View Full Version : Zero Tolerance On '89. Period.

15th Dec 2002, 04:11
It is now coming up to 12 years since that year.

The major players with perhaps the odd exception are now either dead, out of business or have moved on.

You will all have your own ideas about who the above may be from your own perspective and the consequences for each and everyone from either side are now well and truly known.

The demise of Ansett and the search for reemployment is now well and truly a matter of fact.

The consequences and effects on all the participants from that event are now known.

There is little now that any of us can say or do to change the result or the minds of the participants from either side.

Each knows who the other is and they can deal with that at a personal level.

Whether it is deserved or not will be written by the historians and what they say will as is usual be debated.

PPRuNe and the Internet have demonstrated that there is now a level playing field as far as information exchange is concerned.

Everyone’s behaviour is now transparent and requires a higher level of conduct than was previously necessary, it is much harder for puffery and obfuscation to survive.

This does not mean that civility and common decency should not also prevail.

I was hoping that I would not have to take this action, however;

Until Further Notice any reference to ’89 by anyone, in other than strict historical terms or from either side aimed at the other or even by oblique reference will be deleted and if the poster continues that behaviour, he will be warned. The penalty for continual transgression will result in total banning.

I am a little tired of my inbox being full of the tit for tat, even when it may be justified.

There are too many other very important current aviation issues that need our professional attention to allow this Forum to be so further diverted.

I will not be taking prisoners.

Any one got any problems with that???

15th Dec 2002, 04:19
No problem here.

I will never mention the Newcastle earthquake again. :eek: ;)

Eastwest Loco
15th Dec 2002, 05:03
Good call Woomera

It is way past time the hatchet was buried, and preferably not in the skull of another PPruner.

Let us all get on with life.



15th Dec 2002, 06:16
I dont have a problem with Woomeras standing order.

15th Dec 2002, 08:25
Sorry Woomera, I know it is a serious subject, I just couldn't help it. ;)

Merry Christmas to all for 2002....... :D

15th Dec 2002, 08:25
Woomerra ………… this sounds like the Nazi or Japanese version of history. You cannot change the facts or history ! Like it or hate it ….. this is history !!!!!!!!
It will never go away, I was fortunate / unfortunate enough to work with many Continental / Eastern / Pan Am pilots over the years. If you in your simplistic way think that by banning reference to that horrible unmentionable year will make will make things right … god help us. Publish this and remove me from your site ….. god help us all …. Just absolutely pathetic !

Possum 15
15th Dec 2002, 08:38
You are right Snowballs. I get a very uneasy feeling. What's next, maybe the Newcastle Earthquake?
Also, EWL, the hatchet being buried implies a mutually agreed peace. Don't you mean opinions being buried?

15th Dec 2002, 09:32

I very lucky to spend much time in your very great country. I have the very great privilege to work with many wonderful great Ozzie pilots who were badly hurt by what happened in you so called unmentionable 89. You politicize this forum by banning “what you call unmentionable” This is a very very sad day indeed. Someone mention above you cannot deny history. Reconciliation is very painful and very long time if you do. How do you think younger people like self feel living with a father who think some of the tings he did we very honorable when they were a great shame to real people who care for people regardless. Honour has no price if it is honourable !

15th Dec 2002, 09:37
Excellent move Woomera. Well done!!!

Eastwest Loco
15th Dec 2002, 09:44
In the best of all worlds, a mutually agreed peace would be my preferred outcome.

I cant see it happening, however, I will live in hope.



Kaptin M
15th Dec 2002, 10:16
Yeah, it gets a bit tedious at times, but on the other hand the Internet (meaning PPRuNe, as far as pilots are concerned, finally gave us - the "Federation pilots", who were FORCED to leave Australia, if we wished to continue airline flying) the opportunity to voice OUR version of events.

And yes, PPRuNe was deluged with '89.
But the reason was we had effectively been silenced for so many years, and ONLY the version of "I did for my family" :( could at last be revealed for its fallaciousness.
At that time, almost 80% of ALL of Australia's domsetic pilots believed that the CAUSE for which they stood firm was in the interests of not only themselves, but also future pilots.
Some comments on PPrUne have really left ME wondering if the stand we took was worth it for the current pilots - I hope so.

