who didn't scab, and those who supported us by REFUSING to apply, money was NOT an issue!

In case you aren't in full grasp of all the facts - the money offered in the IC's was WELL in excess of the 29.47 AFAP claim. (Yes, I realise that I'm repeating myself, however it is the "returnees", and their supporters, who try to make the Dispute a money issue.)

As far as the statement that the "scabs" were more productive, that is undoubtedly, almost certainly true.
However productivity is determined by SCHEDULING and not PILOTS.
Had the airlines wanted to change the crewing/rostering formulae (that had been MUTUALLY agreed upon over years of renewals) they had only to raise it with the AFAP, and through NEGOTIATION, a result would have been achieved.

One must conclude that if the contract of employment under which the AFAP pilots worked was so unfairly weighted in favour of them, then the Federation had had far more savvy and astute negotiators than the companies.

I don't see your point ref. Hawke and Lee Kwan Yew. FYI the SQ pilots had a dispute with their company some years prior to my joining (which saw about 1/2 a dozen of them gaoled for a day or 2), however it was LKY who forced the company and ALPA-S to sit down and stay "locked-in" until they arrived at a mutual agreement.
Hawke's tactic was to temporarily alter Australia's constitution to bring in overseas pilots, hence earning him the title of "The scabs' scab" with several of the unions over which he had presided during his ACTU presidency.
As written in John Pilger's "A secret country", Hawke allegedly could be (and was) bought and sold - traded like an object. Were you aware that it was Murdoch who paid Hawke's university tuition fees?

"The reasons for that ban are well documented, but it's implementation was ultimatley futile. The fact that individuals realised this before the Union itself should not be reason for their eternal villification."
The implementation of the ban was totally effective - as proven by the necessity for Hawke to have to change Australia's immigration laws. If he had not, then there would have had to have been a NEGOTIATED or ARBITRATED settlement.
As was, and is, the case in ALL other industrial disputes.

[mut]

Kaptin M you didn't answer Wizofoz's question - did you apply to come back to Ansett?

[Pole Vaulter]

Certainly wages were far from the only issue. PRODUCTIVITY was by far a greater issue.

KM advises "However productivity is determined by SCHEDULING and not PILOTS.

Problem is it is difficult to use crew members for flying when you have a contract so restricting that you often had crew available but were unable to utilise them.

You also had a situation where if you did not have 2 reserve blocks for every 7 flying blocks draft bans were automatically imposed. You then had the "professional user of the system" who would bid a training block knowing they would serve "displaced reserve" for the entire month and due to the 2 hour before and after rule were almost impossible to be able to use for the month. There was actually one crew member on the L188 who bid as such that he flew once every 35 days for over 12 months. On a call to Flt Dept he was shown on his actual hours of operating the aircraft in a 12 month period he was (per hour of flying) by far the highest paid per hour employee in Australia. He related that story to a number of crew and was very proud of being able to achieve that. These and many similar rourts were as much a reason that a drastic change had to occur.

The coment that will come back re the contract is "The Company Signed it" Sure as in regulated days it was just a matter of passing the increased costs on to the travelling public but the Feds knew that was all about to cease with deregulation.

To say change in the contract could be negotiated. Well I doubt even KM would aggree that the Feds were going to give up too many of the gains thay had negotiated over the years when in all previous negotations the contract just got more and more difficult to administer and always in one direction. Do you really expect anyone to believe this time it was going to be different.

When you consider the number of crew it took to do the same amount of flying after the dispute it is not hard to see (and you dont need a degree in maths to work it out) that the companies saved heaps even by paying at a higher rate than prior to the dispute.

[CitizenXX]

KaptinM,

Once again you are WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!! when it comes to pay RATES! You are right when it comes to gross income. The two are compatible.

Prior to the disp[ute of 89, the rate for an A320/B737 Captain was about $300 per hour to the company, and that did not include taking account of reserve coverage of one for seven departures (I think), or the extremely generous draft provisions. That figure is arrived at by dividing $90K by 300 hours (company figures). The AFAP said it was 400 hours, so the figure would have been $225 per hour. Somewhere in the middle, perhaps, is the truth. Using that median figure of $262, it was still much, much more than that same Capt was being paid, per hour, in
2001.

From the early 90s (deregulation), Ansett pilots flew 2.5 times the total hours of pre 89 with two thirds of the pilots. If they had employed pilots using the same formula as pre 89, there would have been 3200 pilots. The total cost to the company was minute compared with pre 89 even though puilots earned several times that previously.

There are many who have gone through tese figures before, but you just don't want to get it, or perhaps can't get it. From your more reasonable posts, most would deduce that you're not a complete idiot, so accept reality. Rave about other issues if you wish, but not against fact. You do yourself no credit.

Another point you conveniently forget KM, is that when the resignations were submitted by the AFAP, one party to the negotiations was no longer at the table, and the companies grabbed that opportunity with both hands. I think I'd have done the same thing if I'd been senior management, and had the PM on side. They are, after all, running a company. Call Hawke what you want; it won't hurt him. You may not agree with what happened, as I don't, but name calling does you no credit either.

[gaunty]

Gentlemen.

Occasionally out of all the "sturm und drang" surrounding this topic a "clear and sparkling diamond of the first water" drops out of it, which should give both sides some pause for thought and contemplation in the manner of that phrase from the US Declaration of Independance......"We hold these truths to be self-evident,"

I hope HIALS wont mind me pressing into service, an observation he made on the "CX recruiting ban" thread .

What I have found is that after 89, as a result of keeping my nose clean, there are only 2 airlines in the whole world that I can't work for - TAA and Ansett. What a lot of choice I have and had. The reverse logic is true, if I had scabbed, there would have only been two airlines in the world I could have worked for...

[Huw Jorgen]

Polevaulter,

I had been off the Goose (what a wonderful life that was for young chaps) for some years by 89 but, unless the system had changed, the blocks were composite and the pilot to whom you refer would have been available through reserve for duty. If he didn't work then, while he may have been using the system to his own ends, the system was at fault just as much for not using him.

It is necessary to make the observation that the stupidity of ANO48 application to back of the clock operations, and the very small number of pilots on the Type, makes Electra examples in the dispute context rather inappropriate.

CitizenXX,

Simplistic cost calculations and observations from either side are fraught with generalisation and risk.

The post dispute situation involved a great many new start pilots. As a result the numbers necessarily can be significantly less than for a mature operation due to the lack of a need to provision for leave, etc., etc.

Similarly, the situation in the years leading up to the dispute were characterised by significant Type changeovers and the crew overhead which was necessary to make that work.

If we compare the rostering practices pre and post dispute, the pre dispute situation was heavily weighted toward minimising the aircraft costs by maximising load factor - ie much cancelation and substitution. Post dispute this could not be done due to the fact that the companies did not have enough troops.

The only valid cost comparisons which should be made are on the basis of sustained mature operations which is quite different to what some of the posts in these threads are on about.

Certainly, the simplistic "dollars divided by total hours in the seat" measure is somewhere between fatuous and fraudulent.


Gaunty sums up the story - you make your bed and you lie in it. I can live with the fact that my career was screwed by the dispute. Those "other fellows" (I try not to use that dreadful emotive word) just have to live with the fact that not very many pilots in the Industry, worldwide, think that they are nice people. Some, apparently, even think quite antipathetically towards them.

It was common knowledge that one of the ploys used by the companies to entice pilots into the infamy of commercial aviation prostitution was the "they'll forget about it and you'll all be mates again in a year or two" routine. Guess again. The "others" will have to be able to cope with the fact that most of their former colleagues view them with about the same level of interest and enthusiasm as one views a piece of doggy doo on one's shoes.

This is the way it is and will remain so until the last of both sides eventually go to the "Good Guys" and "Other Guys" Great Hangars in the Sky (for the former) and somewhere near the River Styx (for the latter).

[CitizenXX]

Huw,

We must be talking about different things.

All I am saying is that the cost per hour, per pilot, was much less post 89 than pre 89.

It is inarguable. The cost was much lower, and with no reserve coverage, even if you took out a hundred pilots from the pre 89 number, the cost post 89 was still much less.

In real terms, if you projected $262 at even 4% inflation, and it averaged much more, for 12 years, you'd come up wuith $419 per hour in 2001. An A320 Capt earned $230 per hour in 2001!

Need I put further figures.

[Gnadenburg]

Gday Gaunty

Don Quixote would discover, at journeys end, it is far from an ideal world.

Put it to you, he who went back first, received all the good endorsements and experience, is empoyed by the likes of SQ.

Nice AN payout, rent out the inner city pad and beachouse(trebled in since 89 so even the daftest pilots worth millions) and off abroad to line the nest egg.

Moral of the story?Maybe that`s it, history littered with moral corpses.

The most despised by the 89ers probably doing the best of all, with the historical norm of the innocents doing it harder.

Just observatoins!

[CitizenXX]

Gnadenburg,

And good observations indeed.

I would have thought the most despised person from 89 would have been Hawke.

Even when he was PM, earning less than a Capt post 89, he bought a $1.5M shack on the water, flattened it and built a $2M new shack. How you do that on $200K a year is beyond me - or maybe not.

As for the most despised pilots, well I think you're onto the right people there, but I'm not sure if our observations of why they are despised are the same.

Many des[pise them because they didn't have the guts to do what the early returnees did, i.e., go in early and do a deal like 'I will come back now, but I want to be on the best and biggest equipment in the company - always.' A few secured those deals, and they are now where you suggest.

Those who didn't go back and now are flying a heap of **** DC9 in the backblocks of Africa hate them for different reasons.

And the moral of the story - good guys run last!!

[gaunty]

Gnadenburg

I was not by "quoting" HIALS supporting either side simply pointing out the irony.

I would welcome Don Quixote his faithful steed Rosanante and his mate Sancho Panza as worthy and faithful companions in my journey through this far from ideal world. I would be able to sleep soundly (perhaps the sleep only available to the innocent) at night and am much happier being patronised with gentle humour than otherwise.
I am a bit confused about the thrust of your post but it seems to read "don't be so foolish as get in between me and a bucket of money", quite so, I will be careful not to do so.

I was listening to a talk back this a.m. with a "big" $7million Lotto winner in the context of the humungous one to be drawn tonight.

Some years later he opines that "unexpectedly" one of the main reasons that he is careful with whom he lets know how he came into his "wealth" was how that changed the way he was perceived by the receiver of that information.

Many of the 89ers have made no secret of the fact that their lives ultimately changed, professionally and financially for the better as a result.
Many did not and there were many tragedies.

The other sides' example you cite, may well have arrived at the same point by the other route, I have not seen many telling about it here.
Many did not and there were no tragedies.

A good measure of the company you keep or seek to keep in this life is that you are not required, unlike our Lotto winner, to be circumspect about anything in your past.

[Kaptin M]

The FACT is, CitizenXX, airline pilots are NOT paid by the hour!
They are paid a SET MINIMUM MONTHLY salary, and the FACT is that SET MINIMUM MONTHLY salary paid to the scabs (and I use that term unemotionally, as no doubt did Brad Norrington when he uses it in the book "Sky Pirates", to easily identify one side) was far in excess of the pre-'89 monthly salary, AND the pre-'89 salary + 29.47%.

Up until August 1989, the MINIMUM MONTHLY SALARY was based on 65 hours - regardless of whether scheduling used the pilot for 1 hour or the full 65 hours.
After 65 hours, overtime rates applied.

Post 1989, the MINIMUM MONTHLY SALARY was based on 55 hours - regardless of whether scheduling utilised the pilot for 1 hour or 55.
After 55 hours, overtime rates applied.

A little (or a lot, perhaps) like hiring a rental car - you pay the same rate per day regardless of the number of miles driven.

The argument of having no "reserves" post '89 is just too superficial, however for the uninitiated let's blow this one out of the water.
Yes, correct, there were no "reservists" as such, however in all honesty what major airline is able to operate without knowing that they have access to crew when needed for extra-ordinary ops.
For example, just last night the aircraft that was supposed to arrive at the port where I was overnighting went u/s (inop. transponder..no spares), leaving me with no aircraft for the next morning's flight and no F/O and cabin crew.
The situation was remedied by using crew on standby to deadhead down the next day, whilst the operating crew got off the aircraft.

So as much as you can deny that there were no "reserves" , the blocks would still have to have been built such that "grey days", "blank days", "golliwog days"...call them what you will....afforded operations sufficient coverage if the ship hit the fan!
Ahhh yes, say our heroes, but the company was PAYING for pilots to stand reserve....ahh, yes, but because YOU were also paid a MONTHLY SALARY, those "grey/blank/golliwog" days were also being paid for.

And would any of you care to tell us HOW MUCH EXTRA the company had to pay you, when you were called out on one of these days?
I heard one story of an Ansett pilot enjoying a beer at a bbq in Brissy when his cel phone rang. "Sorry all, have to leave."
"Why, what's the hurry?"
"Work calls." The power of the $ (was it $1200 or $1600) overode the 8 hour "bottle to throttle" ruling.

CitizenXX
I would have thought the most despised person from 89 would have been Hawke.
Even when he was PM, earning less than a Capt post 89, he bought a $1.5M shack on the water, flattened it and built a $2M new shack. How you do that on $200K a year is beyond me - or maybe not.

Is this a deliberately naieve question? As with all of the alleged graft and corruption payments paid to Hawke, he blatantly acknowledged them. In the case you have cited, it was a "gift" from Abeles (to try to keep him and Hazel together :( What a sensitive, kind old man Abeles was :rolleyes: )

As they say, "Every dog has its day". :cool:

An astute observation, Gnadenburg,
"Put it to you, he who went back first, received all the good endorsements and experience, is empoyed by the likes of SQ."
Quite so, a handful managed to slip through, but the one's there now are it...no more coming. :D At their age, they have just started their 5 + years bonded contract, on lesser conditions and salary than the non-scabs :D


"Nice AN payout, rent out the inner city pad and beachouse(trebled in since 89 so even the daftest pilots worth millions) and off abroad to line the nest egg."
Fortunately my (tax free) overseas job has allowed me to convert my USD to Aussie pesos which over the past 5-6 years has consistently run at the 1.8 - 2 conversion, allowing ME to RENT my holiday accomodation - if it's not beachfront and it's more than 2 or 3 years old....forget it! :cool:

:cool: Life's a beach! :cool:

[BrisBoy]

Wizofoz,

Thanks for your response. I think Kaptin M has dealt sufficiently with the ambit claim, but since you addressed your post to me then I shall add my perspective.
The money or percentage thereof was of no relevance. It was the method.
Even someone with computer skills as basic as mine can search the Internet and find what I would call the foundations/building blocks upon which our free and democratic society is based. We as Australians have the right to freely associate, elect leaders and instruct those leaders to act on our behalf. To apply this to our domain I would use as an example the latest contract negotiated for the Ansett pilots before it's demise and also the current agreement governing the Qantas pilots.
We have the right to be represented by those of our choice and negotiate terms and conditions of employment directly with our employer. This can be entered into the record as fact.

This leads me to what I must concede as one of several valid points you have raised. If our EBA negotiations were allowed to proceed in accordance with our democratic and constitutional institutions and successfully concluded, then irrespective of any amount or conditions agreed upon I would have continued.
Life if nothing else is filled with interest. One of the Asian cultures I have been lucky enough to have briefly come in contact acknowledged this. What we may perhaps perceive as an unusual comment was considered a grave insult, "may you live in interesting times". My family has had some interesting times. As unusual as it may seem to some we, like many others, think of our life thus far in two parts. Pre '89, and post '89. If a book were to written then part (a) would consume but the first few chapters whilst part (b) could fill a volume the size of an encyclopedia. If someone who had spent numerous years living and working overseas, flying all sorts of aircraft all over the world coming into contact with vastly different peoples and cultures were to look at part (a) then they could be forgiven for not being overly impressed. I had what may be described as a slightly right of centre/mildly anti-union/narrow minded/blinkered/what does Murdoch want me to think today approach to life before being violently shaken from my apathetic complacency. For this I am not proud, but then again St Paul was not such a great guy before being thrown from his horse.
An article I read recently in an American paper put a novel slant on the old it's different when it happens to you theme. It was in relation to the judicial/law enforcement/penal systems. As a side comment the remark was, "a Liberal is a Conservative who has been arrested". With all that went on so blatantly placed in the open and being treated so poorly by a company I had given my professional best, my eyes were rudely opened. Wild horses could not have dragged me back to Ansett after this, which leads me once again to another of your valid points.

There was some form of discrimination case commenced in 1990. The legal representatives needed numbers to prove a point. The day before we left the country I submitted the form. I printed my name at the top and signed at the bottom. There was space for address/phone number/contact details and from memory aircraft type, position and hours (please don't quote me on the last) which was all left blank.
It was over, the cancer from within had completely overtaken our cause and despite the best efforts of the majority it was lost.
It is not my intent to shove my views or opinions down anyone's throat and if some of my posts appear this way then it is the emotion still felt after all these years rather than conscious effort. So many had given so much to protect my family and to them I will always be grateful. Each had kept their promise and commitment but the time had come to face the reality that our lives had forever changed. Rather than push my view that we should never give in, I overcame my distaste for the document and submitted it as one last gesture of support for my colleagues before severing the bond with my country that would never again be the same.
In the highly unlikely event that the company had been able to track me down in Malaysia I would have simply returned the letter to sender (please refer Wild horses/Ansett comment).
Before concluding I would say again, this was a valid point and if we are to debate this topic (again) then all valid points should be raised for discussion.

Once again I think Kaptin M has sufficiently dealt with your comment regarding Lee Kuan-yew. These days I try to keep more informed of world events than in previous times. If you have some relevant information regarding the Senior Minister then I would be grateful if you would share it.

I have taken up far too much space again and will finish with a suggestion. Perhaps a poll could be started. The question being along the lines of : Should someone who gives their word keep it?
Wizofoz, you may like to cast the first vote.

[Wizofoz]

Bris boy,

Our similarities are so much greater and important than our differences.

My life will forever be divided into Pre/Post Sept 14 2001!!!!

Like you, I am finding the "Post" period Happy, sad, interesting, enlightening, heartbreaking etc. etc. etc.!!!

You learn who your freinds are, and find strengths in yourself you never knew you posessed.

It's why it seems so pointless to hold over animosities against people who, like you, just did their best in circumstances not of their making (Just as you did, and I am doing now.) I know that on the whole those who worked for AN post '89 held no animosity towards those who stayed out (And any that was expressed was in response to vitriol and worse put their way), but rather grieved freindships lost. (Awaiting the Kaps rabid response. He knows more than me, I just worked there.)

Now, stay-outs, returnees, pre-march joiners, post march joiners FAs, ramp guys, schedulers....a huge percentage of all aviation proffestionals of Australian origin... are in their own "Post" period.

Maybe we should all just try to get along?

[Kaptin M]

As hard as it was for many of us who were "senior F/O's" (within our own little worlds of Ansett, TAA, East-West, & IPEC) [and therein also lies a lesson to be learnt...the inimitable Captain Tony Fitzsimons was one who always advocated "Taking a command on ANYTHING, as soon as you can, because co-pilot time is worth SFA, regardless of TOTAL TIME]" - we, in the main were fortunate enough to at least pick up jobs that paid enough to allow us to keep the (mortgaged) family home, and continue payments.
The guys to whom I tip my hat - even today - were those "junior" F/O's.......some with only 9 months in Ansett.....who didn't "go Back" out of principle!
I saw a few of these guys in SQ. MEN..yes, MEN...who had written diligently month after month, to Ansett, hoping for the "Forgive and Forget" spirit, urged by Brian McCarthy, but publically SPURNED by Dick Marman and the then seeds of the Ansett pilots Union.

