legal action

[collar]

i believe there may be a precedent against ifalpa/aoa regarding the recruitment ban on new joiners to cx. has any new joiner considered legal advice/action against these two bodies? how can people who have nothing to do with this situation be responsible and penalised for the rest of their lives? unions claim the right to freedom of association blah blah blah, yet here they are victamizing innocent individuals. in effect they are doing exactly to new joiners what they are fighting for!!! why not get a group of new joiners together and take these guys (ifalpa/aoa) to the courts, you might be pleasantly surprised.....

[6feetunder]

You know that just might work. Let's get on that right away.

[tone-uncage-fire]

It probably would work....but why would they want to; whats is there to gain? Membership in a club that clearly has no interest in them at all?
When all this is over.... as with ASL... how many of these 'new joiners' will want to join the AOA (assuming the door is opened)?

The company doesnt like the AOA and has publicly stated they will deal with any pilot body with more than 50% support. Non-AOA membership is nearly 35% at present......... why seek legal action.......every new joiner is a further nail in the coffin.

What really rubs me the wrong way is why the AOA cannot see this.......... even if the get all their wishes (49ers et al) where does it leave them? All the benefits earned by the union will also be 'won' by the new joiners.... who are simply riding on the coat tails. Its a no brainer for them.

In 12 months the 1st replacement workers will be JFOs.... the SO will as be blackisted.... could we see the day where these guys out number the AOA in the cockpit? Yes!

Im all for not being rolled over by management but the ban is hurting the AOA now....... and will, forever, be a emotional (and financial) wedge between pilots.

That is unless someone admits it is/was a mistake.

Get these youngsters on side (while we still can).... and move fwd together.................. its not complicated

*** 'youngsters' maybe the wrong term! Have you noticed that most of the new SOs are older than the relief commanders! These guys/gals are joining with 3 times the experience I had!

[FlexibleResponse]

TUF said:
The company doesnt like the AOA and has publicly stated they will deal with any pilot body with more than 50% support.
The AOA is a pilot body with more than 50% support.

[shortly]

Yes FR but with a leadership that the company will never negotiate with. TUF is correct in his assertion that the AOA is losing effectiveness/credibility with every new hirer being employed. Where to from here? The AOA wins the Court cases, I don't think so, the company will settle out of court if it feels the slightest that that might happen. Then what? New contracts - take it or leave it in the post. Crumbs to quote the movie Prince of Egypt - your playing with the big boys now. On my less than well informed reckoning there are more than 1300 guys looking for jobs. Three months after armageddon this company will be still be smiling will you? Will the 49ers?

[tone-uncage-fire]

FR, I agree

Obviously the AOA has the 'mandate' at the moment...(albeit that the company wont speak with them) but my point is for how long?

It maybe a matter of months or yrs but I think it is a tragedy that an association thats has done so much for CX over the yrs is nailing its own coffin closed.

Its only a matter of mathematics that, with a continual ban, eventually the banned will out number the AOA members......then they will have the mandate (if they want it). Its a tragedy.

This process is of course hastened by frustrated members leaving......I weep in my milk sometimes

[FlexibleResponse]

shortly said:
Yes FR but with a leadership that the company will never negotiate with.
My comment appears to have been validated.

[Liam Gallagher]

Shortly,

You make some glib and sweeping comments;

"....the company will settle out of court...."

An out of Court settlement would need the consent of the AOA. No prizes for guessing the price of the consent...49 jobs or compensation equivalent thereof, a rosters practices deal, costs etc etc.

Are you starting to see some merit in the AOA's stance?

[shortly]

I get a lot of flak for making some fairly common sense pronouncements here. eg glib....spoken fluently but insincerely, and sweeping....wide in range or effect, arbitrary. The company has a record of dragging out actions for as long as possible and then settling at the death. So I see nothing glib or sweeping in my sensible comments there Liam. The point of my post which you missed or ignored was, what happens then? You cannot honestly believe that all the 49ers will be re-employed as part of a negotiated settlement whatever the outcome of the litigation. Sadly I imagine quite a few would not want to come back to CX now. The company was in error for terminating the 49ers in one heap and the AOA was in error for ramping up action which probably led to that reaction from the company. The AOA could have settled this dispute before then when the last offer that your selective memory allows was made. I recall the surprise all around the company when that offer was rejected. And indeed relief from senior management that it was rejected. What if someone starts a new union/association now? With all those not currently welcome or not wanting to be part of the AOA. By mid next year that will be around 700 pilots by my reckoning. I probably should have said 'try to settle out of court'. Tricky business this lawyer/judge stuff you can never be sure which way their warped institutional minds will meander. But should the company make a reasonable out of court offer and then the AOA reject it, wouldn't that be in the company's interests in the court room?
If you mean do I see merit in the AOA relying on overseas legal moves and bureaucratic institutions to move the company then no I don't.