For me personally, it cost a lot in career, personal, and monetary terms - I had to forgo my upgrade to the lhs by some 6 years, I lost three friends - one very close to me, and my family - and $$$-wise...well, water under the bridge.
In hindsight would I do it again, given the choice? YES!

Woomera, I think that Brian Mac, J.R., Holty, T. O'C, Coxy, Jimmy Bow Tie, The Silver Budgie and a few others might be astounded to learn that: The major players with perhaps the odd exception are now either dead, out of business or have moved on.

PPRuNe allowed 1989 to at last be brought out into the open, aired, and discussed.
For sure there was a lot of "effervesence", but the cork had been firmly wedged into the orifice for a loooong time!!

Thank you PPRuNe.!!

15th Dec 2002, 11:41
Well said Kaptain M,
If so many were taking part in 89 topics then its obvious there is a demand for it, Im sure the S...bs will be happy there will be no more forums. Isnt aviation about open two way communication.
Or is freedom of speach not allowed in this democracy.
Its one of the most important events in Oz avaition history, shame on thoses who cant stomach it.
I thought only the big Q banned commenting on S...bs.

15th Dec 2002, 12:10
Aviation is about learning from other peoples' experiences.

I was not far out of high school in 89 so my perspective of the dispute was courtesy of the Murdoch press.

Pprune gave a valuable insight into the views of the different parties. The experiences of 89ers, learn't from these pages, a valuable preparation for the human destruction in last years Ansett turmoil. As events unfolded the actions of management and some unsavourary individuals predictable.

Not at all taking sides but Pprune offered a balance of some sort.

15th Dec 2002, 15:35
This time with the bold more carefully applied, and please read it carefully;

Until Further Notice any reference to ’89 by anyone, in other than strict historical terms or from either side aimed at the other or even by oblique reference will be deleted and if the poster continues that behaviour, he will be warned. The penalty for continual transgression will result in total banning.


The subject itself hasn't been banned just, as usual, the personal vilification and nonstop sniping at individuals.
I'll say it again;
The demise of Ansett and the search for reemployment is now well and truly a matter of fact.

The consequences and effects on all the participants from that event are now known.

There is little now that any of us can say or do to change the result or the minds of the participants from either side.

I am not so naive as to believe that it will just go away, neither should it as a legitimate and pivotal part of our aviation history, but neither should it dominate almost every thread.

Kaptin M
PPRuNe allowed 1989 to at last be brought out into the open, aired, and discussed.
For sure there was a lot of "effervesence", but the cork had been firmly wedged into the orifice for a loooong time!!

True, and it has been a loooong time in doing so here (I think more than 5 years) as events continued to unfold to the final demise of Ansett. I don't think there are many rocks left unturned on the subject.

Oh and BTW whilst ;
"PPRuNe allowed 1989 to at last be brought out into the open, aired, and discussed"
It is worth noting that PPRuNe was not invented for the sole purpose of that discussion, although in D & G one could get that impression and neither side owns it.

I have been prepared to tolerate some of the "effervesence" from both sides, having regard for the heat in the subject.
However, discussing "body counts" on either side in terms other than as an expression of the human tragedy is not on.
Neither is the continuous slagging off, baiting and thread hijacking that has been going on.
There has been enough hurt and pain inflicted without creating more.

Well put.

Or is freedom of speach not allowed in this democracy.
Freedom of speech in a democracy also brings with it a responsibility, it doesn't include the right to vilify or abuse.

Be assured I understand exactly what you say and I agree, but behaving dishonourably in the support of an honourable cause does not serve honour.

You are just plain out of order.
Hysterical comments in the mode of some censorship conspiracy just aren't fair and mean you haven't been around here long enough.
It would be a mistake on your part were you to assume that I was "simple" or "pathetic".
I'll just choose to believe that you had a momentary lapse of judgement.

I have tried to be fair and balanced and allow both sides free reign whilst they remain civilised, but the posts in this thread suggest that I fight a losing battle, being damned if do and damned if I don’t.
So I have chosen to select Danny’s "Supreme Despot" mode until everyone settles down.
The easier option is to just shut the whole D & G Forum down and you can see how you all get on with ’89 in the Main Forum.