Likewise, I had a good friend - a true Christian believer and practioner...something I'm afraid I don't profess to be..... - who applied to Ansett post-Dispute. This gentleman had experience way and beyond that would have placed him well with ANY airline operator (in excess of 3,500 hours, and more than 500 hours jet (Lear) command time at 28 y.o.), who was "black-balled" because he didn't try to SCAB.

My contempt runs far deeper than just the injustices served out to the ex-employees!
The FACT was - at that time - the companies were working on a TNP basis.
Take No Prisoners.

And now the hunters have become the hunted.

What goes 'round, comes around.

Ignore '89. Relegate us all to the "has beens, it'll NEVER happen to US" corner.
But if it does...WHEN it does...just smile and nod wisely. ;)

[bonvol]

Wiz, these guys bore no animosity (most of them) to us because of a couple of things.

They figured they were the lucky(smart) ones who saw the writing on the wall and got back to Momma before they ended up on the scrap heap. A fate that they were sure would be our future. They also felt sorry for us. If only we had been as clever as them!
Additionally, they hoped that their actions would be viewed as "I made my decision and you made yours" so lets be mates again. This one is also along the lines of "I only took my own job back."

They conveniently forgot that their return would only help ensure that their colleagues would never return.
Also, these people did not do the "best in the circumstances" at all. What they did do was betray the trust of the group for their own self interest, something that the majority of them had given their WORD not to do.

When things went pear shaped we needed UNITY above all. It was the only way that we could have salvaged something IMHO.
The dribble back only reinforced the companies resolve to stick it out and most of us will hold these people in contempt forever.

Never in a million years would they have envisaged the demise of Ansett back in 1989. It would have been as unthinkable as the vast majority of Domestic Airline Pilots losing their jobs in an industrial dispute. The Fat Lady has finally sung.

[Wiley]

Brisboy, I think you very accurately describe 95% of the pre Aug 89 AN (and TN) pilot group with your comments above. Myself, I had to be shown the way to the Union HQ to resign – I’d never been there and had absolutely no interest in ever becoming involved in any Union activity. Like you, was only slightly to the left of Attila the Hun in my politics, but, oh, how bob’ork and his overweight puppeteer changed my smug, self-assured attitude.

Kapt M, with the greatest respect, I believe you should resist being drawn off on dead end tangents in answering the heroic assertions regarding pre and post Aug 89 productivity and pay rates. The fact is, as hard as it might be to accept for many who joined AN and TN post 89, and despite what self-serving nonsense you were fed by your new employer (and maybe even moreso, your new but more senior colleagues), the Dispute was never about pay. End of story. Let that red herring rest. If it had been about money, surely the other 78% of those greedy pre Aug 89 pilots would have flocked back to the fold, to a man, the first day the new, very lucrative individual contracts were offered.

And it shouldn’t require a degree in Economics for anyone to see that attempting to compare pre and post Aug 89 productivity is a classic case of comparing apples with oranges. Take a very mature company with many very senior pilots, many of whom who’d been employed by the company in excess of twenty years, along with that company’s exposure to a huge bank of accrued leave, long service leave and sick benefits and compare that with what amounted to a ‘new start’ airline that in the first year, which had absolutely none of those exposures. (I’m led to believe that the average number of sick days taken by the AN pilot workforce per Aug 89 was 1.5 days per annum. I know I surrendered over 220 days of accrued sick leave when I left, and I was by no means unusual. With normal days off, that would have converted into over a year off work on full pay if i had fallen sick. I also had my full long service entitlement.)

The ‘new start’ AN had none of this exposure and no normal annual leave to cover for the first year, except for (was it?) 11, mostly management pilots who never resigned. Having made that point, let's concede that the pre Aug 89 contract was Byzantine in its complexity and even the most inept manager should have been able to glean more productivity out of a group of pilots without even a modicum of industrial protection under the individual contracts.

I think the whole debate could be put to rest with one single question: even when it seemed that their jobs were safe for life and that AN would go on forever, how many of the post 89 AN (and let’s not forget the TN, now QF domestic) pilots who joined or re-joined those companies under circumstances that have caused their names to be added to ‘the list’, looked forward with eager anticipation to bumping unexpectedly into an ex-colleague or friend within the industry?

The answer to that question should explain in full to anyone who was not personally involved in the events of 1989-90 the most important point of this whole sorry mess and why emotions still run so deep for those who did not go back or blow in.

(Edited for typos and dreadful English.)

[Tool Time Two]

Wizof - you are drawing a very long bow indeed, if you are comparing your circumstances to Brisboy's post.
Make no mistake, every one of the scabs, perhaps with the odd exception, was a "go get 'em Brian" man at the beginning of the dispute. I recall receiving phone calls from a few of 'em, before they looked at the Abeles/Hawke/Kelty contracts. Storm Boy was one of them. The 95% who told the Feds to fix their problem included one hell of a lot of later scabs.
To suggest that you did anything other than make every effort to prevent re-employment of those you left behind, is at best laughable.
The circumstances of 14 Sep 2001, are entirely different.
:cool:

[Casper]

The fat lady has indeed sung BUT the pathetic little budgie still tries to chirp!

[3 Holer]

Wiley, I do hope you jest.......
the Dispute was never about pay. End of story. Let that red herring rest. I recall Brian McCarthy early in the 9 to 5 campaign stating to a journalist "We (AFAP) wish to negotiate with the Companies. We are prepared for some productivity trade offs under our present awards but the 29.47% is NOT NEGOTIABLE".

I will be very pissed off if I find out, after all this time, that was a "red herring".

[Wizofoz]

TTT,

Yes, our circumstances are very different.

You resigned...

[CitizenXX]

Kaptin M,

Pilots in the former AN were indeed paid by the hour with the only guarantee being 55 per month. One could count on the fingers of one hand the number who didn't fly 55 per month, and that was one the fingers of one hand over a year. There were no 2 for 1, or minimum 4 stick hour guarantees as prior.

Others have canvassed these principles with you over a number of years, but you don't seem to get it.

The no reserve comment deserves no comment, but 'll say it again anyway, in small words with big letters if necessary - there was no reserve coverage, and no provision in the rostering. Difficult to do when the average block was 75 - 80 hours, compared with pre 89 30 - 40 hours, and reserve coverage provision!

When one was called out on a non allocated flying day, the same hourly rate applied as the blocked paid hours. For an A320 Capt in 2001, that was about $230 per hour. One can easily see that if it was a MEL - ADL - DRW - ASP - ADL - PAX MEL day, then the reward was considerable, but no more considerable than if it was blocked; in fact, exactly the same. I'll put you out of your misery - it was a $2K day.

It is unfortunate that I no longer have a copy of the contract or I'd courier it to the Land of the Rising Sun for you to peruse.

As for scabs not getting jobs, there are over 300 former AN jocks now in jobs round the world. A considerable number of those are pre 89 pilots. They're getting jobs in companies nominated in this thread as those who would never take pre 89 guys. I believe the recruiting person in a middle eastern airline has been replaced because of his petty prejudices and overlooking qualified pilots who didn't fit into his idealistic world. What a shame.

You see, what you see as scabbing, many employers see as loyalty to the company. Personally, I don't see it that way, rather it was self preservation, but there are many who would employ a scab because he is not going to go for some tragic ideology espoused by a union type with his head up his ar$e, and who hasn't taken account of reality. SQ will continue to do so regardless of what you say. Quite a few working in Japan too, and I recall reading a post of yours some time ago that said that no scabs would ever be employed in Japan. Seems like the employers are indeed forgetting about 89, if they ever knew, or just couldn't give a $hit. The latter I think.

Even QF long haul is taking former AN pilots by the boxful, and didn't they support the cause in 89? Of course they did, flying over domestic routes in 747s carrying domestic passengers. That's real support for the cause.

If we follow the cock eyed KM logic, then QF short haul is next, and they won't be able to find jobs anywhere in the world either because they scabbed. Give me a break!

In one breath you guys say that the airline industry around the world will never forget 89, but in another, you note that Australian aviation is $hit, and nobody knows or cares about it. Make up your minds fellas. There's a real credibility problem.

I find it difficult when you say former AN pilots bragged about their incomes when you do exactly the same. I suppose it's just another example of the hypocrisy of displayed by you types. Be that as it may, I am now very, very rich, and I tell you unashamedly.

TTT,

You're right, there were the 'Go get 'em Brian' types who scabbed, but at the top of the list were the wine merchant and the first female pilot. The only difference there is that they weren't accepted. I bet she regretted being used as a pan by the AFAP. As for me, I voted 'NO' from day 1, and my friends knew it. What a lost cause it was - badly conceived and badly executed.

WixofOz,

I like your style son. Take it to them, and if you need some support, I'll be with you in the trench.

Wiley,

I don't look forward 'with great anticipation' to meeting anyone from the industry, but I've always been happy when I run into those of whom you speak. I have never turned away, have always extended my hand, been friendly towards them, and genuinely interested in how they're getting along; some, the more mature amongst them, have reciprocated, others have hurled abuse, and as you can imagine that did me a lot of harm; so much harm, in fact, that I pi$$ed myself laughing at them.

You see, by acting in that manner, they don't harm me; they harm themselves. They're being eaten up by hatred, but more importantly, they're being eaten up by envy, for they realize they made the wrong decision and f&%$#d their lives.

Back into the trench, and waiting for the firing to start.

[Kaptin M]

and I recall reading a post of yours some time ago that said that no scabs would ever be employed in Japan.
I'm afraid that your powers of recollection aren't too sharp, Ctizen - search the post out and re-read it. Speaking of which I saw a pudgy, old grey-headed gaijin walking around an Air Do B767 in Sapporo a week or so ago. Life hasn't been too kind to "Rice Balls" has it!

"The no reserve comment deserves no comment, but 'll say it again anyway, in small words with big letters if necessary - there was no reserve coverage..............When one was called out on a non allocated flying day.. :confused:
As I said, calll them whatever you like, "grey days, golliwog days, "non-allocated flying days" " :rolleyes: they were scheduled in to give operations coverage if required in the event of crew or aircraft incapacitation.

You see, what you see as scabbing, many employers see as loyalty to the company.
You ARE joking with that one! How much "company luyalty" did the hordes that came in from overseas have.
In the main, the only loyalty the majority of "crawlback scabs" had was loyalty to the $$$'s and the opportunity to grab some rapid promotion for which they wouldn't have qualified under the existing seniority system.

I doubt that anyone ever said NO scab would find work outside Oz - the way you lot are willing to backstab and tread over each other is on record, and confirmed through several other ex-Ansett pilots who post here regularly.
"SQ will continue to do so regardless of what you say." Quite correct, however I understand that the relative few there now are it - regardless of what others may have been told.

I find it difficult when you say former AN pilots bragged about their incomes when you do exactly the same. I suppose it's just another example of the hypocrisy of displayed by you types.
The difference there is WE earned OUR salaries the fair and honest way, whereas you and your ilk had to not only put the knife into us and our careers, but try to ensure that we would NEVER get back to work in Australian airlines again.
Despicable and selfish and greedy would be adjectives far more apt than your hollow "self preservation" boast.

Self preservation are the words that can HONESTLY be claimed by all of those 1300 men and women you KNOWINGLY attempted to feed to the wolves when you "went back". BTW, CitizenXX, what "excuse" do YOU feed to the pilots with whom you flew as you attempted to justify YOUR return? Or were you honest, and told them that the money was just too good to refuse?


Be that as it may, I am now very, very rich, and I tell you unashamedly
That's nice for you!
Personally speaking, I can't make that same boast, however I have a great family, am satisfied that I have got to where I am based on genuine hard work and the KNOWLEDGE that I can look ANY pilot, ANYWHERE, in the eye, extend my hand and KNOW that the gesture will be returned.

YOU can't. :)

[Boeing Belly]

If "Rice Balls" is who I think it is, an ex APA President, then I should think that he would be very happy with his grey hair. Because in all the time that I flew with him he had none at all!!:)

[Flat Side Up]

Well, it has all been covered before but because Kaptin M seems to suffer from an extremely flat learning curve if not an inverse one here we go again!

It was ALL about money but the AFAP did not want to address Productivity improvements.

The AFAP set out on a course in the belief that their "king hit" resignation strategy would achieve victory so they purposely entrapped their members into resigning.

Any person who, in the clear light of the following day, did not realise that the companies had been handed a loaded gun was not in possession of his faculties. Most probably most realised the folly but decided to hang on in the desperate hope that reason would prevail. It is understandable that they could not bring hemselves to believe that tha AFAP could be so arrogant and incompetent.

The reality was that, however unfortunate the fact, right then and there, they had severed all links with their employers and had just surrendered every aspect of seniority and award conditions. In any case the AFAP, by it's behaviour at the IRC, had caused the awards to be cancelled as part of the "strategy". Not only that thy had wiped out the superannuation benefits of pilots with less than ten years service.........a gift to the companies which TN admitted amounted to $50 million and I guess AN was similar. It was never going to be the same again. They had given the employers a clean slate


So the employers advertised for pilots, locally to start with, and then overseas when the AFAP held their pilots back in the belief that sufficient pilots were not available. The reality was that there was no shortage of pilots. Not only that but the AFAP had chosen the northern winter for the exercise just when there was a surplus of aircraft and crews able to be deployed to Australia. The companies would have much preferred to get their crews back but with the productivity improvements did not require so many. It is often said by Kap M that if everyone to man had stayed out that the AFAP would have won. The reality is that not one AFAP pilot would have got back because the positions would have all been filled from other sources. Meanwhile AFAP pilots pushed aside GA pilots while remonstrating with them not to apply to the airlines. As well, they competed with pilots overseas for positions while reserving their places back in Australia. It was simply not going to happen! By the time the AFAP released their pilots all positions had been filled and promotion from that point was from within the existing pool, that is no Direct entry Captains.

I doubt very much the stories about AFAP members interfering with aircraft cockpits. However many 89ers did find themselves rostered by their new employers at the AN Simulator Centre and did take the odd liberty there.Harassment was very much from the 89er's side including physical assault, property damage, obscene and abusive phone calls both at home and overnight stops to disrupt. rest periods etc Nasty things like concocted stories to wives about "girlfrieds"........Some true!...pornographic videos ordered and sent to home addresses and the old favouriteof sending a prostitute to hotel rooms in the middle of the night to disrupt rest. Ho hum!


What can I say? Kap M's money figures are hilarious! He was given the true figures years ago but the fantasy persists. If he believes all the boasts of the crew room "Financial Rambos"
about their massive wealth he will believe anything. Most of those guys also have massive debt, so serves them right, but a few of the "silent" ones have done allright. The fact that Kap M trumpets his wealth so energetically gives one pause for thought.


Anyhow, it has all been covered before........bedtime for me...Bye
:rolleyes:

[Pole Vaulter]

Wrong about SQ again KM, Next lot start in early Nov. Sorry your information is confused with emotions and hatred. Keep to the facts, just the facts instead of raving on.

You really can't accept the no reserve bit can you? Just because in your days with AN no one allowed themselves to be available on G days or days off means that others were as pig headed as your lot. There used to be G days and days off in the blocks that you flew too but just imagine trying to get you to work. Beer and cornflakes was the standard breakfast in those days.

I can actually remember a certain FO who tried to do his reserve duty from a location in NSW well outside the 120 min call out time without informing his employer. Got away with it until one day when he was needed in a hurry. Amazing what you could get away with in the days when the company was operated with a gun held at its head by the AFAP. Wonder what would happen if the same person tried that with their present employer without the AFAP to keep their job?

[Kaptin M]

Get over it, PV, I don't waste my energy running on "confusion and hatred". I don't HATE the scabs, I merely have a contempt for them both professionally and as (temporary) life-sustaining mammals. As with any group of living organisms, not all "make the grade" and as such need to be culled from the rest so as not to pass on their undesirable characteristics.
That is the light in which I see scab pilots in professional aviation.

So let's wait until early November and see what happens.

You really can't accept the no reserve bit can you?
No, I really can't! You must be doing more than just vaulting with your pole if you honestly believe that a major airline can exist without having crews available to call upon when things go p.s.
But then again, Ansett DOESN'T exist - does it!

Just because in your days with AN no one allowed themselves to be available on G days or days off means that others were as pig headed as your lot.
From what I have read here on PPRuNe, the post '89 AN pilots didn't have to make themselves available on their "golliwog days" nor their days off, either. But by the same token, pre dispute, had someone been called out and had had a beer (or 3, as was the case with the "returnee" at the bbq, I hear) he would have been responsible enough to have advised crewing of the case, rather than have flown ILLEGALLY.

There used to be G days and days off in the blocks that you flew too but just imagine trying to get you to work
Yes I CAN imagine it, because it happened REGULARLY (flying on "G" days). Grey days were precisely that - they were days that were not "Off" and were available for the company to utilise if they wished.

"Beer and cornflakes for breakfast" :rolleyes: Slightly emotive there aren't we PV

I can actually remember a certain FO who tried to do his reserve duty from a location in NSW well outside the 120 min call out time without informing his employer. Got away with it until one day when he was needed in a hurry. Amazing what you could get away with in the days when the company was operated with a gun held at its head by the AFAP. Wonder what would happen if the same person tried that with their present employer without the AFAP to keep their job?
I also knew of a couple of pilots (in Brisbane) - one was the Qld agent for Robinson helicopters, and later a Noosa restrauteur...this guy used to bid reserve and then trip off to the USA to pickup spares, and would call crewing from the States (but told them he was at home in Oz) asking if there was any requirement for him to stand reserve the following day, and could he be released. This same guy tried to "smuggle" a mate of his onboard an F27 by hiding him in the rear toilet , only to be discovered by an F/A.

The second was sent to BNE after having his job saved by the Feds, during a basing in CNS. Because of his "juniority" he was assigned Reserve most months - or he bid it - so that he could fly Navajos on G.A. charter work out of Archerfield...naturally without the permission or knowledge of Ansett. He's better known to all as "Storm Boy" (and "Captain America")

And so where did these IRRESPONSIBLES end up?
As SCABS.
And early ones at that!

FSU, you boys REALLY need to talk with each other a little more.
3 Holer states in a couple of posts before your's;
"I recall Brian McCarthy early in the 9 to 5 campaign stating to a journalist "We (AFAP) wish to negotiate with the Companies. We are prepared for some productivity trade offs under our present awards..."
but you contradict him with the "scabs' version", by writing,
"It was ALL about money but the AFAP did not want to address Productivity improvements. "

Part of the ambit log of claims served on the companies included a salary increase, however as YOU are well aware the SOLE REASON for the dispute was the refusal of the companies to allow the pilots to be represented by the AFAP.

The Dispute was ONLY about money in the minds of the SCABS - because THAT (and the rapid promotion) was the reason they were eager to sell themselves and their (lack of) principles to the highest bidder.
And being solely money-oriented (as is CitizenXX) that is the shallow depth to which you (and the other 22%) are limited in NOT understanding what was a MORAL issue that challenged the fibre of each and every person involved - not only the pilots!