[Liam Gallagher]

Shortly,

Take a "calm pill".

Your statement "...lawyer/judge...warped institutional minds.." is at best a glib and sweeping statement. How many times have actually been in Court or is this opinion formed by watching Court TV?

Apparently 95% of all litigation is settled, so what you say is no revelation. However, to settle you need the consent of the other side and in the circumstance you outlined, the company thinking they may lose, the AOA's no. 1 priority is the 49ers so they will be looking for 49 jobs or compensation. Again, under the circumstances you outlined, the company will have a choice of getting out the chequebook or crossing the court room doorstep. Of course, this applies equally if the AOA thinks that it may lose; one hell of a costs bill could be coming the AOA's way!

No, I do not remember a settlement offer being made by the company. Please refresh my memory; Who made the offer on behalf of the company, and to whom did they make it, and what was in the offer? Why did they not send the offer to every pilot's mail box and allow a reasonable period of time to consider it?

Before you reply, I do not consider a properly constituted offer can come about by a meeting of low level representatives, who apparently discussed all manner of options trying unsucessfully to find some common ground and then Capt. Barley immediately produces a document saying; you turned down this offer!

Finally, who was surprised the "offer"was rejected and name the senior managers who were relieved?

Until you start putting up some facts, I consider your comments to be a regurgitation of sound-bites that you hear on the flight deck, and because you hear them from someone with 4 gold bars they become fact in your own mind.

There is much more to this issue......

[mole]

Liam,

You are exactly right. I suspect that Shorty used to work for Tony Blair's department of spin prior to joining the Swire Group as a "pilot"

[shortly]

Ouch Mole, the unkindest cut of all. Even a Shortly has some standards - work for a boring, grey suited, two or three faced, lying used car salesman with a wife, well lets leave it to your imagination. This should encourage a few polite posts. Liam, I would have thought more a generalization most assuredly not glib as I sincerely dislike the legal profession with a minor passion. No reasons why on this forum - if we ever meet I'll happily give you a laugh over why they have affected me so badly while we drink a cold one. Before 49ers, offer made by or on behalf of NR. Rejected out of hand by AOA not passed to members. I am trying to get a copy of said offer but work keeps getting in the way. Bloody time, wish there were, oops was going to say 26 hours a day but the responses from the pit bulls just flashed through my mind so better not. I have only anecdotal data on who was glad but was told PC and ergo NR at the least. I'll try to do better Liam. Who was surprised the offer was rejected - most everybody that I know.

[Cpt. Underpants]

One last time...

THERE WAS NO OFFER.

Get it? Got it? Good.

[Liam Gallagher]

Shortly,

In the first half of 2001 both sides put forward deals to avoid the events of July 01. You will appreciate that it is not practical for the AOA membership to consider every proposal.

It is my understanding that no deal put forward by the company met the AOA's pre-ordained requirements and the AOA negotiating team was having trouble understanding the company's proposals, because it seemed both teams were operating with different data relating to flying hours. The company declined to provide their data and the rest is history.

In June 01 Capt Barley sent out one of his "you turned down this deal" letters and the AOA sent out a swift rebuttle saying the claims made by KB could not be verified with the AOA's data and KB had failed to mention that a requirement of the deal was an undertaking not to engage in any form of Industrial Action for a number of years and the AOA shall consent to RP's into Vol 1.

I hope that does load you up with detail. But in short, I do agree that back in Jun 2001 both sides wanted to change the balance of power at the negotiating table by "other means" and were therefore relieved that no deal was struck.

Despite the soundbites from both sides, I still believe that neither side really wants to negotiate. The AOA, because its position is weak, and the company because the longer they wait the weaker the AOA becomes, until the AOA is no more.

Shortly,

Sorry to bog you down with more details, but I re-read your post.

Whilst NR may become a player in the future he is presently not a player in this. Be in no doubt the events of both 1999 and 2001 were called directly by the shareholders and implemented by the Board.