We are about to head into another real shooting war and unless there is a miracle of some sort, a lot of people are going to get hurt.
Neither is there any predictability as to the train of subsequent events.
We are in very uncertain times and there is no guarantee that there will not be another giant upheaval in the aviation business, both locally and internationally such as we daren't even imagine.
We live in even more interesting times.

Just give me a break will ya, I'm the one that has to fix the toys you keep throwing out of the pram.:D

Random Electron
15th Dec 2002, 21:25

I have just one question.

Are you telling us that PPRuNe now subject to censorship?

If so, well R.I.P.

NO and it never was or will be, save for libelous, slanderous, illegal or patently uncivilised or unprofessional behaviour.

I will continue to "censor", personal vituperation, thread hijacking, threats of violence death wishes and any other form of behaviour that goes beyond the pale.

If that offends you then begone, this is clearly not the Forum for you

professional adj.& n. adj. 1 of or belonginfg to or connected with a profession. 2. a having aor showingthe skill of a professional, competent b worthy of a professional (professional conduct)

profession n. 1 a vocation or calling, esp one that involves some branch of advanced learning or science.

Raw Data
15th Dec 2002, 22:27
There seems to be a misconception that PPRuNe is somehow supposed to be democratic and about free speech.

It isn't.

It is the creation of one person, who now has a lot more people helping him. He gets to make the rules (and graciously does so in consultation with other moderators), and the rules are the rules (and not open to interpretation).

I don't always agree with the rules, but I absolutely agree with the right of the boss to make and enforce them. All who use this board should respect his wishes.

If you want to keep on endlessly dredging up past (alleged) injustices and (alleged) unfairness, why not start your own BBS where you can argue about it until the cows come home (although even cows would no doubt be sent to sleep by it all). It would never have many members, but it would spare the rest of us the bickering.

It was a bad time, but individuals made their beds, etc. As the Americans say- "get over it" or "get past it".

15th Dec 2002, 23:34
PPRuNe is certainly not without censorship .. that is one of the roles of the mods and admins. However, from what I see, in general and in D&G in particular, the level of censorship is VERY muted and restrained except when things start to get a little too far over the top.

Danny et al appear to be accommodating and accepting in this regard .. we are all very fortunate to have this site as a vehicle for discussion ... BUT ... there is a responsibility to be a little bit circumspect at times ... both in regard to normal civility and the potential for litigation at the other end of the Kangaroo Route.

While I have no involvement with D&G other than as an interested bystander, I think it is fair to suggest that the Woomera team collectively exercises extreme restraint at times ... in regard to the unpleasantness of '89 ... something along the lines of occasional posts trying the patience of Saints comes to mind .....

Richard Kranium
16th Dec 2002, 00:00
As I see it, the issue would not have surfaced at all, if not for that "list"and so denying opportunities to those on that list to obtain another flying job after the Ansett collapse...there are people on that list that had nothing to do with the events described are on, others as by the rules of the perpetrators of that list should be on and are not, the bitterness come out because of the "get even" factor perpetuated by those who lost by the event of 13 years ago and channelled it at the wrong people, I say the easy targets, we all know which airlines around Asia the Middle East and of course Australia who won't look at certain people, and why.....? we know why!! This is why it raised its ugly head Woomera, until we can get on with life and find another flying job without this discrimination, it will never go away.......:confused:

Push it real good
16th Dec 2002, 03:04
Captain M

While I salute your dedication to the cause, I think the price you paid was way too high for the ideal. Really a family, mates and career.....

Take a step back look at the scenario in a non emotional light.

The workers tried to screw the airline and in turn the public. The game plan was flawed as was the size of the ambit claim.

The gamble failed, you lost right or wrong .. and the workers got screwed.... Live by the sword-die by the sword.

Now if this was a gamble at the race track I doubt you would still be bitter about it. Learn and move on.

To say you would do it again, knowing the out come is ludicrous.


16th Dec 2002, 03:35
The purpose of this thread was to reiterate a continuation or hardening up of what has always been our policy in regard to ANY subject, not to start another discussion.

'89 is very obviously and will remain, a very open wound for many of us for a long time.