[Tool Time Two]

Wizof - yes, there is a difference, and it is that we 89er's and the AFAP didn't send AN/TN/IPEC/EWA to the wall. Neither did the pay you scabs received. But the fact can now be appreciated by all, that had the companies negotiated with McCarthy et al, the outcome would have been a better and more radical contract since 1966, with benefits for all - not just for you scabs.
It is a documented fact, and I suggest you peruse the archives of the day, that numerous times during the first few weeks of the dispute, that McCarthy was quoted as saying that we would negotiate ALL aspects including pay, productivity, and conditions.
Selective memories won't wash I'm afraid.
You cannot escape the fact, that along with PV, FSU, Citszz and sores, you have to remain defendant of your actions for the remainder of your life, and that is because 89er's exist.
It is interesting now to also note, that there are more contributors to the posts on this subject, than may have been the case a couple of years back. Not because you now don't have cockpit support is it?
FSU, the resignation aspect has already been addressed, and your "loaded gun" contribution is nonsense. The course of the dispute was far longer than Abeles had anticipated, but he had Hawke by the scrotal skin, because Hawke had already committed himself to the "war", which also meant as long as would take, at taxpayer expense. And the only way they could win it, was not because of foreign scabs, but because of you and the other scabs and sores skulking back.
As for voting "NO", then I assume when you vote for the Natasha Stott the Sponger, and she doesn't win, then you don't accept the democratic verdict. Oh - right - different principle. The hell it is!
One thing about scabs, they all like to project how courageous they were in scabbing. It is a courage which collapses with a gentle wind from the likes of Abeles.
Keep it coming boys.:cool:

[TANUA]

Kaptin M-

You must be under a fair degree of pressure to come up with this last post.

Whilst we are "world's apart" on 89 and many of its issues I respect your right to STRONGLY state your view-however-the way I read this post-your position could be the one under threat unless you "step back" a little?:eek:

Tool Time Two-

Your post arrived whilst I was responding to Kaptin M.

Many of us remember what a solid and "strong" individual you were and are.

Without the "comfort" of name calling you are a person full of wind.

Cheers:p

[Kaptin M]

"You must be under a fair degree of pressure to come up with this last post." :confused: :confused: :confused:

"..however-the way I read this post-your position could be the one under threat unless you "step back" a little?" :eek:
Simply a statement of (easily verifiable) FACTS, TANUA - but if the heat's becoming too much, stay out of the kitchen! :)

[Pole Vaulter]

KM,

Just loved the venom in your last post. Hit a couple of raw nerves did we?

Love your bit about not hating scabs, Just wishing to CULL them from us GODS OF THE SKIES. You sure have got a sad case of something. You really have a bad case of being a legend in your own mind.
You really dont want to start me on the number of jobs that would have been shed prior to 89 except for intervention by the AFAP, that could really bring up some truthes if you really want me to start.

No you are right about AN not being around but the good thing about it was that due to the passing of your kind at least it had between 89 and 2002 to keep a lot of people in a good job during that time that would not have happened if your lot had its way. AN would have disappeared years ago. Unfortunately that is another area where your tunnel vision wont let you accept the truth.

You still did not answer my question about a certain F/O and his reserve duty and what would happen if he tried that stunt today?

[Flat Side Up]

TTT,
Yes I have a very clear recollection what McCarthy said both for public consumption and when at an AFAP meeting when he stated that the 29.47% pay increase would be without any change in work conditions or productivity. Another gentleman previously mentioned that broad banding and other features of the new contracts had been rejected out of hand by the AFAP before the dispute. Yet later on the AFAP, too late, released their pilots to accept the new contracts.

In 1966 Dick Holt faced the situation where the then Air Pilots Association and the companies were diametrically opposed. He had enough sense to look seriously at the bid system proposed by the companies and was able to fit it to his purpose successfully.

You chaps always sink to personal denigration in response and it destroys your credibility. You deny the truth about pay rates, reserves etc even when it is clearly shown that you are wrong.
Rather than being defensive I seek to ensure that your untruths are exposed. I don't give a damn who I "bump into" and treat them as I find them. Have never had a problem. You need to take ownership of your own problems.

We are all agreed that both sides acted reprehensibly especially Hawke and Abeles but we all knew about them long before the dispute and YOU along with the rest of us worked from 1979 to 1989 without moralising about it.

THe AFAP lied to and misled it's members, for instance, about the arrival of pilots from overseas. What other lies were there. From the odd slip of the tongue here and there they lied about other matters before and during the dispute.

[greybeard]

Well, we are still on the air, even if old warriors are slashing at each other in the same old way.

What do we have from all of this?

Returnees: You went back and screwed up the whole system, and for what?

Money: The pay was more after 89 than before, up to at least twice depending on which way you read the figures. So much for 30% or so in the original NEGOTIABLE package.

Productivity: Up and you can shout that from the rooftops, BUT, no LSL components I believe, annual leave at a different level and not taken at least as often in the first year, work practices that had been removed from the awards for years.

Company Loyalty: Only now being bandied about as "we" all want our monies due. Apologies to many of the non-flying staff in this area, but not all as some were real B*&^s when it suited them as said before.

Job security: Zero

Group Synergy: Zero, where are you Q mates in all this, you know the "others" on the list as we "all" stuck together for the "good of the Companies"
I would hazard a guess they are laughing their soxs off. However Impulse/NJ/Southern/Eastern has not yet settled and worse is to come.

Brand recognition: Yes you are a recognised lot, the listees, Gold, Silver and blue card members all.

Future Employment: Yes some are here, there and everywhere and good luck, as you will need it. Most conditions, certainly here, are well down from the ones enjoyed in 90. No CPF, no company fund, worth some 30/40K in the long run PA. You will see further stresses in this area.

Was it worth the stigma?

Was it worth assisting in destroying the Industrial Relations system that had served ALL AUSTRALIANS so well?

Was it worth contributing to the demise of what was and still could have been a great Ansett?

What a price to pay for NOTHING gained!!!

As to what some perceive as lies from the AFAP, that is open to many views. Advice sought and given to all pilots appears to have satisfied 1300 or so who continued to display moral fibre.
The AFAP did as it was asked to do by the membership, nothing more or less than its charter allowed, protected our and YOUR assetts by allowing the resignations to be lodged. Writs delivered and worded in the manner of the times were the indications of things to come, and come they did.

I actually don't have a problem with the ones who NEVER resigned, they were at least honest from day one, some withdrew the form immediately as they didn't want that journey. The rest slinked around corners, passed on information, easily caught, SOPS may remember one we flushed out, nice folks. People really did and still do, show their true colours when the chips are down.

That is one of the main reasons many would never go back then and are reluctant to work with those peoplle now, YOU WENT BACK ON YOUR WORD, no place in a cockpit for that line at all.



Many could hold the line and some would cave in, history was made.

What a price Australia has paid, just because of a few Sc%bs

:p

[Flat Side Up]

Wrong again as usual on pay rates,annual leave the same, LSL the same, accommodation the same, crew transport away from base the same....................THe AFAP could have had all that IF they had looked sensibly at the proposals at the outset. One can only conclude that the AFAP set out wilfully to entrap members in line with their previously ill conceived "king hit" strategy. Unguarded comments by one Vic Branch member suggested that he looked forward to rapid promotion because the senior pilots would not return after they secured their Super. This was BEFORE the stoppage. Apparently relevant information was not revealed to members before and during the dispute. No one has yet come up with justification of the AFAP lies about inbound arrivals of pilots.

Bye, work to do, no more time to waste on this.:rolleyes:

[Wiley]

Well, I see a few people haven’t allowed my “It (the Dispute) wasn’t about money” comment to pass unremarked. In search of brevity, (never my strong point!), I oversimplified, but I’m not retreating from my claim. To explain: for me, and I believe the vast majority of the pilots involved, ‘the dispute’ didn’t become ‘the Dispute’, with that all-important capital ‘D’, until after Aug 24th, so let me amend my original comment to: “After Aug 24th and the mass resignations, for the vast majority who still refused to go back, it was no longer about money.”

I can’t speak for the minority, many of whom who saw the radically changed situation after Aug 24th as a once in a lifetime opportunity to gain a huge pay rise, rapid promotion or a shortcut to permanent residence in Australia.

It will probably draw more howls of outrage for me to say it, but, without wishing to cast any personal or professional aspersions at the people involved, let me remind the post March 90 ‘clean skins’ within AN and TN that many if not most of you only got your jobs (or got them as early as you did) because 1288* far more experienced pilots were denied the opportunity of even being interviewed. And they were denied this by their heroic ex-colleagues who said (and I quote superhero Dick Marman here) that it would be unsafe to share a cockpit with them. It’s curious how the safety issue doesn’t seem to matter one whit now that it’s the heroes trying to find jobs in airlines where those dreadful ‘stay-outs’ are now working, isn’t it?

*(I’ve deducted the token re-employed ‘12 Apostles’ from the 1300.)

------------------------------

And in closing: Pole Vaulter, I can’t let your following comment to pass unremarked.You really dont (sic) want to start me on the number of jobs that would have been shed prior to 89 except for intervention by the AFAP, that could really bring up some truthes (sic) if you really want me to start. I agree 110% with what you’ve said. The AFAP did fight to maintain employment for a number of pilots who many of their colleagues at the time thought to be inappropriate people to be in the job, (one of them even gets a mention on this thread), but what you neglected to mention was that, almost to a man, these people were among the very first to turn their backs on the Union, adopt the ‘hero’ mantle and return to work for the airlines.

There were also more than a few people in the post 89 AN (and I’m assuming TN) who gained jet commands who were on a four lane downhill highway to becoming permanent First Officers in the ‘old’ AN. You know who you are (and I assume many of your younger ‘clean skin’ colleagues know who you are as well) and you know I speak the truth.

[waterops]

And it's CITIZEN XX by a mile....

Sorry but his reasoning beats KM's ranting and raving any day.

This topic is getting boring.

Woomera: Why is it after I log in then type my reply and hit "SUBMIT REPLY", I have to then RE-ENTER my log-in details??? Every time, this happens.

[CitizenXX]

Thanks you Water Ops, and I don't have to resort to slinging $hit to win it by a mile.

Notice KM didn't address the issue of the wine merchant and the first female having a go and being knocked back? If $cabs are bad, then they are the worst possible kind. Nor did he address the issue of QF flying over domestic routes after supposedly giving an undertaking to the AFAP that they wouldn't do so. The fact is, there was no undertaking. McCarthy told us there was, but the QF union never gave any such undertaking.

And KM, I carry no stigma, can look anyone in or out of the aviation business right in the eye, not abuse them, and don't have to feel that I should justify my actions. Whenever that distant event is discussed, people comment on what a gutsy decision it was, and say that they would have done the same.

I feel the AFAP management should have justified themselves. Contrary to what a few senior pilots sworn in the courts, I was coerced into submitting my resignation, and was told that they would NEVER be submitted. It was just a tactic to frighten the companies. Yeah, well it frightened the $hit out of them. History reveals that.

The was also the issue of lying about foreign pilots, QF pilots' undertaking, along with a plethora of other lies to keep the faithful strong. More like feeding mushrooms bull**** I'd say.

WaterOps, you're right though; this is boring. KM, TTT, Amos etc have all had these cases put to them numerous times, but they just don't get it. One would hope that their behaviour is just a charade, because if it's not, I have serious doubts about their reasoning abilities. Fortunately, when I have the time, I don't mind a little verbal jousting, but time is tight and I am unable to give it as much time as KM, TTT, Amos etc.

The infantile name calling - oh dear! Isn't this primary school (and early primary school, at that) stuff?? I'm glad that I don't have a limp, lisp or disability they could home in on. I'd hate being called Ita Buttrose, Hoppy or similar.

Wiley, there will always be such people who slip through the system. You know the old rule - 5% aces, 90% average, and 5% duds. They'll always exist, and somehow survive because they know the checkie, just lucky on the day, or the most important one, they have something on someone well up the food chain, and that's a lot more common than anyone imagines. Don't be fooled into thinking that everyone who didn't return in 89 was an ace because that is a fallacy. Some of those less than competent types are still flying BIG aircraft round the world today. Just goes to show that it is more forgiving than most believe.

One of those duds gets a mention elsewhere. The F27 Capt who was demoted because of the low run followed by a wingover at ASP with a tube full of terrified Japanese tourists. He would have to have been in the bottom 5% of the bottom 5%. And guess what? That was revealed within a month of his signing with a middle east airline in late 89. He was back running a Tattslotto agency before Christmas. If you need further proof that those who 'held the line' were not all guns, I'd be only too happy to oblige.

And Wiley, in your next post, could you please lose the tedious 'sics'? Very few who post here would have learnt touch typing, don't bother to proof read, and just want to contribute, with a few typos seen as acceptable. Alternatively, you could quote your mates, TTT, KM, etc and your post wouldn't make sense because of the number of 'sics' you would need to insert.
Like you, I am at times appalled by the standard of English expression used by some posters here, but I'm sure there are other issues as I've mentioned above. Rather than try to humiliate them, I commend them on their willingness to post.

And KM, I'm not finished with you yet. I've jumped through the SQ hoops over the past couple of months, and am waiting on a date and base. If it's Singapore, I won't be going, but if it's in Australia, I will accept. Nice position to be in, isn't it. And there were a number of others leaping through the hoops with me, so your assertion that SQ won't be taking more is more bull$hit. I'm sure you called someone in power there and advised them of their folly in employing more scabs. Let's see if your call was heeded.

[Pole Vaulter]

Wiley,

Just love how yourself and your mate KM have such selective memory when it comes to showing of two of the so called returnees who the AFAP "saved" but forgetting to mention the many that were and are are and still in your bunch that would not have a job today without the shotgun of the AFAP.

Would you like to jog your memory back to a certain incident at ASP in a F27 that was not considered an appropiate manouver for an airliner and the penalty (after the shotgun was held at the head) was demotion frm F27 captain to B767 F/O. Boy what a pay cut that must have been. WOW what a price to pay

Would you like me to jog it back to DRW when the flight to BNE had to be cancelled while the crew where retrieved from the local jail due to behavour not appropiate at the local Casino. Once again the Shotgun treatment was brought into action. I could go on and on but I guess these and all similar and a few far worse incidents get totally removed from the minds of your bunch where truth is in a different form to the normal meaning of the word.

These were not your dreaded Scabs but your Gods of the Skies.
If you don't (or don't wish to) remember them look in the archives of your AFAP and they will be well documented. But then again the AFAP will say they did not exist like the "List"

Removing a pilot (except health reasons) almost never happened in the years up to 89 but after that year it crew had to become accountable as did any other employee. I guess selective memory is something your group seems to have a problem with overall. Might have to do with the water you drink or something.

[Tool Time Two]

Boys, I am delighted you have obliged me with your posts.
The problem scabs face is that their posts, on small analysis, must forever remain defensive.
The accusation, for example, that the AFAP told "lies", is to suggest the corollary that Abeles and his boys didn't.
Not so of course.
The scabs always accuse the Feds. of all sorts of demonic behaviour. Again defensive behaviour.
As I have posted many times, well boys, if you didn't like it, then why did you not take the appropriate action, and remove the offending leadership through the means at your disposal?
Nope! Much easier, and given the protection, more anonymous to scab, and turn your backs on those whom you called colleagues for so many years. Not to regain YOUR job, but to take someone else's, and that former colleagues's pay as well.
Oh, the resignations - well, they have been dealt with by me and others, and when it comes to selective memory, none is more selective than that of the defensive scab. It is ALL the AFAP's fault because it lied.
Garbage boys.
The resignations were used exactly as they said they would be, and if you want to dream up some selective memory as to what someone said - you are dead wrong.
YOU decided, because of weakness, to take the money and to hell with those on whom you turned.
I wonder how many played Fagan in the school play?
So a Vic Branch member was going to get rapid promotion eh?
Well, he got it, after he scabbed. And we all know who that was.
He is probably a B7474 Captain in QF now. Which says a lot for the weakness of the QF AIPA of the day.
The golden scabs were men of weak character. The sorts of individuals who entrenched themselves in the AN Flight Department, were of second class character compared to many of those who could and would have done a better job pre '89. Some of those turned down offers in the years before '89. It is a pity that the chief wasn't more selective.
FSU, direct all of us to the archival material which quotes McCarthy as saying productivity and conditions were not negotiable. The 29.47% was not negotiable - but not one other item. Prove it otherwise with verifiable quotes.
The next time a scab says the not negotiable 29.47% was evil, well, we can all roll around the floor laughing.
Except the AN scabs - who have lost it all now.
Name calling? Not from me. Just a fact of recognising the real enemy.
Hatred? No. It is far too important an emotion to waste on a scab.
Pity? Yep. That my time and social context before '89 was wasted on any of them.:cool:

[Casper]

Hatred? No. It is far too important an emotion to waste on a scab.
----------------------------------------------------

Could not agree more. SCABS ARE FOREVER and that's a lot of wasted time!

[downtheback]

Recollections are interesting because we all have different selective memories on what went on. So for what it is worth here is mine from a spouses perspective on the night of the resignations.

Phone call. "We all have to meet at the union office within the next 2 hours" No reason given. Why because if the pilots had been told many would not have turned up.

Meetings were held at the same time nationwide so that no-one had the opportunity to telephone a colleague interstate.

No wives allowed. Husband comes home later that night explaining that he had just signed a resignation. Natural response, " You did WHAT?". " Oh dont worry they are not going to be used!"

That may sound very naive on my husbands behalf but he honestly believed what he was told and had me convinced not to worry.

Someone not involved in the dispute may argue what business was it to have a wife involved in the union meeting. Ordinarily I would agree. However when a resignation is being flippantly signed to be used only as a bluff and then submitted without his consult it started to be very much my business.

Interesting that wives were not privy to the signing of those resignations and I know that if they had, many would not have been signed. Also from that point on wives were included in the meetings and the rallies and the reason why!! The AFAP knew that the wives had to be fed the same propaganda and lies to keep their pilots on side

[CitizenXX]

Down the back,

I agree. If the girls had been included that night, there would have been far fewer, if any, resignations.

TTT,

I make no assertions that the behaviour of Hawke & Abeles was not a disgrace. Perhaps it was the worst chapter in Australian industrial relations history, but then there was the shearers' strike, and the docks fiasco of a couple of years ago, so maybe not.

What you need to accept though, is that's the way things happen in life. Take the US - Iraqi chest beating currently. Have the US yet said 'This is all about oil.' I don't believe so, yet it is. People in conflict rarely tell the truth because it doesn't suit their purposes to do so. Before you leap in here, I'm not in conflict with you, so therefore have no reason to misrepresent my position.

This comes under the category of 'That's Life.' If you don't like it, there is an alternative, but not a palatable one for most.

'That's Life' is described a little differently in what could probably be called the Australian adage - Life is a $hit sandwich; the more bread you have, the less $hit you have to eat!

Life, and particularly life working for an employer, is about someone imposing their will on you. You guys won't want to hear that, but that's what it is. Just as you impose your will on your crew, employing good CRM principles of course, but imposing your will nevertheless.

Incidentally, I am not, nor have been, nor ever will be, on the defensive for returning to work in early 1990. It's a decision I'm proud to have made, There is something for which I will be eternally ashamed, however, and that is that it took me so damned long to do it. I blindly followed our leaders up a dry creek bed. Fortunately I hadn't run out of water when I decided to turn back.

Even one of the sheep farming brothers from Tasmania (can't think of their names) told me that he'd put his future 'in the hands of people who weren't up to the job.' Isn't that a condemnation when one considerers how pro movement they were? I clearly remember one saying in AFAP HQ 'I can't tell you what we're going to do, but it'll F... them.' Well resigning certainly did that, but the 'them' wasn't the companies, it was the members !!!

I said earlier that I bear no animosity toward any who chose otherwise. It's such a shame that they didn't have the capacity to rationalize that once they had resigned, then the fight was all over. Nor do I feel sorry for them. They made a choice, and I made a choice - different choices, but I'm happy with mine, and from what you, Amos, KapM, etc., say, you're happy with yours, so why are you so angry? Do you see yourselves as losers?