In the context of 49ers/pay scales NR is a Decision Taker; not a Decision Maker! When he becomes DFO his influence will increase, but only the shareholders will make volitile calls that alter the Share Capital (1999) and could result in the firing of most of your pilots (1999 and 2001).

[shortly]

Liam. I could not agree with your post more. The root of all the problems, in my view, goes back to the decision to ground the Airbus fleet and the consequent request from the company to the AOA to stop that moderate action they were taking at that time. I believe that request came from THE man himself through KB. The AOA refused, for whatever reasons, and now I believe the very head of this organisation is pulling the strings far above KB, PC, NR and DT. They are, as you so rightly stipulated, just doing as they are told. How to get out of this mess? Well in truth I think the AOA had better start moderating its stance even more before it becomes absolutely irrelevant as an organisation. Perhaps it is already too late.
I understand the company would not provide data it considered 'business in confidence'. A lot of the disagreement between the AOA and the company then was because they both insisted on comparing apples and oranges. You seem a sharp person close to the AOA action. I hope they are using your brains. Lets both sides define our apples at the least. In any dispute both sides have to agree on what is actually in dispute before progress can be made and I mean both sides.

[pilotabroad]

Capt Panties

Good to hear 'for the last time....'

If there wasn't an offer why did Don F tell us at a Focus Night that an offer was rejected because it did not include unconditional reinstatment of all 49ers, and when members asked why was the offer not past onto the membership, he tried to say that there wasn't really an offer. And then two days later ND started back pedalling with his lie of there not having been an offer.

There was an offer (made formally at least twice) which included reinstatment of most of the 49ers and Command A scale pay for all. Perhaps you should speak to the committee member who left the committee over ND's lie.

Stop the crap. Your lies and those of the committe are driving members away. People like you are the real union busters.

[6feetunder]

I'm sorry, when was the last negotiation between the company and the union representatives?

[shortly]

Thank you pilotabroad, at last someone gutsy enough to corroborate what I know to be true. The detractors to this truth can make the font as big as they like, as bold as they like, colour it, put it in italics but none of that will alter the facts. I have often wondered why this lie is perpetuated not only to us but also to the union members. I really know why. But have you wondered?

[6feetunder]

You're both a couple of morons.

[shortly]

Thank you 6feetunder, coming from one so well endowed with grey matter as you obviously are I take that as a compliment. Or I could say, I've been insulted by the best of them so why would I worry about being insulted by such as you.

[Liam Gallagher]

Pilotabroad,

You make a serious allegation against Nigel D, care to back it up. Who made the offers and when and what was contained in the offers?

edited to delete the surname.

[shortly]

I think this 'was there an offer' issue is very important. It strikes at the credibility of the AOA leadership team. I have tried through various means to get a copy of said 'offer' but up to now to no avail. I would not condescend to calling people false over this because what I think happened is this. A tentative offer was made at a meeting in NR's office with one or more of the AOA negotiating team present, the offer was verbal and hands were shaken on it. The alleged offer included the requirement for all 49ers to be interviewed to assess their company 'loyalty'. It only included improvements in conditions including all captains (pax) to go to A scale and a modest improvement to the freighter pay rates. This 'offer' never got out of the AOA headshed to the union proletariat. The spin doctors got to work and it became known as talks about talks. The main sticking point, I have been told, was the assessment requirement for the 49ers and whether they would be recompensed for time away from the workplace. Both very sensitive issues and I have no reason to comment on them. I will not name AOA names here as it would/could embarass them but my information came from those well in the know at the AOA. Now like it or not many folk think as I do that there was an offer made. The only way to clear this issue up is for someone in authority to come clean. Liam made the point earlier that there are too many proposals made to always relay them to the membership. Well that's as maybe, but on an issue this important the guys/gals should have been fully informed, assuming what I have been told to be correct. Get your false teeth into this lot Cpt panties.