It is NOT my job to decide which way or who was right, other than keep it under the bounds of civilised control.

It is NOT my intention to debate the issue, nor is it necessary for ME to be convinced of the "rightness or not" of either case.

My ONLY job is to keep it civil and within the bounds of decency required by the rules and the "Ten Thingies".

I am closing this thread because it is already starting up again, if you want to continue the discussion then you know how it's done.

I would invite you to reflect on john_tullamarine and Raw Datas ' posts.
They are both experienced and respected Moderators in their respective Forums.

18th Dec 2002, 01:08
From the poll it looks like Im soon on the way out of D&G anyway so Ill have my last burst here.

THE point about the 89 War was that NOTHING, I repeat NOTHING was learned by the general Oz masses as to

(a) the true corruptive practices of the politicians involved and the potential of further corruption in any future government

(b) how big business and big government together can hide essential truths in any conflict. The masses STILL dont know nor believe how Murdochs media and the Hawke Government had pre-planned a cover story to directley blame the AFAP if Lot Polish hadve gone in while flying MEL-PER-MEL route.

(c) finding out the FACTS by delving further than what the popular media would have you believe. It CAN be done. One just needs to look

(d) how the Oz Constitution means absolutley nothing to big government so long as the citizens are kept ignorant as to its transgressions. And Hawke wasnt the first. There have been 18 prior transgressions in the 20th century alone

(e) how the popular media are selective in order to twist the story the way it wants it presented (thats why McCarthy was never seen clearley to define what exactley was the Feds position in the early weeks. It was simpley edited out

(f) why the industrial situation in many areas of employment is the way it is 13 years later.

Push-it-real-good's line The workers tried to screw the airline and in turn the public... being the perfect example of a, b, c, e.

THAT is the tragedy of 89. In any conflict that wrecks lives, the whole event would have some benefit if valuable lessons were learned and true facts searched-for and uncovered. Sadley in this case, NOTHING was learned. Even more tragic, NO ONE CARES which is why the Oz industrial front in general continues its downward spiral and will continue to do so. These are reasons why Ive never made comment in earlyer threads about Kendells, ANZ, etc. The outcome of these conflicts were totaly predictable. And they are why Ive always maintained its a total waste of breath talking about 89 to the general masses. So its not arragance (like some of the Unwashed accuse me of) but of practicality.

The 'scabs vs good guys' is more an in-house fight than a public war. The general non-aviation masses have no business getting involved takin sides. They dont have enough informed knowledge to do so either way. This is why Ive attacked scabs with the full ferocity they deserve in D&G but have been less verbose with everyone else who sides either way.

So, do I think talk of 89 should be banned in D&G? You bet I do!

18th Dec 2002, 04:23
There might be some here who've read George Orwell's landmark classic '1984", where the hero in the book is employed by 'Big Brother' (the government of the day) to constantly re-write history to suit Big Brother's current policies and alliances.

From what Woomera has come up with here with his zero tolerance policy, there might be some here who might think that Orwell was five years early in his choice of titles for his book.

Slasher has pretty well said it all - it'll never go away as long as two of the remaining protagonists are drawing beath. There are quite a few ex-AN pilots who have recently moved overseas who have discovered this uncomfortable truth after 12 years (for many of them, it would seem) of believing otherwise.

To those who weren't involved and who are 'bored' by 1989 or don't understand how deep the passions run, pray to God you never do understand, for the only way you ever will is to be dragged through something similar yourselves.

Kaptin M
18th Dec 2002, 09:46
As Wiley said, To those who weren't involved and who are 'bored' by 1989 or don't understand how deep the passions run, pray to God you never do understand, for the only way you ever will is to be dragged through something similar yourselves

"to be dragged through something similar" means to have the very roots of what you were taught by your parents, church, and a free, democratic society, challenged.

If - as an Australian..or Brit, or American - you had had instilled in your psyche to "do the right thing", "love your neighbour", "do unto others (as you would have them do unto YOU"), "be honest", and believe "that good triumphs over evil", then 1989 under Hawke. Abeles, Kelty, Murdoch and their cronies - using the strength of their POSITIONS, the POWER of the MEDIA, and the LURE of GREED - challenged OUR basal, fundamental beliefs.