Incidentally, I agree with somebody who posted elsewhere on this subject recently. If I could find a reason, any reason, to disagree with Hawke, I'd do it, but his statement that there was no industrial dispute because everybody had resigned was indeed impeccable logic.

I know you'll contend otherwise, and probably have done a thousand times in these forums, but those who did return were not scabs. They took no jobs belonging to workers on strike. There were no jobs of workers on strike available. Yes, I know your interpretation will be that 'there was an industrial dispute etc., etc.' but that does not fit the Oxford's specification. Sorry. As above, the dispute ended with the resignations. So sad.

I'm still proud of my actions, always will be, and looking forward to an Australian base with SQ. No Australian base though, and I won't bother. It's nice to have choices.

Back into the trench; I hear heavy bombers, one a 767 originating from Japan, and it's not Rice Balls at the pole.

[elektra]

Dear Citizen XX,

First of all, the dictionary, any dictionary is compiled after intensive study of common usage. But what appears in the dictionary is only a summary otherwise it would be an encyclopaedia. It’s like looking at the Oxford definition of “Food” and seeing what it says in a couple of lines trying to describe the means of sustenance for plant and animal life over 20 million years. (And in any case Bob Hawke went to Oxford so there’s a bit of a question mark over that dictionary anyway.) If you want to learn more about the difference between thae narrowness of a dictionary and the practical realities of life, I will gladly kick in my share to a fund to send you to your choice of coal mining towns anywhere in the world so that you can defend your narrow definition in public.

So don’t limit yourself to a few narrow words when you know the real truth. By the way, while at the keyboard I came up with this definition from somewhere out there on the ‘net…..I’m sure most readers of your post would agree that at least one of these definitions applies to what you did. (And I didn’t have to buy a dictionary!).

scab
n.
1. A crust discharged from and covering a healing wound.
2. Scabies or mange in domestic animals or livestock, especially sheep.
3.
a. Any of various plant diseases caused by fungi or bacteria and resulting in crustlike spots on fruit, leaves, or roots.
b. The spots caused by such a disease.

4. Slang. A person regarded as contemptible.
5.
a. A worker who refuses membership in a labor union.
b. An employee who works while others are on strike; a strikebreaker.
c. A person hired to replace a striking worker.

Second, and this is the real point, just truthfully answer a simple question please.

Given (and this is not really contestable is it?) that aviation is, in its various forms, largely reliant on teamwork. You might call it comradeship. Others use terms like CRM, others plain politeness or whatever. But the central theme is not necessarily looking after yourself first, or if you do find yourself at the top of some particular heap, help a few mates who’ve found themselves not so well off. If you get into the lifeboat first after a ditching, wait for the others before casting off. If you pop a few rivets in the aero club Chipmunk, tell someone so the next guy doesn’t get an unfortunate surprise during a loop. Etc, etc, etc.

So… at any time after you made your personal decision (i.e. 1990 to 2001)did you actively campaign for AN to recruit any (other than the “Dozen”) from the other side of the line, or did you by your inaction, support totally Dick Marman’s view that there would be a safety problem if ‘cultures” were mixed?

Simple question. You looked after yourself…did you then look after others?

And finally, lest anyone think you are a touch arrogant, don't ever, ever again boast in public about your good fortune in picking and choosing SQ bases and jobs when there are still lots of unemployed or underemployed pilots out there who have no such choice. Good men and women who have a right to respect and pride even without 4 gold bars and a shiny jet.

[stable approach]

Porno Citizen,
Your arrogance speaks volumes of the type of individual who could have turned his back on his colleagues so long ago.
You are happy with your decision - of course you are - you advanced your position in your airline and made yourself rich. I'm alright Jack!
Many of your newer colleagues are now in dire straits after the collapse of Ansett. You are happy with your position - which 777 / 747 position will I take? I'm alright Jack!
Thanks for the insight into how you people think.

[CitizenXX]

Elektra,

Thanks for your prompt response to my post. I knew I wouldn't have to wait long.

Now, down to business. Which definition is me, or is it all? I may see you as a 'contemptible person' also. Did that occur to you? Probably not.

In answer to your question, I did oppose Dick Marman's position, but to no avail. I don't suppose you'll accept that, so there was no point in saying it.

Now, I am looking forward to my 777 position very much, and if it's not in Australia, then I won't accept. What are you going to do? Jump through my monitor and punch me? What a joke you are. I can't believe someone would make such a dumb threat. What would you have me do, give it up, and hope that they'll give it to someone who isn't qualified, or hasn't applied? Even dumber. Good men and women see it as my good fortune, and if I knock back a Singapore basing, then it opens up a spot for someone else, doesn't it? I'm sure there are a number hoping that I don't accept for that very reason. They don't dislike or disrespect me, nor me them, but they are realists. If they apply, are successful, and then choose not to be based in a location other than Australia, then that is their prerogative. End of story.

Stable Approach,

An unstable post from you. Have you been reading my mail? I thought the porno thing was my secret. Please read and digest the above para regarding basings, and how my possible refusal will open up a job for someone else - not for someone who is not qualified or hasn't applied however - just for one who has applied and has been successful.

I've never flown a chipmunk, nor do I wish to, but I did pop a few dozen rivets in an A320 in an encounter with severe turbulence once. I wrote it up.

Collectively, what you losers fail to accept is that the airlines were operating - Foreign pilots were thick on the ground despite the AFAP's assertion that none were here. About 30 in AN didn't resign, and that made a total of 80 available out of an estimated 300 required - better than 25%. Regardless of whether you are prepared to acknowledge it or otherwise, there will always be people who didn't vote for or support the cause. Would you expect them to sit on the sidelines and watch their jobs be consumed by someone else, probably a foreigner.

Another small point I draw to your attention is this: Many who hurl abuse in these forums are now working overseas, sucking the guts out of their economies, on super salaries, as KM acknowledges, taking commands in front of local FOs and you have the nerve to criticize! Is it any wonder you totally lack credibility?

This was covered elsewhere recently when these same pilots, particularly KM, criticized SQ for suggesting they may fly domestically here. It was pointed out to him that in a micro manner he was doing exactly the same, i.e., sucking a living out of a foreign country, and taking the profits home. Oh, of course, that's different. How silly of me.

Downtheback,

How disappointing that you didn't respond so promptly and tip a bucket on me. Two out of three ain't bad though !!!

Let me say it again fellas, just in case you didn't understand - Life's a $hit sandwich; the more bread you have, the less $hit you have to eat. Understand??

I'm shutting down now before Elektra flings himself at me through my monitor.

[Spad]

CitizenXX, I may be way off base here, but I can’t help but suspect that you’re just a tiny bit out of touch with the rest of the world. I’m not commenting only on your self-serving interpretation of your actions in 1990, but more on your repeated comments about how you’ll only accept an Australian basing ‘when’ SQ begs you take a job with them in November.

Now I don’t work for SQ and never have, so I can’t comment on whether your expectations regarding your employment prospects are correct. I have to admit you sound a trifle smug, and (I suspect) just a little out of touch with reality, for I understand that SQ aren’t exactly famous for rolling over and acquiescing to demands from prospective employees.

However, I understand entirely your desire to take up only an Australian basing. The reduced after tax pay shouldn’t be of any concern given the money you should have been able to squirrel away over the last twelve years… and, could I be right in thinking that there might just be a tiiiiiny touch of apprehension at the thought of leaving your safe ‘little pond’ to live in that big bad one where even you might suspect that the fantasy you’ve been able to weave about what a hero (no pun intended) you were in taking the ‘courageous’ course of action you did in early 1990 might not be seen in the same light by the vast majority of the colleagues you’ll be forced to live among in Singapore? (I’ve heard the early arrivals have been more than a little surprised at the (non)reception they’ve received on the expat Singapore social scene.)

You and your heroic (pun intended this time) mates were left ‘in possession of the battlefield’ after 1989 and with no one on the spot to gainsay you, have convinced yourselves through constant repetition of the Big Lie that what you did was somehow honourable(!). Maaaaate, if you think you can sell that line to people who know what really happened in 89-90 as opposed to young FO’s locked into your cockpit in an post 89 AN aircraft, give up Aviation and make yourself some real money - Tony Blair has a job for you among his spin doctors.

You say in your last post: ”What you need to accept though, is that's the way things happen in life.” “That’s the way things happen in life?” – what’s that, that the Bosses always win? They win only because lily-livered or self-serving people (who have been labelled ‘scabs’ for over 150 years now) don’t stand the ground they initially promise to stand.

It’s also gives me a lump in the throat (I tug my forelock and grovel “arrr, thank yee, surrr”) to see that you ”…bear no animosity toward any who chose otherwise.” But just in case we forget you’re way up there on the very apex of your high moral pinnacle, you quickly go on to say ”It's such a shame that they didn't have the capacity to rationalize… They made a choice, and I made a choice - different choices, but I'm happy with mine,”

It always draws howls of outrage from some when you use a war analogy to illustrate a point regarding the (thank you Wiley) capital ‘D’ Dispute. But Bob Hawke called 89 a war, so here goes anyway. Using your logic, CitizenXX, the ‘smart’ pilots of the RAF in September 1940 would have painted black crosses on their Hurricanes and ‘got with the winning side’, because their leaders had made some truly stupid decisions leaving their country in a desperate situation, alone with no allies against an all-conquering and implacable enemy. Anyone could see (and many said it, including the US Ambassador to the UK), that England’s cause was lost and nothing could stop the Germans. A ‘smart’ Brit would have looked after Number One and not followed that war mongering Churchill ”up a dry creek bed”.

Similarly, our soldiers in New Guinea would have done exactly the same thing in 1942, for no one had defeated the ‘unstoppable’ Japanese juggernaut until then, and the Australian military leadership under Blamey was riven with dissention and had made, and continued to make, enormous mistakes that cost the troops on the front line dearly. Surely a ‘smart’ Digger would have seen the fight was ‘lost’ and looked after himself?

Some – a small number - I’m sure, did – and I’m sure the vast majority of the soldiers who hung in there and continued to do what they said they’d do when the going didn’t look quite so rough despised them exactly the way the vast majority despise the likes of you, CitizenXX. I don’t doubt you’ll get your job with SQ, probably even your Australian basing, but don’t think for one moment that it makes you anything other than what you are.

[elektra]

Now cool down XX

Essential part of CRM is the ability to take advice, not jump at every word as though it were a threat. You know better and you’re just trying to upset me. But I have teenagers, I can cope. I think that in every corner of Australia I’ve ever walked its been common practice to belt up about good fortune when in the presence (or cyber-presence) of others. Just a friendly tip to help that might help you cope in Asia.

I wish you no ill and have never jumped through anything to hit or otherwise damage anyone. Nor wanted to (although the umpire who reported Terry Daniher in 1990 at the Grand Final and got him 13 weeks certainly did try my patience).

As another friendly aside, totally between us…if you constantly find yourself thinking that others on Prune or elsewhere are about to “get you’…drag out that Oxford of yours and look up “Paranoia”. Just a thought. You seem relatively OK otherwise.

And while the dictionary is out….look up “Situational Ethics”. When I voted to stay with my friends in 1989 there was no caveat such as “unless it gets difficult”. That’s the whole bloody point about solidarity!

And as for "you losers"....well to tell the truth, no-one I know ever judges success or failure in life by the size of the big jet attached to their backside. or whether there's one at all. There are, should you take the time to smell the flowers, far, far more important things.

[BrisBoy]

Citizen XX boasts about how rich he is. This adds a certain weight to some of Kaptin M's arguments (whilst he appears to have done OK himself). CitizenXX also thinks I am envious because I made the wrong decision. A simple comparison of what the three returnees from my intake, as compared to the rest of us, are doing now makes this point look silly.
He has applied for a position with SIA, but the 'can go anywhere/look anyone in the eye/take no prisoners CitizenXX will only take the offer if he doesn't have to live in Singapore. "Gutsy move".
If it doesn't go his way SIA may not appreciate his selfish motives and when some of his former colleagues, such as Wisofoz and Gnadenburg's, turn comes round may not be so accommodating.

The 30% pay claim cannot be discussed without mentioning Abeles and Hawkes similar pay rises. Any attempt to do so is just as hypocritical as these people's actions.
I have always thought of FSU's contributions as a side issue. There was a big picture and it wasn't unfathomable percentages and comparisons, Kaptin M's response and counter claims, loaded guns & king hits or hoards of septics clambering across the Pacific in some kind of feeding frenzy centred around the right seat of the 737 I used to occupy.
This went to the heart of our Australian way of life and how we conduct our society. These thirty cent light bulb issues may have had their place but not whilst the aircraft descended towards the everglades.

The Prime Minister wrote to us all. The letter informed us that not only could we not negotiate with our employers but could not be represented by those of our choice. This totalitarian action may have been normal in a former east european regime but not in our free and democratic Australia.
Was this important or not!
Brian McCarthy said/did not say...wah...wah...wah...
The Federation did/did not do...wah...wah...wah...
For goodness sakes!!!

There is only one question each of us involved needs to ask.
Did I stand up for my country's constitutional and democratic institutions along side those I promised I would, or did I not?

[downtheback]

You guys just dont get it. Once you had resigned you lost all right to negotiate with your employer. Your rights were gone... zip. Whether this was morally right or industrially right in the employers right or the courts right you had no rights . Now whether this was stupidity on the AFAPS behalf or just bad luck on their decision making one had to decide for themselves. It certainly got out of the hands of the AFAP to resolve it.

[Wizofoz]

Brisboy,

One final point then I'm outta here (It's gotten VERY boring!!)

"Represented by those of our choice"

What choice? AN and TN were AFAP closed shops. If you wanted to work for either you HAD to join. There was no choice. I know of guys who HAD to join, voted AGAINST the campain at the outset, and then either DIDN'T resign or withdrew their resignations immediatley they knew the AFAP had exercised them against their will and in opposition to it's promise not to use them without further consultation.

These people are labled scabs and are on the list.

Where was their democratic right?

The AFAP only got into the "Democratic right" for representation after it lost the "Automatic Monopoly" option.

[knackeredII]

And you don't get it 'downtheback',

Having lost the rights you speak of by resigning, the only option open then was for the pilots as a group to stick together, which makes the actions of the early returners all the more distasteful. You speak as though the resignations were a voluntary event, not a situation forced on the pilots through legal pressure.

You're simply ignoring facets of the dispute which don't suit your version of the 'truth'.

[203]

Speaking of resignations:

How do you guys feel about yours being handed in without your knowledge, consent (strictly speaking),etc?

Does it not bother you at all or did it leave you feeling as though you'd been played for a fool, or anything?

I wasn't involved but when I hear all the talk I often wonder how much loyalty the AFAP would inspire with a move like that?

[7x7]

“downtheback’s” comments reinforce very clearly something I always felt very strongly about from very early in the Dispute – that the wives played a - no, the- pivotal role in how every (married) pilot handled himself.

They were, without a shadow of a doubt, the strongest or the weakest link in the individual pilot’s personal armour. If he had unswerving support from his partner, even if she disagreed with some of the decisions made (like the resignation, as mine did), he was probably going to see out the distance. If she was in his face about where the next pay packet was coming from, no matter how strong he might have started out, he was lost.

Myself, I thank God daily for the woman who stood by me and didn’t once suggest that going back might be an option.

I wonder if, late at night, any of the long term (and recently ex)AN wives today allow the insidious thought to creep into their minds as they consider if their present situation might have been different if they’d stood by their man back in 89 and backed him up rather than insisting he go back? No, I suppose they can’t afford that thought in even now.

Without the constant trickle of ‘go backs’, (and particularly the Christmas flood), the airlines would have been forced to deal with the Union. Politically, I don’t believe even Hawke and Abeles could have got away with having almost every captain imported from overseas. It simply wouldn’t have worked, and in their heart of hearts, I think every one of those who went back knows that.

[jupiter2]

Apart from what the '89 dispute did to ANY pilot in Australia, did ANY of you have ANY idea of what it did to everyone else working in an airline or tourist industry or their families for that matter?
You are such a selfish singular minded bunch of juvenile bitches, still ranting about a cancer of a year that will probably haunt you all til the day you die!
There seems to be only three things that have ever really been important to all you humble lot.....and that's just "Me... Me... Me"......
For God's sake, just climb on top of each other and get it over with !!

[CitizenXX]

Jupiter 2,

What a valid point you make. You would know from my posts above that I went back, and am not ashamed for a moment of my actions; the only shame I carry is that I was so stupid to think that it could have been won by the pilots.

What I am really ashamed of however, is the way some of our number unashamedly rode roughshod over GA pilots, taking their jobs from day 1, often on less than award conditions, just to secure an income. There were plenty who treated their GA colleagues like $hit, considering it their right, as airline pilots, to do so. Who were the greedy, self serving ones then?? Those who chose to go back to work? I don't think so.

Then there were those who went overseas and took commands in front of local FO's and felt it was their right to do so. Also, they announced to all who would listen, and some who would not, that they were there only until the AFAP secured a win, and they could go back to their previous positions. What a disgrace they were.

I knew a guy (then an FO) who came from the middle east post dispute, and told the story of an AN 737 Capt sitting on his verandah (invited by a friend), drinking his beer, and telling him (FO) that he (Capt) was going to come to his airline and take a command. Imagine how that went over. Chris didn't go to the middle east, and is now a CX Capt.

Jupiter, these guys are never going to get over it for a simple reason. They know they made the wrong decision, detest what they are doing and where, and wish like hell that they had stayed.

Of course, if they had, Ansett would never have collapsed because there would have been pilots of great principles steering it towards greater success. Yeah, right!

7 X 7,

Likewise, I'm elated that my wife stood by me in my decision. They are different decisions, but if we're both happy about that, then it can't be a bad thing. Mine never insisted that I go back, but when I made the decision, she was right behind me. So our wives have something in common, and what an admirable quality supporting your man is. Loyalty I think it's called.

As for insidious thoughts creeping into minds late at night; how could/would it have been different. Airlines around the world collapse almost monthly. People get by; some change their career paths, others get jobs locally, and some overseas.

Interestingly, a year down the track, 50% of those in the market for a flying job, have that job. There were a few over 800 pilots, out of which 70 were over 60 years of age. About 80, late fifties, have just retired, and almost 20 of the young guys have gone to university, or just given it away in disillusionment. About 340 had jobs on last count, and I daresay that a year after August ?? 1989 that nowhere near 50% of those previously employed would have had jobs. So it's not all bad, is it??

Knackered,

The resignations weren't forced by legal action. See my post above where one of the sheep farmers was spruiking weeks before the event that 'I can't tell you what we're going to do, but it'll sure F... them.' Well it did F... them. Them being the pilots. So it was planned well before the writs issue, and we were told that they would never be used, just waved in front of the management, and that would cause them to capitulate. Well, we all saw the result of that threat. See below re the mgt being in possession of the tactic long before the event.

Wizofoz,

Good points, again.

Downtheback,

You're right on the button, my dear. No rights when you resigned. Would you have a right to any input on issues at the local bowling club if you'd resigned your membership??

Wasn't this the classic case of using the big gun without having a back door exit? Once the resignations were handed over, it was all over. They couldn't then say, that they didn't intend to resign because the unior heirarchy would look foolish/more foolish.

My understanding was that even the senior industrial officer of the AFAP wasn't in favour of the resignation tactic. Isn't that in Brad Norrington's book? Maybe I'm mistaken.