[6feetunder]

Copy of Vice President Professional’s post on CPrune, 11th March 2002:

These are my recollections and views…
"Talks about talks" comprised a series of meetings last year between ****, ****, ****, **** and me. The meetings were brokered behind the scenes by the work of several non-Committee
members. The purpose of the meetings was to establish whether or not there existed sufficient common ground to
enter a formal negotiation to resolve contract, rostering and 49er issues. A wide range of ideas were exchanged
and discussed during those meetings but they were just that – ideas. Offers are made during negotiations - “talks
about talks” was not a negotiation. It was about sharing where each side could go in the hope of getting a mandate
to enter formal negotiations.
Where the Company felt they could go with contract (pay structures, retirement age, timeframe, freighters, Clause
35, sickness management etc) was more than encouraging. To the credit of the Company the plan looked good.
My feeling was that a negotiation on contract alone would have produced a resolution acceptable to the majority of
our membership and equally importantly, would serve our airline well in the years ahead.
Rostering was, and always has been, a more tricky area. My feeling was that in the context of a package deal, we
had room to make sufficient concessions with rostering such that a negotiation would have produced a resolution
acceptable to the majority of the membership.
That left the very complex 49er issue. Clearly it was always going to be fundamental to both sides. Unfortunately
we were unable to come up with a mutually acceptable way to deal with it. The Company suggested hypothetically
that all the 49ers could apply to CX and those deemed acceptable may be offered a job. There was no indication
sought and no indication given as to “numbers”. The COS/seniority issue was no obstacle for either side. We were
dissatisfied because such a process lacks the transparency required to ensure fairness. We explored a range of
hypothetical alternatives such as full reinstatement or both sides reviewing the files or independent assessment or
arbitration, confidentiality agreements, media bans, “face savers” and others but unfortunately the Company
representatives did not have the mandate to agree to any of them.
The Company subsequently put out a newsletter describing “talks about talks” and that newsletter was factual with
respect to contract and rostering. Concerning the 49ers, the newsletter stated that the Association representatives
insisted on total reinstatement even for pilots now employed elsewhere. That was disappointing because it was not
a true statement and not consistent with the openness and honesty which otherwise characterised the talks.
I said during the talks and have said consistently at various Focus Nights since; it is not the remit of any union to
prevent members from being held accountable for wrongful acts. The remit of any union should be to seek fair
treatment for members through a fair process. Ultimately for the 49er issue to be considered properly resolved it
will be irrespective of “numbers”. Rather, someone in our Association will one day have to be in a position to
undertake to the membership that the process (whatever that may be) was proper and that each of the 49ers was
treated fairly. In my view, to do otherwise would be to call into question the very reason for having a union and just
as disturbingly, would call into question whether this great airline is still a career airline.
I suggest we get more unified, be patient and work hard for resolution together.

*** ******

shortly, this was written by one of the GC members that was there. I think "someone in authority" has come clean, months ago. Is this enough for you?

Now stop calling the members of the GC and the AOA President liars!

[shortly]

Liam, thank you for your well written post. I have never called anyone a liar - fibber. I have no doubt the 'recollections' of the VP are exactly as he has outlined them. Funny thing memory though isn't it, we always remember the good bits as time fades and the mind slowly but surely extricates the 'bad' bits. Take pain as an example, the mind inevitably will not recall pain as such so people often make the same decisions leading to the same pain time after time. I will make one last try on the third floor today, as I will be at Kitty City, to try and get the other side of the story. failing that you have my word that I will never raise this issue again. I doubt the motives of a number of the players in this saga and indeed the veracity of others. You don't need to tell a blatant porky pie, just leave a bit out and the result is the same. What have the wise ones said about porkies, for a lie to believable it must contain an element of truth and a big lie is often more believable and easier to maintain than a little one. Not that I am saying anyone is lying lol. Regards to you.

[Liam Gallagher]

err.... shortly, I think you need to thank sixfoot...

As a general comment to all; be very careful when using the phrase "offer". In my book, "offer" means a proposal that if accepted is a done deal. By way of example, to say, " would the AOA stop all Industrial Action for A scales", is not an offer. Given the litigation hovering over this dispute an offer from either side will be unambiguous, detailed and almost certainly written. Any thing else is a fishing expedition.

Like I say, there is much more to this issue.

[6feetunder]

shortly, refer to my post above, it still stands and you still are one.

[fire wall]

6FU, you impress as a real tough guy with you language whilst hiding behind your computer terminal under the cloak of anonimity. Shame you cannot impress with your ability to construct a sensible arguement without resorting to labelling for the sole reason that others do not agree with your point of view or interpretation. Such would indicate you are not so convinced of your own arguement or you are not suitably developed enough to maintain control of your own emotions....not exactly a desirable trait for an airline pilot and as such I shall keep a look out for you.....you can operate the radio.
For the record, pilotabroad's recollection of events is exactly how it was portrayed to me by a member of the AOA of high standing.
Captain underpants, you are wrong. Furthermore you are attempting to pass false information in the effort to further your cause for which I hold you in contempt.