THAT was the REAL reason so many (approx. 80%) pilots resisted, in unison, for so long!

I doubt that that BASIC BELIEF is any less relevant today, than it was 13 - or 130 years - ago!

18th Dec 2002, 11:04
Hmmm!...Interesting , this censorship thing isn't it?
Over the years when a Japanese delegation, of some sort or another, has visited our shores and indicated a wish to lay a wreath at one of our war memorials, or show some other sign of reconcilliation re the conflict of 39' to 45',the RSL has usually indicated that this just aint on!
And we all knew why!...and we all agreed!...except that is for the tree huggers and bleeding hearts that will always blight our society with the nonsence they go on about.

I would have thought that the people who frequent these pages could handle themselves and their emotions a little better than the tree huggers and bleeding hearts mentioned above and not insist on anything that "upsets" them being banned, and, I gather from Woomera's comments, besieging him with their requests for him to take some action!

I mean, are we talking about men or mice here?

If you don't like what is written then say so...like a man!
Don't winge...like a wimp!

...and don't hide behind censorship!!

18th Dec 2002, 22:55
Good grief, the tree huggers are getting to all walks of life.

This is an AVIATION FORUM, we talk mostly about AVIATION.

If '89 isn't about AVIATION, I must be on a different rock from the Sun

There have been some who like CXXX who pushed the edges a bit for his own amusement, or is his last bit a smokescreen to hide his arrival in foreign parts?

There are those who scream about a list, which list?
The first one stopped me and many others from being employed in Aust after March 1990, and was backed up by "the Letter" which said we were unsafe to be in the same cockpit. The so called second one identifies those who produced it by direct association or consent.

If you dont believe the ramifications of '89 are still being felt in ALL walks of life you are really under a cabbage leaf.

The only people who can gain from this "ban" are those who wish to hide past sins and omissions in their miserable lives from decent people who had and still hold principles and integrity above the short term gain.

Woomera, I am dissapointed in the process, ban the rude, racist and others who step over the line but don't do an Orwall and try to rearrange history by suppressing the facts.



19th Dec 2002, 04:43
There is no ban on discussing 1989 per se. Personally, I do find it interesting to see the "back room" politics. What I don't really want to read is the "tit for tat" name calling that goes on. That is tiresome to me.
More discussion of the political machinations and skullduggery and less "name calling" and I'd be happy.

19th Dec 2002, 05:00
OK I'll try just one more time.


Until Further Notice any reference to ’89 by anyone, in other than strict historical terms or from either side aimed at the other or even by oblique reference will be deleted and if the poster continues that behaviour, he will be warned. The penalty for continual transgression will result in total banning.

I'll even deconstruct it for you,

"in other than strict historical terms" = stick to the subject and events, not the man.

"or from either side aimed at the other or even by oblique reference" = no names, personal vituperation, thread hijacking, threats of violence, death wishes and any other form of behaviour that goes beyond the pale.

That does NOT say '89 is banned, or censored.

It never was or will be, save for libelous, slanderous, illegal or patently uncivilised or unprofessional behaviour.

I will continue to "censor", personal vituperation, thread hijacking, threats of violence death wishes and any other form of behaviour that goes beyond the pale = regardless of the literary quality of the post or the validity of the information contained therein, any slagging off in the post, will cause the whole post to be deleted.

So think carefully when you post, I know how much time it takes to prepare a quality post, don't waste all that time to have it deleted.

My moderating time is precious enough, without spending it editing posts for PPRuNers who simply cant be bothered thinking them through, who just shoot from the hip, or are being just plain mischievous

Oh and FYI the Thread and Post validation mode on this forum is turned OFF, for your convenience.

What does that mean for you the PPRuNer?
It means that this Forum unlike many others inc. AOPA, operates in real time, that is, you post a topic thread and it appears as soon as you hit "enter". = for your convenience and ease of use, without the DELAY of "validation" by a Moderator, when he is available.
It's because we trust you to be as balanced and professional in your conduct here as you are in your work and life.