Brisboy & Others,

I don't suggest that I'm dictating the terms to SQ on my basing. If they offer Singapore, then I won't be going. I have indicated a preference for an Australian basing, and I would have considered it stupid to have done any more. I'll take an Australian basing if it's offered, but not Singapore if it's offered. Simple as that. And to whoever suggested it's the November intake, do you know something I don't? I'm waiting on both a date and base.

It's not that I can't cut it in the big bad world of international aviation, Brisboy. Rather it's a simple case of choosing to live and work in/from my current domicile. I'm a creature of habit; like my home, like feeding wallabies on the back porch, like the Australian bush, and like running my couple of quite small but successful businesses, which incidentaly, I've made more money from than flying. And also incidentally, businesses which you may have used over the years. Simple as that. I think those who read here would know that I am more than capable of verbal jousting with the best, so there's no fear there.

As for being a social leper in the Singapore expat community, I don't see it. On a recent visit, I socialized with a banker, businessman, broker, and an aid worker, and not once was I asked if I was a $cab from Australia. Interesting. And if I was a social leper, then I have a multitude of Singaporean friends from many, many years ago, prior to flying, when I lived there. We've kept in touch, visit each other from time to time, and they have no interest in an industrial event in the third world 13 years ago.

Spad,

No war, no painting black crosses on aircraft, no Kokoda Track , no capitulation. What are you talking about?? and what are you smoking??

The only comments I have on your 'unusual' post is that I NEVER promised to stand the ground, and you are in a similar position in that you have no one to gainsay your version of the events, events which I believe your young FOs are sick to death of being regaled with over many years.

Elektra,

You got me. I was just winding you up. Your teenagers have equipped you well, and you do make a good point or two.

Now to all, the issue of solidarity. There were two groups demonstrating solidarity. Those who didn't resign, voted against the action as ill conceived, and subsequently withdrew their resignations also demonstrated solidarity. Those who didn't hold the (absurd) line showed solidarity with each other as well. I know, I know, there'll be howls from TTT, KM, Spad, Amos, etc., who will contend that they were money driven, glory driven, management stooges, and a thousand other things, but if the AFAP had decreed that we should all slit our wrists, I'm sure there would have been a number who would have slavishly followed their ridiculous request/demand.

The AFAP was never my choice of industrial representation. It was a bloody closed shop, and I had no choice. And why would I want it to be with a Parramatta Road car salesman in his guady checked suit calling everybody 'pal' in nominal control. Then there was the midget who had a nasty habit of putting his feet on Abeles' desk. These people saw it as their role to educate the Australian masses in the finesse of industrial relations. Never lost one, and no doubt they were buoyed by that, but when you back yourself into a corner, there is an inevitable result. A tiger snake on my porch discovered that an hour ago, just as we were no match for a shovel that went by the name of Hawke.

203,

Yes, I felt like a real idiot for even considering their demand. I should have walked out, gone sick or some alternative course of action. Can you imagine being summoned by the union at about 9pm to be at HQ at 10pm. For Perth pilots it was 8pm so that nobody could leak the ridiculous request. Can't tell you what it's about was the message. The resignations would not be 'active', but merely used to 'frighten' the management. The management was already in possession of the tactic. A management pilot told me (I'll save you writing it fellas; he was probably lying) after the event that he was rung (management pilots could be members of the union) but told them he wasn't resigning even before being asked to come in at 10 pm. Hope that answers your question. It's been suggested there was an AFAP mole, on the payroll of the company post resignations, who had shuffled from management to the AFAP a couple of times over the years. He is now with VB in a senior position.


General comment - There's something I've learnt over the years when dealing with the union and management. There are usually three agendas. There's the management agenda, the pilots' agenda, and the union agenda. It follows that generally the union and management agendas aren't/won't be the same, but what many don't realize is that often, more often than most realize, the agendas of the pilots and union are not the same either, although one would imagine that they should be so. You see, when somebody becomes an office bearer in the union, other issues come into play, the principal one being power. They need to create and preserve a power base, and if that means not precisely representing the wishes of the pilot group, whom they purport to represent, then that's an unfortunate casualty of the way life works. See elsewhere; Life's a $hit sandwich, etc.

How do you guys feel working in countries where the terms are dictated to you; no union representation, no input. Just do the job, shut up, and if you don't like it, pi$$ off?? It must be galling. The reason I ask is that I may well be doing that shortly. I think my views are more moderate in that area though. It's part of being an employee - Life's a $**** etc. I'd stil be interested in your comments though.

I'm terribly sorry about the long post, but it was necessary to answer previous posts.

[Richard Kranium]

CitizenXX...you are spot on....I could not agree with you more, you know very well, that you can never reason with ignorant people, the leadership of the AFAP were no more than just thugs, with anger and venom...its a free country and every individual has a right to think for himself...how you make your bed...so you shall sleep...............very good post mate...best wishes and good luck in your life.............:)

[CitizenXX]

Thank you Richard.

Are you really every woman's dream??

[Kaptin M]

What an interesting canundrum CX is showing himself to be with each new post.

The "man" who is congratulated by his friends for making a "gutsy decision" to scab writes in his last post,
Yes, I felt like a real idiot for even considering their demand. I should have walked out, gone sick or some alternative course of action.
..what a MAN!

There was no "coercion" as has been suggested by another of our scab contributors - in FACT I did NOT sign my resignation on that night, but waited until August the 24th!

FACT: Gentlemen such as Captain Henry Theunissen and Captain Ron Brennan did not tender THEIR resignations until several weeks into the Dispute, after which time they had evaluated, from the working offices of Ansett in Melbourne and Brisbane, exactly what dirty, underhanded work was being carried out against the pilots.

Likewise there were pilots on overseas basings who returned weeks later and with the exception of 2, ALL submitted their resignations after studying the situation. Beforehand however, they were courted seriously by the company, being promised instant upgrades if they would sign the limousine delivered Individual contract.

But back to CX. Here is a man who willingly takes the accolades for his "gutsy decision", but wishes his wife could have been there when he "should have walked out, gone sick or some alternative."
A "man" who voted against the action from the outset (or so he would have us believe NOW :rolleyes: ) but who pretended to be in agreement..."Yes, I felt like a real idiot for even considering their demand......Can you imagine being summoned by the union at about 9pm to be at HQ at 10pm. For Perth pilots it was 8pm so that nobody could leak the ridiculous request.
Gutless from the outset, CX?!

203, you ask "How do you guys feel about yours being handed in without your knowledge, consent (strictly speaking),etc?
Does it not bother you at all or did it leave you feeling as though you'd been played for a fool, or anything?"
The opportunity was available for any pilot who didn`t wish his resignation to be exercised to contact the companies and say so.
However, the BEST LEGAL ADVICE AVAILABLE (by QC`s) was that we had to resign to avoid extreme legal action from the companies (and other, such as that d!ckhead who owned Hamilton Island at the time..Keith something or other).

jupiter2, you ask/state, "Apart from what the '89 dispute did to ANY pilot in Australia, did ANY of you have ANY idea of what it did to everyone else working in an airline or tourist industry or their families for that matter?"
...and I feel truly sad that YOUR misconception of that event continues to thsi day.
IF you were involved, you would recall that it was THE AIRLINES that shut the services down. We were still working the 9-5 schedules, and we offered to return to FULL services early in September - again declined by THE COMPANIES, and of course HAWKE!
Go back and do some research please.

For the time being (I have to deadhead soon ..on a 2:1 pay CREDIT :) ), my advice to YOU CX is to have your wife write to SQ and tell them that she wouldn`t be too happy about you being Singapore based. Those Asians love to be shown some leadership qualities.
Oh, and btw, your acceptance into SQ isn`t assured until 12 months after CHECKOUT (in case you weren`t aware), dismissal or leaving at ANY time before the 5+ years, for any reason, will see you forfeit that "hard-earned" wealth.
But then that`s (you) assuming that you`re going to be given a start! :)

[fruitloop]

CitizenXX

Good post.........

CitizenXX

Good post.........


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't stress about life.............It's not permanent !!!

[Fubaar]

jupiter2, direct your anger at the targets most deserving of your ire – bob hawke, the late, unlamented pytor abeles and not forgetting the man sometimes forgotten in the events of 1989, rarely seen but always ther in the background – Rupert Murdoch. If Hawke had not ILLEGALLY used the military and ILLEGALLY imported foreign pilots and aircraft, the dispute would have been over within weeks.

Paul Keating, as Treasurer, said that Australian had become a ‘Banana Republic’. Anyone with even a passing knowledge of what REALLY went on in 1989, especially the silence of the judiciary and the media TO THIS DAY about the blatant lawbreaking that went on, (and NOT by the pilots), can only say that Keating was making a gross understatement.

Take a look at the currently running “Compass, and the rest” thread to see that these same people went on to ignore the law of the land with impunity to protect Ansett’s position when Compass 1 threatened to topple is rotten foundations in 1991.


Oh, and CitizenXX, the Big Lie doesn’t work on 95% of this audience.

[Richard Kranium]

CitizenXX,... up till to-night I thought I was every womens dream, but I had a scuff...and now I'm on my own...so maybe I'm f****d...I find life hard..and don't know where to turn............but I must struggle on and see what life will give me...I will fight back the tears.............best wishes to all...................:)

[CitizenXX]

Fubaar,

I agree that there were breaches, if not flagrant violations, of Australian law, but it happens every day. I don't agree either, but I can't change it.

We, any one of us, can't be a martyr to every cause - it just isn't possible.

The US is about to violate international law, again, but what do we do? Throw ourselves in front of their missiles? Not likely!

We just have to accept that there are, and always will be, things in life that we are powerless to change. Even if we rallied 20 or 30% of the population, and that would be difficult with the apathetic Aussies, it won't change these situations. People have short memories, with the exception of a few who post here, and politicians know it. They'll ride roughshod over you, and if you haven't forgotten it by the next election, and the opposition gets in because of YOUR vote, then they'll ride roughshod over you. What do you do then?? Vote Greens, who will never govern.

All you do by being offended and indignant is cause yourself untold stress and probably shorten your life.

Not much point in that I wouldn't have thought.

[HIALS]

Here's a nice insight into the writer.

Citizen XX complaining about "apathetic Aussies"... I nearly pissed myself laughing at the irony of such a comment coming from a self-confessed indecisive scab.

And another thing.

Citizen XX, how can you expect us to take seriously your pompous rusings about world affairs and the rule of law? Your diatribe about the cruel, cold, hard world (oh so worldly wise you are) that we live in? Your pragmatic assaying of events is nothing but pedestrian arrogance!

By your own admission you lack forsight; are given to prevarication and, can be unreliable and change your mind half way through an event. Claiming of course with self-righteous hindsight that "I was mislead".

Spare us. Stay at home and maintain your narrow focus. Leave the real world to those of us who have been living in it for more than a decade now.

If you behaved in keeping with past events - you would side with the UN and demand Security Council mandate, talk big-time about the unfairness of inflicting further pain and suffering on Iraq's population, stridently agree with President Chirac that the USA's policy of pre-emptive strike is dangerous folly, applaud Chancellor Schroeder's agreement not to involve German troops in any invasion of Iraq - and then, stun everyone, by cowering before the American juggernaut, compliantly roll-over and go along with what ever they say and do. Then, as a finale, wait 12 years in blissful ignorance before proclaiming you didn't really understand the issues when you made your first stand.

Spare us your unreliable, uninformed opinion.

[Richard Kranium]

kaptin M please get a life...you did not want to go back...and others did...scab is a word that has no meaning in the 20th century...its an old fashion outdated emotive relic of the past that is held on to by fools...everybody must do what is right for them...:confused:

[The Enema Bandit]

Good on you Citizen XX. It's good to see a different perspective on things. I think if Kaptin M was my dog, I'd take him down to the vet to have him put out of his misery!

[Spad]

I have to say it, CitizenXX, HAILS’s second last paragraph pretty well sums up your half-a*sed philosophy of life in a nutshell, doesn’t it?

[elektra]

XX

You made a very good point:

"We, any one of us, can't be a martyr to every cause - it just isn't possible"

So what do we do....? We look at history and see which causes are worth fighting for and which are not worth it. And the history of organized labour is that the cause shown to be most worth fighting for is the right to organize and the right to collectively negotiate.

That's why '89 is such a sensitive issue. You know as well as I do that the Dispute didn't start in August 89, it was on the tracks long before that and would have proceeded in some way shape or form regardless. The way the 80's Hawke Corporate State was shaping up included the end of smaller independent unions and wage freezes, (despite both being completely unconstitutional)

The airlines, one owned by the government, the other one arguably partly owning the government, had been in a Two Airline Policy management coma for years and along with the government, didn't like legitimate AFAP action in technical areas (remember the dust-ups over Line-Up Allowance, CAO 48, Dangerous Goods etc etc) and legitimate non-technical issues (remember the superannuation battles?). So they, for all sorts of reasons, wanted a world where pilots would be denied the right to organize and collectively negotiate. The Dispute happened the way it did, but it was always going to happen in some way.

And in the end, however the particular scenarios played out, there was always a big question: "Would the pilots stick together" . Or Not. And Ansett had already put in the spadework for the Not case on the advice of a former AFAP official and Bob's anti-pilot prejudices. So we, legal members of a legal union, faced a world where the battle lines were drawn and whatever happened (whether we resigned or not, were sued or not, had a lock-out or not, faced contract strike-breakers or not, faced deregistration or not) our main defence was and always will be, solidarity.

You can dress it up any way you want, but these are facts and not changed by whether this or that event happened just the way it did. It¡¯s sad that the airlines chose an anti-labour fight over actual re-structuring and good-faith negotiating, but that's the way it was. They cost the industry several billions and thousands of jobs by the time the last of the 4 airlines was finally destroyed.

If it had turned out that the AFAP had been destroyed instead of the airlines that wouldn't have meant that the rights of employees to organize and negotiate were wrong or misplaced ideals, or that the battle wasn't worth fighting.

[Sid Departure]

Citizen XX

If you're so proud of being a sc@b, why did you wait till early in 1990 to go back. Were you holding off on committing your heroic deed, just in case the AFAP won!!
Just a thought!

[7x7]

So CitizenXX, in your own words, you stand for nothing. That being the case (by your own admission), stop trying to rationalise your actions in 1990.

[Arctaurus]

Before some of you become too precious and righteous, why don't we remember those 'leaders' within the AFAP who in early 1990 were preaching to the hoi polloi to tow the line, yet had already organised jobs for themselves overseas. Why haven't any of you commented on this. (Or maybe the truth is too tough).

They knew very well where it was all headed. The problem is that we, the troops, were left in the dark. Some leadership.

It takes only a cursory glance at our current DJ management to see that things have not changed in 13 years. If it looks like a duck ..........etc etc.

:mad: :mad:

[elektra]

My recollection is that the bulk of the leaders hung around for as long as necessary or longer. Remember that these guys had (and still have I think?) zillion dollar lawsuits against them for a programme of industrial action uspported in secret ballots by nearly 100% of the troops. It was the guys who voted one way then ran another (leaving the leaders to face bankruptcy) that are the deserters.

As I recall, the then AFAP President was almost the last one to leave the country, having showed his commitment to those standing alongside him.

We can never get past the fact that had the last 20 in both major airlines NOT gone back...then this would all be academic.

Translation lessons for those who've forgotten: "I'm only taking my job back" had the real meaning "I'm making sure you never get your job back"

And as for the current head of ops at VB...haven't spoken to him in over 10 years, but he's helped build a lot of jobs in Australia...and as the SXXXbs will tell you, its jobs that count.

[Truth Seekers Int'nl]

it wasn't only AFAP leadership getting jobs overseas, many rank and file also headed off. you may all be interested to know there were two "LISTS" running in the early days of the dispute. one was the returnees and the other was the bon voyage brigade. in week thirteen of the dispute a total of 78 pilots had gone back to the airlines and a mammoth 215 had secured overseas positions. so where is this "let's all stick together" cr@p now may I ask?We can never get past the fact that had the last 20 in both major airlines NOT gone back...then this would all be academic.
i reckon if the first twenty hadn't run off overseas the above quote would hold some truth. the crack in the dam(DAMN) wall started with those pilots NOT the returnees !!!!!!

[greybeard]

Running off overseas????

BULLSH*T

Those that chose that path had ALREADY DECIDED that working for or with the previous companies was no longer an acceptable position.

The SC%BS and the COMPANIES were no longer to be trusted!!!

See my post at 3 or 4 in to the original part of this.

Some of those remaining applied for their jobs in the March of 90 to confirm that the "pre-loved" were no longer "loved" at all and to force the issue of any prejudice, which the "unsafe cockpit" document was to effectively activate anyway.

I was still in Aust at that time and applied and assisted several of the F/Os who wouldn't go to the office without a "guardian".



This may be seen by some as a double standard, but to assist the F/Os who had little or no alternatives I felt the journey was worth the effort to go back to the office. Needless to say the previously mentioned bully told me to "P**s Off" in no uncertain terms, which was later confirmed by letter as being "NOT SUITABLY QUALIFIED" for a position.

We have NEVER run away from our principles of being represented by the body of our choice, the AFAP at that time.
You the returnees and their supporters in most other unions who worked with, refueled, catered, loaded and did all the other things that let the Govt, Ansett, Australian and Murdoch have their way did more damage than YOU realise.

If you want some blame, chew on that.


:p

[Truth Seekers Int'nl]

Those that chose that path had ALREADY DECIDED that working for or with the previous companies was no longer an acceptable position.
you said it NOT ME greybeard ! the returnees felt it was an "acceptable position" and went back. you can't have it both ways old fella.

[BrisBoy]

Wisofoz,

I have been on a trip and apologise for the late response.

I joined The Federation whilst in GA as did most pilots of my vintage. I was not coerced and know of no one who was.
As a matter of interest, were you coerced into the APA, or did you join for the perceived protection and benefits of this association?

Did you actually attend a resignation briefing?
I did and heard none of what you claim. It was simple. Resignations would be submitted if writs were issued. I authorised my resignation by signing it. Is there something about signing a document I don't understand?
So you knew someone who sort of signed, but this depended on further consultation (another signature?) and then was only to be exercised sometime ....
Wisofoz, you either signed or you didn't.

- The people thus labled/on the list/democratic rights.

I do not believe being known and listed as a scab by those you scabbed on is a violation of rights.

These pilots returned to the airlines and were included in EBA negotiations, as discussed in a previous post.

There is a difference between being an employee and being an accomplace. Be carefull with your "furrfys".

[elektra]

Truth Seeker (is that really what you're after?)

Time for Cold Hard Facts. If the only people who went back to work were those who voted against collective action and never resigned, then the dispute would have lasted a few days, created a little enmity and been almost forgotten by now.

People who went overseas had voted NOT to return to work without the right to organize and negotiate collectively. I did not return to work in Australia until (with Compass) those conditions were met. If all those who voted with us had kept to the very resolutions they urged their fellow pilots to keep, the Dispute and the resulting destruction of 4 airlines never would have happened.

[Truth Seekers Int'nl]

As I recall, elektra, the original resolution was to support the AFAP in the push for a 29.47% pay claim. Up to and including industrial action as deemed appropriate by the AFAP.If all those who voted with us had kept to the very resolutions they urged their fellow pilots to keep, the Dispute and the resulting destruction of 4 airlines never would have happened.
Those resolutions WERE kept until the Executive decided to submit the resignations. END of industrial action, END of jobs and IMHO END OF AFAP's credibility!

[Arctaurus]

While the resignations were indeed signed, it was made VERY CLEAR that they would not be used without further consultation. Also explained as "gathering the ammunition" just in case.