Think outside the box son.

[Cpt. Underpants]

Wall, if what you say is correct, but what I say is correct, then someone has to be wrong.

Prove me wrong by publishing the text of the offer. What could be easier? Personally, I think the "offer" is vaporware.

And BTW, stop trying to ping me. I've got your number, ace.

[6feetunder]

The sensible arguments were heard on this site a long time ago. In fact this current topic is over a year old, why is that? Because sycophants like you and shortly continue to dig it up. These "talks about talks" are ancient history, the only reason it keeps coming up is because managers use it to keep the ill-informed non union employees dazed and confused about the real issues of this dispute.

"I'ts the contract, stupid"

[Turbo Beaver]

Does it really matter if there was an offer?

What did Nick R offer us anyway? It could have been everything that we wanted and then some. What he didn't offer was a solution for all the 49ers. He said he would take some back, but I bet the Union guys would not be on that list.

Take a look at the Membership. Would they accept something that would not have every 49er (that wants to come back) back? All the guys that would have sold the 49ers down the drain are not in the Union and therefore have no vote. If they want to sell the 49ers down the road, they should have stayed in the Union.

The present Membership would not accept that offer even if there were an offer. So what is the big deal.

If there was an offer, the GC knew the Membership would not accept a deal without the 49ers, so why vote on it.

Was there a formal proposal put forward by the company that the Membership could vote on? All that was said was Nick R saying he would probably give A-Scales Commands. It was said in passing.

Through all the talks with the AOA, Nick R never had the authority to negotiate anything. Everything he said was put out as feelers to see what the AOA would do. David T was calling all the shots.

Offer-No Offer, who really cares. If it does not address the 49ers issue it will not be accepted.

I believe that are just a few people on Pprune who would sell out the 49ers for any kind of deal. They are scared.

You've never been lost until you've been lost at Mach 3.
- Paul F Crickmore

[Liam Gallagher]

Fire wall,

I thought "talks about talks, offer/no offer" was all company fuelled rumours and hearsay to further denegrate unity within the AOA. However, if a mate of high standing within the AOA told you otherwise, then no argument can compete against evidence of such strength.

A mate of high standing in the AOA also saw Elvis catching the bus to DB; send me $1,000 and I can get you front row seats to his next concert.

Not sure which box you're thinking out of....

[BlueEagle]

TurboBeaver

Please read your private messages, (scroll to bottom of the forums title page and check 'inbox'). Thanks.

BlueEagle - Moderator.

[fire wall]

just like a focus night .......no one is entitled to an opinion unless it is in agreement with the AOA line. Unfortunatley the AOA line got us B scales, ASL, 51ers etc.
Capt Underpants, I do not understand the term ping but hazard a guess that you feel that somehow I may be interogating you computer. I am afraid that I am of the vintage where it is not possible for me to be computer literate and, if such a thing were possible from my home PC then I have neither the inclination nor the time so rest easy.
My number, really what does that mean?
Ace - Mmmmm - wrong there.
Liam, any chance of some spare tickets?

[shortly]

Hey Liam, knowing you never speak with 'forked tongue', I'll take a couple of those tickets too please. I believe Harold Holt is to be the compere and Marilyn is making a cameo appearance.

[Liam Gallagher]

Shortly,

No problem, just go up and see NR and leave $2,000 with him and the tickets will be winging their way to you in no time.

Understand Nick is also doing a deal on Tampons. He is shifting them for about a tenth of the price of Park 'n Rob, so if your good lady is in need, ask him about this great deal whilst you are up there. Word of warning however, typical NR deal, "no strings attached!".

[VR-HFX]

Liam

Thought the issues were 49'ers, rostering, COS....and how to stop shagged underpaid F/O's from pulling the flaps up before the she who must be obeyed is ready for it.

How did we get on to the subject of rip-chords on tampons....are you a vampire??

Let's hope the War Office is a luddite.

Respectfully yours...not too far from ...out of here.

...but while I am at the keyboard...I haven't seen a report from ND on his last meeting with senior management...have you?

[shortly]

Actually I thought, quite mistakenly again, that this thread was allowing a bit of light hearted banter for a pleasant change. Pity Liam had to go and start slagging individuals. I wonder how many the company really wanted to get rid of before they were talked down to 49 by NR? I have heard various figures ranging from 150 to 300. Wouldn't it be sad if NR turned out not to be the bogey man after all.

[Liam Gallagher]

Shortly,

You need another chill pill; it was a joke mate! Sorry, you didn't find it funny. At least Nick laughed when I told it to him (he did write down my name whilst he was laughing/s******ing) :eek: :eek: :eek:

Hardly qualifies as "slagging". Besides you know my views on NR's involvement to date.

I somehow think you are not that offended.

Just read my post; the censor is even more sensitive than Shortly. It didn't like the middle bit of a word because it has the same character string as an offensive name for an African-American.

Still, the BBC/ITV have edited the same word out the Dambusters. Its seems everyone's culture is protected, except for us WASPDM's. We just get to pay for everything and defend everything.

Time for my medication....

[Garhauer]

The actual number of pilots sacked was 50 not 49. The number 49 comes from the guys that were sacked on the 9th of July, there was one more fired on the 11th for some strange reason.

[shortly]

No problem Liam, we wasps have been getting a rough time of late. But the circle of life will bring us back for another 15 minutes of fame in due course. As you know, I rarely mention CX middle management by name and have not been one to defend them overly much. I was sort of hoping someone would pick up on the Harold Holt bit, nobody did, showing my age ah well; another blood pressure pill, a couple of viagra and a belt of something that burns will cure all my ills, for a while at least. Bet I get hammered now lmao.

[shortly]

Sorry Liam I enjoy your inputs, don't care what you think undies or dead person. I now have spoken to two of the people involved in the last discussions between the company and the AOA. One of the most senior of the AOA team and NR. There was an offer made in principle from NR, it went along the lines of 'this is what we are prepared to accept' it included all I mentioned previously. The offer was passed to AOA head shed and they came back with what they said were 'party stoppers' this included all 49ers back with no interviews and eg credit time for guys on sick leave amongst other ridiculous demands. You can all bull **** until the cows come home but this cat is now completely anti AOA management. On another tack, the offer, OFFER included all captains on A scales, there are now - including captains on course - around 40 of those. Talks about talks - spin doctor crap.

[Turbo Beaver]

Shortly:

You say there was an offer from Nick R. in principle only. Didn't know if you noticed but Nick does not have any principles. He is the guy that fired the 49ers in the first place. Dave called it on Nick's recommendation. Who do you think is running Flight Ops, not Ken? Nick told the AOA (April) in front of the Labor Board that he would just fire 20-30 Pilots and the rest will be so scared that they will tow the company line.

The most Senior of the AOA team will not sell out any 49er for the sake of money. We are not Singapore Airlines yet. That is why we did not have a vote. Nick mentions a lot of things in passing/principle but never delivers because he did not have the power (back then) to do so. Even if the AOA sold out the 49ers and accepted (by vote), Nick would have gone to Dave and he would have turned it down. I think Dave is a bubble off centre anyway but that is another story.

You state other ridiculous demands. Who did you get that from, the man of principle? Ever hear of negotiation. Obviously you know nothing about it.

Nick R will tell you anything that will get you anti-AOA; he is a used car salesmen and is good at Psychological Ops. He has told so many lies in the past and he cannot be trusted. But he always manages to sells cars some how.

If you wanted to sell out on the 49ers, you should have stayed in the Union but I think that is in another thread somewhere.

As I said before, the present Union will not settle for money until the 49ers that what to come back are giving a chance to come back because they were unjustly terminated.

There is an easy face saving fix to this whole mess, but Cathay does not want it fixed. They want Total Control.

BlueEagle, hope the surname is acceptable. If not, yellow card me again and it will be on a first name basis. We are all one happy family anyway.

Feet still not nailed to the floor.

[shortly]

Determining the levels of 'principle' displayed by individuals is never easy and generally most subjective. There should never have been a 49er issue in the first place, brought on by union intransigence and over reaction from the company. The re-employment of the 49ers, unfortunately is now a forlorn hope. Their last real chance came during the negotiation of that last offer when the company stated it would accept all back with a face saving (for the company) interview 'to assess company loyalties'. I think, after much discussion with senior parties on both sides of the fence, that there was most assuredly a chance of settlement back then which included the terminated troops but any settlement now will not. Talking about principles, what do you think of the notion that the very senior managers wanted to terminate more like 200 rather than 50 and NR talked them down. Further, how can you be selling out the 49ers when they get their jobs back? The current strategy of the AOA sold out the 49ers in the first place and they continue to pursue a strategy contrary to the interests of the 49ers and other large groups of the pilot body. Almost 50% non-union pilot body now. When it passes that figure watch out for the new union. They might actually get somewhere with the company.