How many of us were shocked and devastated to find out that they had in fact been submitted almost before the ink had dried ?

It's a bitter lesson I learn't then - NEVER sign away your job. With the advantage of hindsight, we were so naive and gullible.

We lost ALL of our bargaining power when the AFAP gave those letters to the companies.

- WE WERE NO LONGER ON STRIKE.
- THERE WAS NO LONGER A DISPUTE.
- WE HANDED THE COMPANIES A READY MADE SOLUTION.

I admit Hawke and Abeles have a lot to answer for, but so does the AFAP leadership at the time. Elements of that leadership still exert influence today.
:mad:

[elektra]

Time for a joke I think:

So there's this Irishman see...and he walks into a bar and says: "if the resignations had never happened then the companies would have backed off, there'd have been no scabs, the ACTU would have totally supported us, the lawsuits would have been withdrawn (because Abeles NEVER intended to bankrupt anyone) and the AFAP and the airlines would have lived happily ever after"

Not bad eh....if I hadn't resigned I probably would have lost everything but I could have got a job as a jokewriter.

[Flat Side Up]

elektra,
Glad you mentioned the Irish joke. The Irish Generals running the dispute certainly turned out to be a joke.

Recognise reality, they conspired to deceive their members. If every AFAP pilot had stayed out then there were sufficient qualified, pilots to fill the vacant positions that were advertised. Not one of the ex AFAP pilots would have been needed. As for highly qualified pilots being passed over after the AFAP opened the gates.......ALL THE CAPTAIN AND ALL THE FIRST OFFICER POSITIONS HAD BEEN FILLED. Future Captain upgrades were from within the airline (no Direct entry Captains) and any further recruitment was for First Officer positons.

[elektra]

Excellent analysis FSU....so the airlines could have had all the pilots they wanted without using any ex-AFAP pilots but instead they chose an extremely expensive contract to lure back former pilots instead of offering the much lower salaries that have recently attracted ex-GA guys to VB and Impulse.

You have now given us all a great insight into why all 4 airlines are gone.

[203]

What does this mean???

"check essential... essentials on 3 skipper"

Is it meant to be funny? Or an indication of someone's stress levels?? Weird...

I think you guys should relax a little. You're all hanging on too tight. Turn your own wings in.

[Flat Side Up]

elektra,
I really don't have time to waste going over simple maths time and again to disprove your fictitious pay claims. It has been demonstrated clearly that pay based on STICK Hours was much cheaper than the CREDITED hours of the old system when even pilots on reserve got 74 hours pay for NO FLYING.

It was way past time for a change to a more efficient and productive contract.The AFAP did not have the wit to recognise that.
Bye.


203,

elektra is still living in the past. The Essential Bus on the L188A ELECTRA had a predetermined priority as to which generator it was powered from. Depending on availabilty of generators it skipped merrily around from one to another and was designed to be the last man standing.

[elektra]

FSU, Thanks,

More excellent analysis. But I still don't understand why the airlines paid above the going rate to get the ex-GA pilots they could have had in large numbers for chickenfeed (there was a recession on wasn't there?). Was there an element of "Recruitment Bonus" in there somewhere...?

And "Check Essential" is from the B727 actually. Great machine. The phrase is simply a little reminder of an elegant jet. Or does my AFAP membership disbar me from even that little vanity?

Had enough of this. Back to the real world. Sorry about the lost airlines that superior mathematics and "me first" policies helped kill. When you, like the rest of us, get on with life and stop sweating over dead airlines then you'll enjoy life more. I say that with complete sincerity...they're gone and you don't need to keep defending what you did. Build a new life and turn your back on the decisions you made then that seem to haunt you.

[amos2]

Now look!...I've told you all before, over the last couple of years...don't waste your time with FSU!

Once a scab,always a scab. Once a person rats the first time, they'll rat again!

Hopefully he will just get on with his life like the rest of us and not dwell on the past!

He's a loser, we all know that!
;)

[CitizenXX]

To those of our number capable of logical thought, and I do not include TTT, KaptinM, Amos 2, Spade, greybeard, etc in that group, you will never convince the likes of those posters of any merit in any argument with which they take issue. It is of no consequence that your argument is logical, e.g., they have had it demonstrated many, many times that the cost for pilots in the post 89 AN was much less than prior to 89, but they just can't, or most likely won't, grasp the simple principle of productivity versus bulk $$.

They remind me of early primary school, and it's a wonder to me that one of them at some time hasn't spoken the line 'My Dad is better than your Dad', because they are just not prepared to be convinced. Their versions of the events simply do not accord with the facts. They twist whatever is put before them into a pathetic counter 'argument' so thin that it could be disproved by an intellectually impaired pre-schooler.

As for the 'big lie', I believe the only big lies were told by the AFAP heirarchy; e.g., 'the resignations won't be used unless writs are issued.' They were submitted the following morning without writs being issued. 'There are no foreign pilots in the country working for the airlines.' There were 50, and they were recruited prior to August ??, proof positive that the airines' managements knew of this 'brilliant' tactic long before it was played out with such bravado, thereby finishing the careers of about 800 pilots without their consent. I could go on, and on, and on, but to what purpose. Bringing these foreign pilots to the country, and the enormous cost of failing, gave the companies the resolve to continue down the path they chose.

Another point is that seldom does a group of employees, and a group the size of this one, take on town hall and even hope to win, let alone win. I despise Hawke as well, but he was never going to lose.

What you guys must realize is this: sooner or later, and it appears that is much later for many of you, you must accept responsibility for past events. You chose a course of action that even the sheep farmers from Tassie termed 'put our futures in the hands of people who weren't up to the task.' That says it all. If you then continued to follow them down that path, then it is your problem, not the problem of anyone else. You attempt to make it so, but it is not, nor ever will be.

These malcontents just gloss over facts that are put before them, failing to respond, and continuing with the same old hackneyed rhetoric, attacking the individual, but seldom the points of discussion. Worthy of note is that their numbers are few!

The tragic name calling cannot pass without comment. I put this down, as any person capable of rational thought would do, to a lack of maturity, i.e., they are very immature individuals, and I wonder what a member of the public would think if he/she knew he was in an aircraft being captained by somebody so incapable of, for reasons of immaturity, rational behaviour. It is a matter for serious concern.

Just accept that you made a decision with which you are now having difficulty living, do some serious self analysis, make a conscious decision to cause yourself less grief by modifying that behaviour, and get on with your lives.

Arctaurus and Truth Seeker, your simple points (and I say that not in any derogatory manner) sum up the entire situation, and have been made in these forums hundreds, if not thousands, of times in the past, but it does not suit the 'boys' to simplify the situation to these points. It is that simple, however; resign, no job, no longer a dispute, no bargaining power. End of story. Everything else is incidental, if not irrelevant, to the discussion.

[amos2]

Aw...shucks!...Now you've put me right off! ;)

[elektra]

FSU

Can you e-mail me or post the name of the American anti-labor psycholgist who wrote that piece for you? It's not a bad summary of the stuff that was going around then in '89 and I only got snatches of it from former friends (I'm making a decision for my family...What did the union ever do for me...I'm just taking control over my life...I'm just taking my job back etc) I never got a complete statement of the drivel they fed you. Perhaps we should frame it so we can all remember just what we were up against. Have you thought of posting your ownthoughts?

Alternately, if that was a joke...then I withdraw my Irish joke idea. Yours was better by far. Laugh...I thought I'd die!

[Truth Seekers Int'nl]

elektra, you can find a laugh in anything, can't you. bet you're the guy always telling jokes at the party. the dispute was not a laughing matter it hurt a lot of people, and not only the airline pilots involved.no point in crying in your beer every day about something that happened 13 years ago.
The AFAP should have fought that one using traditional union strategy - but NO they thought they would get cute. broadcast to the government and companies (via Go Around)what was going to happen,work a 9 to 5 campaign, resign en-mass and then, after months of misery for the general public, tourist industry, hospitality industry, sporting clubs, large business, small business and the list goes on & on & on. they say all bets are off and we'll go back in time for Xmas!
Oh that's a real laugh elektra !

no, you stick to your Irish jokes, they are not that much better, but they don't hurt anyone.

[Woomera]

Well here we are, back over the "magic ton" and so far I haven't had to bin anyone, so far.

I'm going to close this thread, for those who are interested, feel free to continue the discussion.

It is clear that as much as there are some who hope it would, that the events of '89 are not going away any time soon.

On second thoughts and looking at the views, approaching 11,000 it would seem that there is still a lot of interest and on that basis I will let it run for a little longer.

If you want me to restart the thread please say so and why here, and I will go from there.

[elektra]

Well I'll be honest and say that I don't specially enjoy the odd angry feeling that gets stirred up here...and I don't want to spend my Prune time trying to show why we on my side of the fence felt (and feel) betrayed.

But....as there's every chance this ('89) WILL happen again in some way, it's as well for us all (including newcomers) to see what was involved then so that when it happens to them they'll have an idea of what's involved and the threats and issues they'll face.

It is worth keeping the thread open if only as a public display of what professional pilots all know...that we have precious few reliable friends outside of our crew rooms and cockpits and that solidarity is all we have against the ills that will come from management, bean counters, CASA, government, competitors, media etc etc

[Dogimed]

Woomera,

Two points, one YES, keep this thread open as for people who were too young to be aware of what was happening at the time, this is informative and eye opening.

Secondly, it keeps the other threads from being hijacked if this thread is running.



to others, Due to this thread running, I have sought outside information in the form of the book "Sky Pirates". Can I have some views on this from people involved. Is it credible? So far it seems pretty unbiased, but I am not that far into it.

Just some thoughts.

Dog

[Kaptin M]

Aha, I see our `friend` CitizenXX has returned - for a short time I thought that he might have realised the damage he was doing to himself by posting here.
Speaking of spreadibng false truths, CX, a few posts back you indicated that the AFAP spy who was reporting to Abeles was "now with Virgin Blue in a senior position". However according to Brad Norrington in his book Sky Pirates, that pilot had returned to Ansett by early December.
You are indeed an artist of deception - however as someone commented earlier, it is no longer the compliant, young F/O`s you now need to convince of your proclaimed "victimisation". We were THERE, and we are HERE to expose you and your ilk for what you really are.

It appears as hard to convince YOU that the resignations were not a TACTIC, but were done on the recommendation of solid LEGAL advice.
However for that who INSIST that they (the resignations) were an industrial tactic, they must then be seen in the light of a "withdrawal of labour" - in which case there can be no disputing the title SCAB of those who intervened! Can there?!! :)

Further to the "scab" reference, it was used not only by the members of the AFAP - as a matter of fact a very good friend of mine who "went back" (who was vice chairman of one of the branches, and whose father had been a miner) admitted that HE was a "scab" - but also the word was used (again) by Brad Norrington, and members of other unions at the time to describe the likes of you and your`s.
Get used to it, you were WELL AWARE that when you "went back" YOU would wear that label?@for the rest of your life...however it was the lure of the $$`s that made it irrelevant at the time.
You seem to have a hard time accepting responsibility for YOUR OWN ACTIONS!

...the cost per pilot in the post 89 AN was much less than prior to 89,
Crapulence!! And YOU can prove it.
Post your 3oth June `89 salary here, and then post your 30th June `91 salary.

The cost PER PILOT INCREASED without any shadow of a doubt.
I challenge you to do that! :cool:

[Truth Seekers Int'nl]

kaptan M you sayIt appears as hard to convince YOU that the resignations were not a TACTIC, but were done on the recommendation of solid LEGAL advice.
you don't have to convince me - you are 100% correct legal advice WAS resign or face writs. However, where the AFAP got it horribly wrong, was after the resignations, the game plan HAD to be changed. it was no good sitting back and saying "we were forced to resign because of the writs". we were industrially decimated - finito!it was at this stage of the dispute the leadership got it wrong. this was when the "they are only trying to smash your union" platform started. no more 29.47% pay rise, no more we are "sui generis" so we should be outside the accord. just plain old there is another agenda - they are out to destroy the AFAP.
i suggest they were always out to destroy the AFAP. when the resignations went in we should have held meetings right then and there - on the 25th August to ascertain the feeling of the membership.my brother was not impressed and he would have said so. but the AFAP waited more than two weeks before holding "rallies" around the countryside - NOT MEETINGS - but rallies with wives, families and anyone else they could muster for the call to save the AFAP from this tyranny.
well they got support and people there was sympathy for the AFAP but it never addressed what the original fight was all about - that finished the day brian mac delivered the resignations - make no mistake or be under any misapprehension about that.

[Wiley]

Kaptain M, it’s been said before on this thread, but I’ll say it again – I believe you’re making a mistake in allowing yourself to be diverted by the likes of CitizenXX into endless debates about pre and post 89 pilot cost bases. I think it’s pretty well accepted by all that any half way decent accountant (is that an oxymoron?) can arrange the books so that the bottom line comes up with whatever result he wants it to read – look at Enron and all the other recent scandals in the US to prove my point.

But that’s an aside. What really led me to posting today was the recent plethora of posts from CitizenXX. (A quick question, CitizenXX. You say you were with AN until its demise, but your address says you hail from ‘SE Asia’. However, I seem to remember that, buried somewhere in your many posts, were comments about your imminent employment with Singapore Airlines ‘but only if they allow you to take up an Australia basing’. You’ve got me confused, C.)

On to my reason for posting: I’ve always been a bit of a film buff, and one thing I saw in quite a few of the old black and white Brit ‘war-ies’ made back in the 50’s that quite mystified me at the time was the recurring theme of what happened in France in 1940 when the Germans invaded. It was the way some (quite a few, actually) Frenchmen appeared to throw in their lot with the invaders and turn against their erstwhile allies and countrymen who continued to resist the invader “when it was obvious the fight was lost and further resistance useless”.

But now, thanks to CitizenXX and a few like-minded posters here on Pprune, the mystery’s been solved for me. Those [/i]pragmatic[/i] Frenchmen were simply “being realistic” (and how many other quotes could I draw from the posts of CitizenXX and his like on this very thread).

It’s also interesting to see how many of these “realists” became instant members of the pro-Allied Resistance in August 1944, when that became the “realistic” course (or cause) to follow. The French had a word for such people. It’s a bit longer than the one we use to describe the 1989 crop, but just as descriptive. The Norwegians had another name for their lot, and that too, has been incorporated into everyday language as a term of utter opprobrium.

It’s sad to have so clearly proven to us by the likes of CitizenXX that, had the Japanese taken over Australia 60 years ago, there would have been no shortage of “realists” among our population either.

[ferris]

A. To outsiders, who know nothing other than what was in the press, this is a fascinating insight.

B. Obviously the various protagonists have a lot on their minds about this, even so long down the track, and the wounds are re-opened everytime someone goes bust/starts up/hires somebody. This airing must be therapeutic.

C. 50% of the threads end up on this subject anyway.

[Flat Side Up]

Kap M,
Crapulence!
I turned up some old Tax Certificates as you suggested. So here are some facts based on B767.

Although some pre 89ers claimed $130000
my Jun 89 Tax Cert Income was $126000

Jun 90...............Less than above so not relevant.

Jun 91...............$157211

Jun 92...............$163663

Jun 93................$182432

Jun 94................$186760


Later records are held at my Tax Agent's office so they are not immediately to hand.

Now if you look at 89 versus 90 $157211 is 24.7% more than the 89 figure and certainly not twice or anywhere near the $385000 to $420000 you quoted earlier. Of course that is not the maximum it was possible to achieve.

Base Pay 55hr/mth 660hr/year was at $183 per hr which works out at $120780 per year. HOWEVER the max achievable if max hours were flown could be greater. For example if a pilot flew 900 hours (works out at 85hr42min/mth) and then had 6 weeks leave he could collect leave pay at his average preceeding. So it was possible to gross $188288, still well short of your erroneous figures. By the way your accountant informant could be in deep trouble if his indiscretion should be discovered. His figure may have included investment income other than flight pay.

Now I am long since departed from AN but in the interest of giving you as much information as I have to hand it is possible to estimate the Base Pay from the 10% super paid at Base Rate.
For 1995/6 it was $1239.80 per month so if we multiply that by 120 we get Base Pay of $148776 for that year.

Absolutely certain you will be able to misinterpret these to your complete satisfaction.:rolleyes:

[amos2]

Well, Isn't Wiley a wiley old character? And perhaps not so old! I had noticed also on the profile of Cxx that he hailed from SE Asia and was "retired".
I had planned to suggest tonight that perhaps a dose of the old " Amos flea powder " might be appropriate but I'm inclined to think that penicillin might be more in order! :D

...and having just read scabby FSUs latest offering of diatribe I'm inclined to say "QED" Kaptin M! (I wonder if scabby knows what that means? I know TT2 does!) :p

[AlbertRoss]

Probably a pretty stupid question, but could someone please explain the acronym "meloz". (Have got the '89 bit sussed)

[Truth Seekers Int'nl]

FSU - don't bother trying to explain pay rates. that was never the issue - just another furfee to try and divert the fact that the AFAP stuffed it up.it has all been explained very simply - the AFAP never really anticipated the forces (dirty, low down and despicable) that they would face in the field of battle. when it turned to $H!t, they panicked and went against SOP industrial tactics.they never re-grouped and were defeated shortly after the 24th August 1989.very sad for all concerned, but life goes on - it has to!
No hard feelings TT2, Amos and KM - like the AFAP, you did your best.

[amos2]

Hmmm!...I think some of the " Famous Amos Flea Powder " might be neccessary for Ol' TSI too! :D

No hard feelings old son! ;)

[Valdiviano]

after ALL is said and done, there are SCABS, minority, and non SCABS, majority.

[greybeard]

Thanks Woomera for your patience.

FSU.
Only 24%, YOU WERE ROBBED, because there were better scores, unlikely to admit the amount though, you know how modest some people can be about such things.

As to not seeing the other side of the arguments that XX puts up, WE DID SEE THEM, THAT’S WHY WE NEVER WENT BACK, you dill!!

Lets have a look at who did go back.
About a dozen NEVER resigned. OK.
About a dozen said within 24/36 hours, NOT FOR ME, and pulled the resignation, possibly risking the wrath of the writs, who will ever know the answer to that.
We sat under the tree for a while to catch our thoughts and had the family mansion, carriage and fortune well and truly protected by the resignations.
Then over a period of time some wimped off under the duress of it all, you know, the school fees, new car, wife bitching about the things you wouldn't buy, sick of having you around the house, the new dining room suite, all the usual stuff.
Then Behold and Lo, we were all allowed to "go back".
But we were the "pre-loved", now "umloved", and not admitted.
You weren’t game to be a real sc%b, took the "Silver Card" option and went back sideways so to speak. Save the Companies and all that. The 89ers had "lost" and it was open to all.
Not so,
Only to the likes of you and your sc%bby mates, not real people.
You were protected by that "Unsafe Cockpit" document, all was well in your little world.
Did we hear from you under your current disguise during those years, I think not.
Now the wheels have come off, without much warning, you are out on your ar$e and NOW YOU KNOW HOW IT WAS.
NO FUN AT ALL.
The trick is to endure, have some moral backbone and to be true to your beliefs however tuff it gets, not whinge about how things were lost, never won, losers etc
We didn't lose XX, we won by a 1300/347 majority, which most Powers That Be only dream of.

As to your comments about how you will treat SQ, if you don't think this site is not required reading by them you are really on a different planet.
If they can identify you they will, BUT if not, they may lump all of the similar time frame together and bin the lot as the one thing you don't even think is what you might like in Asia, even if you are a lifetime local, let alone an Expat Hopeful.
If that should occur, I hope your mates are an understanding lot.