[Turbo Beaver]

You really think the 49ers were brought on by the Unions stubbornness. You call over nine years of being bullied, having our contract degraded, being forced to sign a new contract or be fired, being handed a new contract with the options sign or sign, being pigheaded. I beg to differ.

An over-reaction by the company, at least you are correct on that point. All the Union published was to work to their contract. The company thought we were going to walk out and chartered 17 Mainland aircraft. Now how does the company explain 17 aircraft to the board when all the Pilots were willing to work? The company said we were on a sick out that week, but we were all sitting home on reserve. They hired the 17 mainland aircraft so they may as well put them to work.

This was all very embarrassing for David and Nick. How do we get back at them? We will fire some of them. Twenty-five managers had less than a week to pick names. There were no reason except if one of the fop managers, crew controller, personal manager, etc had a dislike for an individual, and they were gone. I don't think that is a good enough reason to terminate someone. It was all done very quickly.

Nick is such a nice guy saving 150 jobs. David and Nick don't have a problem destroying 50 plus lives. WOW, I should put Nick and Dave on my Christmas card list.

They probably wanted to fire 200 Pilots. It sounds like something our managers would do, but when they did the numbers they could not afford to do so. If they knew 9/11 was going to happen, they would have definitely fired 200.

Nick must have told you he would accept all 49ers back. The interviews were a condition so they could not select any of the union guys. They don't want them back because they have shown real leadership, but Nick sees them working for the other side. They are loyal union guys, but also can be loyal company guys if given the chance. Stop attacking the Pilots and the Pilots will be very loyal. It has happened in the past, but Nick was in New Guinea. Nick sees it as me against them. He has no idea of what being a Pilot is all about.

The day we start to have two unions at this company is the sure death sign of the working conditions here. People will start to leave. Not what the company wants in the expansion that they want/have to do.

Why don't you get the other 50% of the non-union pilots into the union and vote down the current way the union is going? That would make a lot more sense than starting another union. Those pilots outside the union don't have representation from anyone. They are the biggest whiners but don't want to do anything about it, but keep their head in the sand. All the rules are in place to vote the current President out if you have the numbers. If I voted for Gore, I would not give up my citizenship because "Six Shooter" Bush got in. If you got the numbers, get back into the fight to get this affair settled. Then maybe all the current non-members will be the majority and the so-called militants will be the opposition.

[shortly]

Good post TB, logical and rational. I think you are probably under estimating the continued union action against the company. Must be 10 ish years now. In that time not one company offer has been accepted. Some of them quite reasonable. There is no reason for the company to destroy the conditions of the aircrew, it makes no sense, particularly financially. The swings and roundabouts of management philosophy is back to - lets keep a happy and settled workforce - training and proficiency costs etc. You make issue with the 'sign this or else' apparent attitude of the company, well I propose to you that should one or any of the company proposals have been accepted we would never have got there. I said before, when Scargill left the coalminers union HIS union leadership said of him "he never understood that a union must negotiate the best deal possible before a deal is forced on the membership". I have also said that a part time union leadership is no match for a full time management body if they follow an intransigent route. Where do we go from here? I want the 49ers back but this union leadership neither listens nor understands. This is my opinion and I don't dislike them as persons and will happily quoff ales with them.

[Garhauer]

1600 - 1100 = 500. I'd say there is more than 2/3 union membership wouldn't you?

[BusyB]

Shortly, We accepted the COS 94 and then were forced into accepting COS 99 and then the company failed to keep their side of the contract i.e. to improve rostering etc. I think we've done our bit, how many more offers do you anticipate?!!!

[FlexibleResponse]

Shortly said: Talking about principles, what do you think of the notion that the very senior managers wanted to terminate more like 200 rather than 50 and NR talked them down.
Wasn't it NR that invented the idea of "Let's sack 50 of them and the rest of the pilots will fall into line"?

[6feetunder]

That's the rumour.

[raitfaiter]

I really think that its time to out shortly.....It must be obvious that his is a fictitious persona contructed entirely by management or their proxies. Although his postings may sound reasonable, they hold carefully contructed inaccuracies, in the same vein as 'how often do you beat your wife...' that are carefully calibrated to purvey a management skewed message. Just read each post carefully....... it is fairly obvious that freehills has employed a spare shrink.;) :p ;)

[shortly]

Wow what a compliment, thank you rait. Not the Freehills bit, nor the trick cyclist bit either and I'm not a shirt lifter so no need to be outed. But the thought that I could be a ficticious character, beauty, darn I've had a middle aged moment and forgotten the guy who had many personae. Rats it'll come back to me when I least want it to. Ah that's it Walter Mitty lol.

[mole]

Shortly,

It really is time you gave up as you have been well and truly outed - shirt lifter or not. You really are the most amazing purveyor of cr-p that ever posted on this bulletin board and are light years ahead of 411A.

You are also an arrogant sob Good post TB, logical and rational.

Why should TB care what you think of the technical merits of his post? Perhaps you were his english professor in a former life.

Please go away.

[shortly]

Ah Mole, ever read The Wind in the Willows? Are you supposed to be a caricature of that 'good old Moley'? Well you have succeeded you are one nasty Mole, maybe you come from a dimension where rudeness and stupidity are valued. Rant on. I wasn't 'scoring' TB's post just congratulating him on a very readable one. Why must disagreement mean enmity? Just because we don't have the same, at the moment, politico - industrial beliefs, it doesn't follow that we never have had or never will have. Small minded irrational people should have restricted access to keyboards.

Garhauer - 1100 union membership sure there is.
BusyB - please re-read my post, perhaps if any company offer had been accepted in and around those times the COS changes would not have been forced.
Flexible Response - I understand not all people are as honest as you but from all I have gleaned from many conversations the firings were not instigated by NR. Put yourself in the company's shoes for a moment, a long term of continuous union intransigence and action, that action mildly increased with threats of more to come, reasonable offers rejected, loads low and flights cancelled, company - to meet the then demand - over manned. To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Every brick in the wall between the AOA and the company will have to be removed eventually, know any good stone masons?

[mole]

Small minded irrational people should have restricted access to keyboards.


Exactly my point shortly now clear off.

[shortly]

Moley, if you have nothing intelligent to contribute why do you bother at all? Your child like ravings won't stop me enjoying the debate on this forum one whit.

[6feetunder]

Intelligence is in the eye of the beholder I'd say. Your sycophantic drivel brings your own intelligence into question.

[BlueEagle]

OK gentlemen, you have made your feelings known but each of you have the same rights on this BB so, please, no more exchanges of abuse or I may as well close this thread.

Thanks,

BlueEagle - Moderator

[FlexibleResponse]

Turbo Beaver said: You say there was an offer from Nick R. in principle only. Didn't know if you noticed but Nick does not have any principles. He is the guy that fired the 49ers in the first place. Dave called it on Nick's recommendation. Who do you think is running Flight Ops, not Ken? Nick told the AOA (April) in front of the Labor Board that he would just fire 20-30 Pilots and the rest will be so scared that they will tow the company line.

By National News in London.
9 October 2002
(c) 2002 South China Morning Post Publishers Limited, Hong Kong. All rights reserved.
Cathay Pacific sacked pilots en masse in July last year because they had attitude problems, an airline executive has told a hearing into an unfair dismissal claim in Britain.
Cathay's director of flight operations, Ken Barley, told the Employment Tribunal sitting in Croydon, south London, this week that he had sought legal advice before the sackings.
He had been advised the dismissals could not successfully be challenged in Hong Kong, Mr Barley said in testimony.
Mr Barley told the tribunal that the decision to dismiss the pilots was made in Hong Kong "where the purpose of several meetings (was) to review the employment history of all officers and assess their attitude towards the employer".
So it would seem that:
Some manager thought up the idea.
Some manager gave the idea the green light.
Some manager instigated the idea.

A Court observer also mentioned that it was revealed that some 25 managers and sub-managers were involved in the “Star Chamber” style “executions”.

The lives and careers of some 49 pilots and the lives of their families have been devastated. The damage has been done. The only question that still needs to be addressed is:

What is “some manager” going to do to try and fix the problem, or offer in compensation?

One would think Cathay management would start by actually talking to the AOA rather than exposing the Company’s ethical standards to the public through the necessary disclosure in the various law Courts.

Perhaps the Company could start by paying more money to "Stone Masons" rather than to Freehills?

[shortly]

Completely agree FR. I feel certain both sides, particularly the company dream of someone suggesting a facesafe way out of this quagmire. But the disputees have dug themselves in pretty deep haven't they. Wish I was smart enough to think up a solution suitable to everyone.