:p

[SOPS]

:) Keep it going Woomera, it has remained fairly civil, and is still interesting

[jupiter2]

As a unionist, I was very interested in the tactics adopted by the Federation. My union and other unions supported the AFAP's right to negotiate fair pay and work conditions. The outcomes would obviously benefit us in future enterprise bargaining claims and negotiations.
I recall how we were left scratching our heads a little when the resignations were presented. But we believed that there was always a well thought out "Plan B" waiting to be switched on.
I'm interested in people's thoughts on what could have occurred if a Liberal Government was in place at that time.
Would it have taken the same course I wonder?

[Flat Side Up]

Greybeard,

You certainly read a lot more into my post than what was there. Sorry to disappoint you but if you read and understood my post you would have seen that "I have long since departed AN."

The real facts don't suit you fellows no matter what. Kap M says too much, you say not enough and you also say it wasn't about money. You seem to have missed the fact that by flying more STICK hours it was possible to earn up to 50% more. In answer to a question Mc Carthy said at a meeting that 29.47% was to be obtained on the existing work rules. That is no PRODUCTIVITY increase which was well and truly overdue.

No matter how much vituperation and personal abuse you choose to employ it is the unfortunate, inescapable fact that once the resignations were submitted the game was over. You may rave as much as you like but it won't change the fact that you had no legal or industrial claim on your now non employer.


I did not agree with the unsafe cockpit theory but it is not hard to see that a plausible case could be made for it judging by the posts of some 89ers on this forum.

[elektra]

FSU

Stubbornness can be an asset or a liability in a pilot and also in management. Stubbornness that helps a pilot stand up in the face of a Chief Pilot wanting him to ¡°push the limits¡± on payload, flight time or serviceability is admirable. It is what our safety record rests on.

But you are making an awfully good case for yourself as an accomplice after the fact to the other sort of stubbornness that saw the management of 4 airlines destroy their business and thousands of jobs by their complete refusal (and they signalled this BEFORE August 24, 1989) to negotiate with the AFAP. It cost them and the country zillions to continue with the stubborn falsehood that you perpetuate. If indeed there were no employees then the airlines should have simply started up operations the next week with replacements. They couldn¡¯t¡¦..because most of the potential ¡°replacements¡± had already determined (by secret ballot) that their conditions of future employment could ONLY be negotiated by the AFAP if and when they returned to work. Yet the stubbornness continued and with your direct support, 4 airlines were eventually destroyed. Yet the AFAP survives.

DO YOU GET THE MESSAGE¡¦¡¦.?

Good CRM rests on addressing real issues with common sense, not relying on narrow legal niceties. If you are still flying, or hope to, please remember that your passengers pay for their captain to be stubborn only in defence of their safety. To resolve a problem you use all available resources. To resolve the 1989/90 problem you and your management accomplices refused to use the most important resource available¡¦hundreds of loyal, capable, experienced and pilots who were available just by picking up the phone and calling their authorized representatives, the AFAP. You paid the price. Please don¡¯t keep taking those attitudes into the cockpit.

[Truth Seekers Int'nl]

greybeard..........mmaaaateeee We didn't lose XX, we won by a 1300/347 majority, which most Powers That Be only dream of.
then there was the 500+ that went overseas. what was different between the contracts SQ, CX, GF, SV, MH, Thai International, Lauda, Swiss Air, Sud Flug, KLM City Hopper, Vietnam Airlines, Lufthansa, that the 500 signed up for and that of the 347 that stayed behind ? your creative accounting style doesn't fool anyone here - the real figure was 1300/847 majority and when you work out the number of pilots who retired early and those who were too inexperienced to get jobs overseas (my brother) the remaining balance of 400+ would have rounded out the total and given that "majority" of yours more authenticity!Then Behold and Lo, we were all allowed to "go back". poor greybeard waiting with bated breath for the messiah to give the all clear. very sad, a lot of pilots took hold of their own destiny when it appeared the AFAP had lost the plot - that simple.The trick is to endure, have some moral backbone and to be true to your beliefs however tuff it gets, not whinge about how things were lost, never won, losers etc
no argument with you there. the pilots that went overseas did endure and bit the bullet. as with the guys that returned to their rightful jobs back in Oz. and SO DID the pilots who never got back into the industry - please never forget those chaps - they are deserved of the greatest accolades - they were the sacrificial lambs in that whole sordid affair.
last for you 'lekie . Yet the AFAP survives.
get down to MB one of these days and ask the GA pilots how much industrial clout they feel the AFAP has. then have a think about the definition of "survival"!

[Guptar]

There has been mention of 30 or so pilots who disagreed with industrial action or what ever and who didn't resign/and or go on strike. They stayed flying during and after the dispute. Are they considered scabs. If you are in a union and you disagree with their actions, do you have to do what you're told by the union.

Was talking to an ex an driver, in that very position who was told in no uncertain terms that his career, indeed life would not be worth living if he dared to go against the unions directives. I thought we lived in a democratic society where we have freedome of choice, obvously not when it comes to unions.

I was in the FCL and later ASU for a number of years. Unions are not interested in their members welfare, only the power thay can weild and the beer and prawn nights for the union officials....a fat lot of good they did when 6 of us were retrenced from a section of QF, the union wouldn't even return our calls. Through our own actions we were placed elsewhere in the company.

2 years later QF gave us the option of withdrawing fro the union which I did, only to be sent rememinders that my dues are still to be paid. I',m still getting them and I've been out of QF 4 years now, I owe $4,000 in dues and a recent letter said they may consider legal action to recover the fees.

[Truth Seekers Int'nl]

1. No , they are not considered scabs.
2. Yes, as a union member, you elect an executive and must abide by it's decisions. If you disagree with a union executive decision, you may rally support amongst other members in the union and call for an extaordinary meeting to change policy or if this is not possible, you must resign from the union.

[elektra]

When I was but a lad, the great minds ar RVAC fired the first 2 instructors brave enough to join the AFAP. Thanks to men and women of fortitude things have got better and now there's superannuation in GA, more and more decent awards and representation if things go wrong. Not yet perfect but at least aiming in the right direction.

Tell you what, I'll come down there with you and discuss my concept of AFAP membership (including my record as an active member) and you do the same. I'll have a car out front with the engine running so you can get out ahaed of the angry mob. They're a lot smarter than you think.

You know as well as I do that the AFAP has been one of the few organizations that has a long track record of supporting GA.

"Me First" attitudes like yours would tear down all that has been built. You and your friends destroyed one lot of aviationbusinesses...please keep your prehistoric attitudes away from Moorabbin and let the remainder have a go.

[Truth Seekers Int'nl]

yes, the AFAP does have an impeccable record when it comes to supporting GA. it's (AFAP) work today is as valuable as it was when I joined the organisation in 1983. i had the honour to serve on two sub - branches during my GA days. i was not directly involved in the '89 dispute but my brother was and as a family, all shared his pain.
my comment to you re: survival of the AFAP, is because that is all the AFAP has done since that terrible dispute. they are nowhere near the powerful union they were in the heady days of the '80s and if you check the membership now, you see it is indeed GA that the AFAP truly represents. However, these days, the union is limited in it's powers to enforce Awards on Operators, to monitor unsafe work rules, to prevent discrimination in the workplace and the list goes on.
i believe the AFAP DOES still have it's rightful place helping GA and it is a good union but please don't imply that because it has "survived" it is the power house it used to be. IMHO it copped the same punishment as the other 4 airlines you mentioned but as a union and not a business, it is still in business.

[Pole Vaulter]

My My Elektra,
You really have the walk on water mentality with your statement "But you are making an awfully good case for yourself as an accomplice after the fact to the other sort of stubbornness that saw the management of 4 airlines destroy their business and thousands of jobs by their complete refusal (and they signalled this BEFORE August 24, 1989) to negotiate with the AFAP. "

Do you really think TN was destroyed by "failure to negiotate with the AFAP? Do you really think AN was destroyed for the same reason? If you do I think you had better rethink.

AN was able to survive as long as it did due to the fact it was able to shed itself of most of the outdated restrictive workrules of "The Contract" You (if you flew the L188) should know better than most of the absolute joke the rosters were on the L188 and it was in fact one of your BNE based Capts who proudly announced on the hours flown in a 12 month period he was by far the highest paid person (per Hour flown ) in Australia. He was able with his seniority to bid the block he wanted (usually a training block) be displaced for the month and do a leg every 35 days to remain valid. This all on full blocked pay for the month. What a joke. Now the usual answer will be "But the company signed the contract" This we all know but of course the 89ers don't like to mention is when most of the contract was negiotated Sir Reg was in charge and he had made the statement "if he were frounded for more than a week the airline would close " so the AFAP used its shotgun methods to get its way.

I dont expect you to agree to any of this as 89ers have a different version of reality the everyone else in the industry but these are just some of the facts.

[EPIRB]

Guptar, I was once in a similar position as you are with the TWU. With the threat of legal action against them, they backed down as according to the solicitor if it was to go to court, any judge would see it as standover tactics. I had resigned from the union previously but they still sent me membership bills.

[CitizenXX]

Pole Vaulter,

I, and others, have said it all before. They do have different versions of the events. Sometimes those versions are right; sometimes they're wrong, but mostly they're misguided, bitter and vindictive.

Guptar,

Those who questioned the tactics were indeed threatened with career ending action if they broke ranks. Fortunately there were those who had the guts to do so.

Jupiter,

We all believed there was a Plan B, but there wasn't. They fired the big gun first, not in accordance with the undertakings, i.e., they would only be tendered IF writs were issued, and they hadn't been at that stage. There wasn't of course, any other plan. Violation of SOPs of industrial action.

If the Libs had been in government, the accord probably wouldn't have existed, and the course of events would, no doubt, have been very different. The pilots probably wouldn't have been in the same situation, i.e., accepting 'flat' pay rises (or having them thrust upon them) instead of percentages as is the norm.

Greybeard,

I see a win/win here. You say that you won, and I say I won. I'm not about to tell you you're a loser, even though you may behave like one, but I'm definitely not a loser. So who do we need to convince?

FSU,

They're not listening when you give them details of pays etc. The fact is, the cost per hour, and the overall cost of pilots to the company was much less than pre 89. The figures were published by someone who was infinitely more interested in stats than I, but I noted them at the time, and re published them here recently. Two and a half times the flying being done by two thirds of the previous number of pilots. Simple maths from there.

Truth Seeker,

Correct on the low, despicable tactics. I didn't agree either, but that's life. See elsewhere; Life's a $hit sandwich, etc. an just part of being an employee. Some things you just can't change, so the sooner one recognizes that, then the sooner one is off to a happier life.

Elektra,

Now, my son, let's get onto psychologists. The AFAP employed a psychologist, Tim Watson-somebody (a double barrelled name). He came along to the rallies, and put forward what diabolical strife they companies would be in, and what ABeles would be thinking right now, and he would be $hitting himself. Yeah, I'm sure he was with the bodgie on his side, the use of VIP aircraft and transports, the pre-arranged charter aircraft that had been sitting around Europe and the US doing nothing, and the also pre-arranged pilots who were all but on their ways by late August.

Now, our Tim was a man of principles; wouldn't have put up a case just at the instigation of the AFAP leaders, would he. He really believed what he was saying; was based on sound psychological practice, and wasn't just doing it for money, was he??

Interesting to note is that Tim was in the slammer for some time, and may still be, for cocaine use and trafficing. He was an addict, and took on the trafficing to fund his habit as so many do.

He was also a buddy of the crooked Melbourne solicitor, Andrew Fraser who is also in the slammer (8 years) for everything from snorting cocaine to threatening witnesses and perverting the course of justice.

So much for psychologists giving those who went back the 'be positive' line. The judge said that he was one of the worst liars he had come across. Yes, he was the AFAP's psychologist!! hired to rev us up with tales of finishing up in pilots' purgatory, never having a friend again, never being employable anywhere in the world except Australia, and even then only in those airlines existing post 89. Purgatory indeed!!!

I remind you that QF is taking scabs by the bucket load. Perhaps they consider it their obligation since they flew over domestic routes during the Clayton's dispute (it did end with the resignations) contrary to an undertaking given to the AFAP, or was that a lie too?

Amos,

You said on 25th Sept that you hope FSU 'will get on with his life and not dwell in the past'. Are you kidding? He is getting on with life, and it is you who is dwelling in the past. You go over the same old ground; Abeles was a criminal; the cost of pilots was more post 89 than pre 89; you are a scab; Hawke was a criminal; you are a scab again/still; you're all f.... criminals; the cost is still more etc; you're still a bunch of bloody scabs. I think it is obvious to all who is living in the past.

Kaptin M,

Me old mate Kap M. No, I didn't, don't, and never will have any difficulty with my decision. I've said elsewhere that I am happy with it, in fact more than happy with it, but my regret is that I didn't do it before I did - long before. Just think where I could have been financially if I'd gone back five or six months earlier on those super salaries.

Now my location. Yes, I had retired, but still under 50 I'm too young. My details were filed during the time I was relaxing. I have a small place in Malaysia, Kota Baru (sometimes spelt Bahru, and meaning 'new town') to be specific. If you're not familiar with it, it's about as far as you can go to the north east of Malaysia, and only a stones throw from the Thai border. Delightful place, right on a lagoon, and I regularly tumble from my bed into the water prior to the house girl bringing me my fresh fruit salad for brekky. So there is no mistake or intentionally misleading the readership. However, I am now out of retirement, and waiting the news from SQ. Incidentally, you could do a lot worse during your holidays than a trip by train, bus, or if you're really adventurous, by motorcycle up the east coast of Malaysia. I'll buy you dinner if I'm in residence. Just ask the locals - they always know when I'm in town.

I also have a smaller place in the mountains to the west of KB. It's a very pleasant place, and I retire there when I'm painting watercolours. For those of you who paint, you would know that heat and watercolourists don't get along too well. It's much better to have a cooler climate, and higher humidity is also desirable so that the paper doesn't dry too quickly. Oils and acrylics are OK on the coast.

It's a very pleasant way to earn a living, but I find that I can't do it full time. I need something more, and flying may just provide that again, but it may not if it's to be a Singapore basing. In that case I'll hang out for the SQ operation here..

[Flat Side Up]

Citizen XX,

Thanks for the story about the AFAP shrink. But then again with the Irish Generals running the show what would you expect.
ROFLMAO!!!

I have a list also of all the airlines and ex AN pilots employed which runs counter to the alleged influence the 89ers claim on recruiting in various airlines. Must be really frustrating for them!

The usual garbage and vituperation wil follow once more. I will be gone awhile and know I won't be missed. I return occasionally to keep the facts in front of any newcomers.

Away for several months, plenty of other things to do. Bet this will still be raging in the New Year. Speaking of the festive season I can't recall if the 89ers had their reunion this year..........perhaps I missed it.

Anyhow enjoy the fruits of your labours.

Bye.

[Tool Time Two]

Citizen XXXXXX - You left me out!:cool:

[gaunty]

My very first remark when I heard of the mass resignation was to the effect that the very very significant unfunded superannuation liability that was triggered when the pilots resigned would be causing some real terror and seriously lose bowels in the Government halls of power.
It had been and was still one of the main stalling points for any potential purchaser for the intended sale of the airline.
Super, accrued leave and retirement benefits had been provided out of cash flow as and when required in the normal course of events.
I suspect the Budgie was happy to back Abeles whilst it wasn't doing any harm to the Govt and didn't require any real risk to himself, but I dont think he ever dreamed that the unfunded liablility would come home to roost in one fell swoop, with the mass resignation.
Each in their own inimitable way was using the other for their separate agendas.
One political the other financial.
It changed irrevocably from the usual industrial issue that they were used to then, to somehing quite unexpectedly different and they would have had to dig really deep and increase the usually bloated Labour deficit to meet an unfunded liability incurred as a result of them backing a private companies agenda/vendetta.
It was one thing to grandstand for Abeles on the accord and labour propaganda, it was another entirely to cop the financial results of Abeles obsession.
The Bodgie then had no alternative but to crash through or crash.
They became inextricably bound together in a fight for their individual survival. The winners were not hard to pick when you suborn the Military, the Parliament and the Constitution to your personal ends.
IMHO it was one of the main drivers for the various crooks to resort to the desperately illegal measures they ultimately took as a result.

[greybeard]

Gaunty,
How right you are about the Super.
In my Base, the AMP, Ansetts providor, was approached to provide the details of funds so members could forward them to banks etc to keep the wheels turning until Ansett got the payouts organised.
AMP was "unable" to provide any details as ALL trustees had to agree. Ansett as a trustee would not agree.
It was a nice touch, and as I am best aware the majority of our group, who had no other reason to change, withdrew the funds from AMP as soon as could be arranged.
Some 300M total over Aust as I recall, served them right as well.
There was a rumour that the fund was oversubscribed and a figure of 90M was surplus at the washup.
As not all had resigned, the fund could not be wound up.
There was again a rumour that some individuals had suddenly became "noticably rich" and the balance was "creatively" used to buffer the "loss" for the year.
All rumour of course, but in "the fullness of time" will come out I hope.

The truth will be stranger that fiction, so roll over Hawke so we can get on with it as that appears to be a factor.
:mad:

[gaunty]

greybeard

It was a problem for AN but the bigger problem as I recall it for the Govt/Budgie was that TN was "self" funded and not by an institution and around $3-400,000,000 would have had to come out of consolidated revenue or some such. The "normal" liability was met annually, probably out of cash flow in the normal course of retirements and resignations etc.
To have to meet the entire TN pilot force liability in one hit was more than they had bargained for, if indeed in his rush to help his
mate he actually thought of that as a consequence.
I suspect that when the resignations were submitted the reality/stupidity of his actions was forcefully presented to him, I suspect that he had nowhere to go except as I said crash through or crash.

I suspect the AFAP were aware of this as a consequence.

My memory is getting scratchy on the detail but they had been "trying" to find a buyer for TN for some time, but the "unfunded" Super liability was always the sticking point on the price and the Govt had no desire to stump up the funds if indeed they had them to properly fund it. In the context of his accord confidence trick it would have been a pretty hard ask politically, to get the legislation through.
They needed to keep it under tight control so it wasn't just Abeles agenda.
Hence the I suspect writs were just another way of trying to keep the Punch and Judy show going to offsett their financial problem.

Anyone??

[CitizenXX]

gaunty,

Good post, and I agree that the winners were not difficult to pick when Abeles and Hawke massed the forces for an assault on an 'elite group of employees, who chose to operate outside the system.' I believe that was about what Hawke said at the time.

Why didn't the AFAP see that coming?? Looks like another violation of industrial SOPs.

I thought your comments on the super liability were interesting. I hadn't explored that angle to any great degree. I hope others can add it it.

TTT,

I would feel it necessary to apologize if it was an oversight, but it wasn't. It's because you're insignificant, not only in these forums or the overall scheme of things, but completely insignificant in anything!!!

Got it??

[amos2]

Hmm!...strange that...I thought your last paragraph was referring to your good self!! :rolleyes:

[Tool Time Two]

CitizenXXXXXXXX
True - however, that is all you and I have in common - insignificance, that is.
But a little footnote for you and your friends FSU, PV, TSI, et al.
It was once said that a contract, such as that we each had in being a member of the AFAP, was not the sort of contract a court of law would enforce. That is exactly the sort of contract we each need to honour - and you and your fellow scabs didn't.
The reason you dishonoured yourself was for the money. In dishonouring your contract with the fellow members of the AFAP, and that is what you had, you have forever written your own epitaph, and all that is left for you, is to defend yourself.
That is ALL you have. :cool:

[knackeredII]

CitizenXX,

Am wondering why you need to change your identity every so often. I believe you were formerly known as Capt Schlonger and KaptinX, were you not?

[gravy]

hey nothing wrong with changing iden-titties wunce in a while.

I, too, have been forced to adopt a new visage now and then.... just like my fellow aviator, doctor hoo. Not that pommy fat-head who flies around in a low-budge-it phone box, im talking about my chinese mate, Wun Duh Hoo, hoo works for the roofduss patching people up in gonads.

but i have learned my lesson and now employ tact, thought and intelligence in my contributions. gravy™ should be around for a while.

if you must know, it was i who was referred to as capt shlonger (there is no 'c' in shlong). modesty prevents me from explaining the raison behind the name. all yoo need to know is i put the long in shLONG baby, YE-EEAAAH!!

by the way what the hell did ethan hawke have to do with '89???

[gaunty]

Tool Time Two

If I may plagiarise;

The social contract, such as that we each have as a member of a succesful society or culture, contains many customs, unwritten rules, shibboleths and obligations that a court of law can not enforce.

The breadth, depth and robustness of this social contract is what separates countries with a demonstrably succesful society like Australia from the less so and more anarchic.
Otherwise, why the queue to come here and why shouldn't we have the right to protect it.
Why should we be "ashamed" to protect the integrity of our borders by dealing firmly but humanely with those who attempt to corrupt the written rules that we as a society have imposed.

One need only watch the nightly news for examples thereof.

It is this social contract we each need to honour, lest we become likewise corrupted
Failure to so do lessens us all and weakens the very foundations of the society we all enjoy.

ANY decision we make in life therefore, must of necessity have our obligations to this higher social contract as a component.

If you dishonour your social contract with the fellow members of the society in which you live, or have chosen to live if they will have you, for illegitimate personal advancement, money or both, you have forever written your own epitaph, and all that is left for you, is to defend yourself to them.

Strip away all of the transient trappings of power, ambition, money, popularity, greed or whatever.

In the final analysis, how you conduct yourself towards this life is ALL you have and ALL that you will take to your grave.

It has ever been thus.

[CitizenXX]

knackered,

Negative!!


TTT,

No prizes for second.

You misunderstand me. I am not defending myself, nor do I have to or propose doing so. If I were you, I would be defending myself to my family for displaying such profound stupidity in the face of odds that even the most naive would see as overwhelming.

The AFAP should be defending itself for ending the careers of hundreds of good people. It should be defending itself for putting a drug dealer before its membership with a pape thin case for holding out, and doing the 'right' thing, and defending itself for a myriad of other irrational, downright stupid decisons.

We all, whoever we may be, made decisions based on what information we had, after sifting out the lies of the AFAP, and if we now regret those decisions, then it is unfortunate.

I am not one who regrets mine, nor do I suggest that I should defend it.

I've said elsewhere that sooner or later, and it is much later for some, we must accept responsibility for our decisions. If you're having difficulty with that concept, it is not my problem.

[amos2]

Let's not waste any more time with this jerk! ;)

[CitizenXX]

I hope you don't leave Amos 2!! I'll miss you sooooo much.

[Truth Seekers Int'nl]

so now we are into "social contracts" and honour amongst men. It was once said that a contract, such as that we each had in being a member of the AFAP, was not the sort of contract a court of law would enforce. That is exactly the sort of contract we each need to honour - TT2 sorry to disappoint you and other members of the "Sui Generis" heirarchy but 847 + pilots didn't agree with your definition of a contract. you do not take on the government of the day, two powerful companies, two very powerful company directors (one who controls the media), the majority of the union movement and every other worker of Australia without a battle plan. you cannot simply say if we stick together we will win. there had to be a back door but there wasn't. there had to be "plan" changes as each day involved another challenge to the AFAP - there wasn't.
my brother wore his heart on his sleeve for the AFAP and he has never worked in aviation again. $60,000 out of pocket and a total career change at 28 years of age.

tell us what had changed from August 24th 1989 until March 21st 1990. why would any union wait so long to "allow" it's members a return to work?

another fine post Citizen XX, that should just about put an end to what has been a very level headed and informative debate about '89.

[amos2]

...let's not waste our time on this jerk either! ;)

[203]

nice comeback, ya tool.....

[Tool Time Two]

CitizenXXXXXXXXX

There can be no doubt, even to the most illiterate, that you are defending yourself.
The style of your prose falls exactly under the definition of "defensive".
It can be no other way.
Writing about "no regrets" about your decision means that it is forever on your mind. Else you would not exercise your fingers on the keyboard.
Your colleague, TSI, a misnomer if there was ever one, seems to exercise a regret on behalf of his brother. If his brother chose not to follow further an aviayion career, then he made that choice. But it seems his brother exercised a far greater strength of character than either TSI, or you, are capable.
I am glad you acknowledge your own insignificance.
Whatever your view is on the AFAP or it's leadership of the day, nothing can excuse you, and your kind, from the contract you had with your brother pilots, and which you accepted from the day you applied to be a member, then denied.
A proportion of your defence mechanism is aimed at the AFAP and the leadership, and the remainder at the former colleagues you deserted.
You didn't walk away from the AFAP, McCarthy, Raby, Holt, et al, but from your brother members.
That is your weakness, and shouting "I took control of my own life", or whatever you claim to have done, from all the hilltops on the planet, can never change the level to which you have stooped.:cool:

[Truth Seekers Int'nl]

TT2 answer me two very simple questions

what was the difference between 347 pilots signing contracts with AN and TN and 500+ pilots signing contracts with overseas operators? Apart from the obvious, significantly higher numbers of pilots going overseas, would indicate they no longer desired their Oz jobs.

what new tactic(s) were adopted by the AFAP from the 24th August 1989 to 21st March 1990 to try and resolve the dispute? I can only ever recall the same old lines - "let's stick together" and "all we want to do is talk with the Companies".

as for the cheap shot at my brother not returning to aviation. unlike you and your like, with massive superannuation payouts, paid off mortgages and rent income coming in while you were all in your company paid housing and no school fees to pay. my brother had a six month old daughter and wife to support PLUS a mortgage and flying training costs to pay off. he didn't have the luxury of being able to "hang around" waiting for his job back whilst the AFAP just sat around gob smacked as to why their little industrial campaign had turned to $h!t so quickly and they had no conceivable idea how to turn things around.

now that is the TRUTH. if you and your cronies can ever raise enough courage between the lot of you and admit it, you'll be a lot better off than cowering in a corner feeling sorry for yourselves and envying people that got off their a$$es and did something about it!

my apologies to woomera - but sometimes things have to be said.

[RHLMcG]

A range of thoughts and subplots has been canvassed in this thread - but are we missing the crux of the matter which will keep this pustulant, festering sore raw and inflamed for the life of the combatants ?

As one who lost his career, why do I not forgive and forget, embracing my former colleagues once again to my bosom ?


I don't really care about the very, very few who didn't resign or went back in the first few days - they said, quite publicly, that they were against me at the time. These I can forgive the insult without too much angst.

I don't really care that the companies paid out a king's ransom to entice the weaker of my band of brothers to desert their colleagues. These tactics were understandable.

I don't really care that the dispute cost me my preferred career and a great deal of money in foregone income etc. That was my acknowledged choice - it was both distressing and unfortunate but I can hardly cry about spilt milk now.

I don't really care that my superannuation payout was rather insignificant. Unfortunate, but accepted and, if I have to, I can get by on the pension in the twilight of my life.

I don't really care that I lost a range of accrued benefits - sick leave and the like. Not important in the overall scheme of things in life.

Contracts ? These were not the problem per se. In any case I have been a contract worker elsewhere for most of my working life - I have no concern with contracts and, indeed, prefer that style of work.

Siblings and families torn apart where differing views were pursued ? Terrible and dreadful but, nonetheless, a sad consequence of the dispute.

Was the AFAP executive a band of fools ? I really don't know but that is peripheral to the principal issue. I suspect that both sides were taken by surprise when the whole thing turned bad so quickly - there was ample evidence of all the leaders trying to catch up from various positions well behind the eight ball.

The medical problems and the suicides which, some say, were due to the dispute ? Disregarding whichever side of the fence these things were visited upon, I hope we can all care about those who survived in a compassionate manner.


From the interpersonal point of view and the dispute itself, what I really care about is ONE THING - AND ONE THING ONLY.

Yesterday you stood by my side and we each supported the other.

Last night, under cover of darkness and rain, you slipped away and signed a devil pact with the enemy of the day, returning before the dawn.

Today you stand once again by my side but your loud support is false, baseless, and dripping with deceit.

It is not until many weeks have passed that I discover your duplicity and treachery.

This I can never forget - this I can never forgive.


You are worthy only of contempt and generate feelings of the most intense and sickening revulsion - and so shall it remain until the last of the combatants is dead and buried - a terribly sad state of affairs as we used to be brothers - but that is the way it is, brothers no more.

We, each of us, made his bed with only an imperfect view of the future. Now we must lie each in his own bed. Don't seek to find comfort, shelter or sanctuary in my bed - my bed is not for the most treacherous of traitors who betrayed me and sold me to slavery when I had the greatest need for his support and help.

[greybeard]

gaunty and RHLMcG.

You have summed up the whole matter in the most recent posts from both of you.

As the early runner in this I thank you both for your support and clarity of response.

There are real heros and sad people in all walks of life and we have seen them all in this one.

The one thing I guess that really sticks in my neck is that the very people who called me and many others "unsafe to be in the same cockpit" are now in place in my current airline and expect all will be as pre '89 and are not only willing but insisting to be in the same cockpits.

They are the real cunch of bunts.

There we go with moral issues of certain people and those who stood and those who slinked away in the dark.

To woomera, thanks again for the time and space.
:p

[CitizenXX]

RHLMcG,

Good post. I don't, as you would imagine, agree with you, but it is a good post nevertheless.

I admire your clarity of thought and eloquence in putting your case, emotive though it is. However, it is not beyond me to have admiration for you in any event.

You are the first of those on the other side of the fence who has speculated on this forum that perhaps the AFAP were a band of fools. You say that perhaps they were; I say that they definitely were, and not peripheral to the central issue, but pivotal to that issue.

At least you're civil about it, and once again I commend you. That's a democracy.

TTT,

If you see me as defending myself, it is because I choose not to be aggressive as you constantly are; full of bitterness and hatred. There is no place in my life for such emotions, and as a consequence of that, I will live my life in relative peace. I do not post here to upset and offend people, but merely to offer the alternative case, one which many support judging from the number of private messages I receive commending my stand, and obvious patience with you guys.

Occasionally I have a light hearted dig, but it is never more than that.

[RHLMcG]

I suppose that we find two classes of people throughout life.

Those of some reasonable, if varying, degree of honour who try to do the right thing by themselves but not at the expense of their family, friends, and community.

Those who are opportunistic scavengers.


My sources tell me, Greybeard, that the blow-ins at SQ are not having a particularly happy time. Sad, that.


CitizenXX (why two X's ?) - I fear that you read what is not there to be read in my post.

[stable approach]

RHLMcG

Thanks for putting into words the exact feelings of so many of us.
I think you successfully got to the crux of the matter. Time and again people ask why we don't forget and move on – move on most of us have, but forget? Never!

It must give you a warm and fuzzy feeling to have been given the Citizen XX approval for your post. His arrogance is mind boggling.


TSI

Please tell me you were joking. You could not possibly be as stupid as you appear, with the question :

"what was the difference between 347 pilots signing contracts with AN and TN and 500+ pilots signing contracts with overseas operators? Apart from the obvious, significantly higher numbers of pilots going overseas, would indicate they no longer desired their Oz jobs."

Please refer to RHLMcG's post. Also ask any person in Australia with any knowledge of trade union history. Had you never heard the word " scab " before 1989?

Do you think your brother was the only person in that year who had a young family and a mortgage? Most of the pilots who left Australia when I did back then, did so for exactly that reason. They had commitments to the banks and their families, and so had to find a (honourable) source of income. And please don't feed me that favourite line of " taking the jobs of pilots overseas ". The situation in the company I worked for was exactly as has been described here before – we were employed purely because the company was expanding rapidly, and they had insufficient of their own people suitably qualified. It was made clear to us from day one that we would be around only as long as we were needed. And as has also been explained here before, this enabled the company to expand – thus creating more jobs for the locals, not the opposite. Most of the guys have done well since that time, and are now in good jobs in different places, and have got on with their lives. It was not an easy decision to be made, to leave the country, family and friends behind – but as a well known Australian once said: " life wasn't meant to be easy".

[Tool Time Two]

First, CitizenXXXXXX, the peace in which you claim to live your life is sidelined anytime you post here. And to pretend nothing you write is defensive does provide some levity.
Keep it coming.
For TSI - there is nothing in my previous post in which you can draw a "cheap shot" at your brother. It is perfectly clear in my post that he exhibited a far greater courage than his sibling can ever understand.
As for your figures of scabs, and departures OS, you should have been an accountant. Clearly the types employed by AN fell into the same mould whence you came - in other words, altering the facts to suit. The difference between a scab and someone who went overseas, is simply that the act of scabbing forced the issue. Your foolish mindset that the dispute was over as a result of the resignations, is an insult even to your own intelligence.
Now for both of you, and your fellow scabs. The personal cost to many of the people on whom you turned you backs was greater than you care to acknowledge. Your assumption that everyone who didn't scab went overseas is merely convenient to your fallacious arguments.
Not that I expect you to be interested, let alone care, but among the 89er's described by TSI, were some who had years of unemployment, as well as personal family loss, endured on no income. That income being in the pockets of you and your fellow scabs. You know that, yet you publish knowingly inaccurate information here. I know you are, and were, aware of those personal losses, yet you take glee in them.
Your defensive posts are written to assuage the prick of conscience you now have - exacerbated by the failure of AN.
It is further exacerbated by your failure to exercise the means by which YOU and your fellow scabs could have altered the course of the dispute, by using the means within the Constitution of the AFAP. But scabbing was so much easier, and if you were not interested in the AFAP before, why start then?
The truth is boys, you took the "King's shilling" - along with AG, and at the end of the day - you lost.:cool:

[CitizenXX]

RHLMcG,

Two XX's?? Can't remember, but I think I accidentally hit 'X' twice, and didn't notice it until the registration was complete.

I'm sure I didn't misread your post. We don't agree, but it doesn't preculde me from saying that you put your case well, with clarity, if a little emotively, but importantly without abuse so common in posters who are on the opposite side of the fence ffrom me.

The principal difference is, I suppose, that you thought the AFAPs role was peripheral, and I thought it was pivotal. If we hadn't resigned at their direction (prior to writs being issued) then what is seen as the problem would never have eventuated.

stable approach,

Wrong emotion !! I would have thought it was humility rather than arrogance that I can say to RHLMcG that I liked his post even if I don't agree. Arrogance? - I don't understand how you get that.

I didn't 'approve' McG's post, nor did I disapprove of it. I merely complimented him/her on a well thought out post and that seems to be an exception here. You would do well to go back to Basic Use of the English Language, a fine volume from primary school, and take a few tips.
TTT,

I suppose if I choose not to be offensive in my posts as you so often are, then by definition, my posts must be neutral or defensive. I make no apology for not being aggressive and offensive.

All,

It is not those who rejoined who 'stole away under the cover of darkness etc. and returned etc.' whom you need fear or despise. Those you need to despise are those who applied to join, were rejected, then stood by your side and feigned support, and amongst those were the wine merchant and the first female in AN. She was, of course, used as a stooge by the AFAP, being put up as a front person, but she applied nevertheless, and then crawled back to have five bob the other way.

And it is the AFAP itself whom you should not have trusted, lying time and again, and putting a junkie psychologist up to push the cause. Lack of credibility? I think so.

[Truth Seekers Int'nl]

stable approach keep it civil. have never mentioned the pilots heading off overseas taking other local pilot's jobs, that defence mechanism was reserved for the pilots that went overseas.
my brother never had the experience to take a job overseas but he did find "honorable" income outside the industry he worked so hard to succeed in and which he loved so dearly.TT2 you are a real suckker for punishment.As for your figures of scabs, and departures OS, you should have been an accountant. he's a couple more figures for you to chew on. until the second week in November 1989 (approx week 12 on the famous LIST)there were only 44 returnees from TAA and Ansett. remember two weeks earlier 27th October, 1989 The Federation President, Captain Brian McCarthy, offered a return
to work for the Christmas holiday period on pre-dispute award conditions to allow
"cooling off" and later negotiations.

29th October, 1989 The Minister for Transport and Communication, Mr Willis,
rejected McCarthy’s offer as ridiculous

30th October, 1989 The Prime Minister, Mr Bob Hawke claimed in Parliament that
the Pilots Federation no longer existed and that the dispute was over.



over the NEXT 18 weeks 215 pilots went back to work. the AFAP executive had lost it's way. that is not a criticism it is just a FACT. i am very aware of trade union history thankyou. the big trade union victories that i witnessed over ten years ago were won with solidarity and solid union tactics. (going on strike, setting up picket lines in the rain & cold, geeting other unions and the public on side etc,.)there are not so many victories these days with Herr Abbott at the helm but it will turn the circle again.
the AFAP were ambitious and gullible. when they received early head punches (awards being cancelled, writs and government dirty low down despicable tricks)they never responded. it became a futile slog out with the "last man standing" mentality taking over, instead of clear thought and re-assesment of the situation.
there was never a strike, never a picket line, members were going back, others were leaving for offshore positions and others had had enough of both the airlines and the AFAP and called it a day. TOTAL dissaray and confusion! at least another game plan or back door strategy put into place. none of that either.
then the 27th October, that was no call for a "cooling off" period that honestly was "OK guys, we've taken enough punishment.will you have us back if we behave ourselves?"
i leave myself open for oversimplifying this dispute, but i was never personally involved and could view it from the "outside". i whave no more to say on the subject and do agree that until all involved can reason the other's views, it will go on until each is too old to give a damn anymore or departure to that big hangar in the sky.

[amos2]

...yeah, well, this is all very intellectual and even a bit interesting, I guess, to the novices and the newbies and the wannabees and to any body else who may be somewhat confused by the toing and froing on this thread, but the simple fact of the matter is...if you stab your mates in the back, behind their backs, then you are , quite simply, a dirty stinking scumbag...otherwise known as a SCAB!!!

Really, it's as simple as that!...don't confuse yourself!

[beerstop]

well said, Ill drink a beer to that,
and p**s on the Scabs

[Pole Vaulter]

Don't you just love Amos and Beerstops great high quality asorbing posts. As usual when they can't come up with a sensible arguement they resort to the well proven name calling and trash. Keep it up boys you really show the world your true colors and in the lack of credibility shows more each time you post. Anyone who wonders why 89 happened just have a close think about these two and their attitude and you have the total reason for 89.Terrific stuff

[Dogimed]

89' ers, How do you feel about the pilots that stayed out because either they could afford to, or were going to retire anyway? Does it p1ss you guys off that people bolstered the numbers of strikers but couldn't care less either way as they had money/time?

Returnees, Fair enough, the issue was lost right from the start, as you all seem to claim was clear as day to you. Why did you strike in the first place? Seems that the guys that never resigned were at least clear in their thoughts and actions.

Dogg
:confused:

[Woomera]

I am closing this thread for no other reason than that it is now way past the normal (100) limit.

Thank you for remaining, for the most part anyway, civil towards each other.

Meloz I hope you are now be a little better informed on this most difficult issue.

To all please feel free to continue this discussion on a new thread.