What does that mean for me the Moderator?
It means I gotta play catch up, hard, if one of you decides to take a "walk on the wildside" = It would be much easier for all PPRuNe moderators to "validate" or "approve" EACH individual Thread and Post "before" it hits the Board, thus heading off any potential problems. = as Moderating is a voluntary labour it means when I find the time.
Think about it.
THAT is censorship, and is a mode that we ALL want to avoid, but it is an alternative available should the behaviour here become such that we need to protect the owners who provide you this opportunity GRATIS.

Never ever ever forget, it is GRATIS, even if you choose not to support us.

PPRuNe does not owe you anything other than an opportunity for ALL to compare notes on what is happening in YOUR world.

If that offends you then begone, this is clearly not the Forum for you

professional adj.& n. adj. 1 of or belonginfg to or connected with a profession. 2. a having or showingthe skill of a professional, competent b worthy of a professional (professional conduct)

profession n. 1 a vocation or calling, esp one that involves some branch of advanced learning or science.[

19th Dec 2002, 07:46
...er!...can you give that to me in english please Woomera?

19th Dec 2002, 09:01
Okay Woomera what’s the story?

You have a big issue with how some people decide to approach the issue of 89. I provide a forum where those discussions can take place unrestricted and you remove the thread that points to it!

The forum that the post points to in non commercial, is set up specifically for a subject that you don't want here, and is not promoted anywhere other than here.

So why did the thread get moved?

I am not in competition to PPRuNe, I was simply trying to solve a long and ongoing problem that I know from observation has haunted the moderators here for years, so do you actually want to solve it?

If so how about you restore the thread, make it sticky, and if people really want to "unload" they will know where to do it.

Keen to hear your reaction :D

PPRuNe Towers
19th Dec 2002, 09:20
Despite Woomera's repeated attemts to clarify the situation for those determined not to understand this thread still continues along predictable lines.

History - personal and factual yes - abuse never.

Recent case law in Australia, for those of you following the press, exposes me and Danny even further than ever before. Our names and addresses are a matter of public record for us to be able to run this site for you.

Every time one of you presses the submit button our houses and livelhoods ride on the contents you transmit. The level of abuse and invective regarding '89 puts us in the position of knowing that someone will take us to the courts. However, they can't argue with facts so they are entirely welcome.

We happen to think that the Woomera team is the single most effective and tolerant one anywhere on the site. Since giving you the multiple forums we in the UK have allowed them to run their own ship entirely unhindered but Danny and I are putting the Australian forums on notice.

Ignore the policies created by your own, local moderators and Danny and I will take it personally. Australian case law and precedent now endangers our personal liberty and freedom more than any other country in the world.

Any of you willing to lose your home just so one foreigner can slag off another??

Regards from the Towers
Rob Lloyd

Eastwest Loco
19th Dec 2002, 13:15
Very to the point an erudite Rob.

The guts of what Rob and Woomera are saying is - leave it alone - it causes friction - it is over - cease and desist.

Not one of us has or had conrol over '89 so for God's sake - let it rest as the past.

Sure many in the airlines were hurt, some went back, some stayed, some came back - but they were all personal decisions with personal driving factors.

Look at the big picture. Mate was set against mate by Government and big business and unfortunately they won. Even goundies like me were massively affected and our lives changed for ever. Aim hate and rhetoric at the bodgie and fat man and leave each other alone. Those that went back would have suffered massive internal conflict as well.

It is over - over - over - and please do not let a 13 year old dispute hurt our friends and mentors here at PPrune.

I would like those PPruners who frequent this place to think very hard, and say that they will at least tolerate each other and try hard to bury the past in respect for Rob, Woomera, Danny and everyone else in the aviation community.

I am but a lowly groundhog, but love this industry far too much to stand by and watch the heroes of a generation fight with one another over something that was nobodys fault (at least a our level). You are airmen - proud and strong - for God's sake show your strength of character.

Get over it guys, now - otherwise Hawke and Abeles are still winning.

THAT is something that makes me feel sick to the stomach.

They must NOT be allowed to win. At least I outlived one of the [email protected] and will not miss the other when he departs.

My vote is in - YES to tolerance.



Buster Hyman
20th Dec 2002, 07:15
Lets go back to bagging Collingwood or the Kiwis!!!

:D :D :D :D :D

20th Dec 2002, 09:01
Why on Earth would you want to bag Collingwood. :confused:

He just got a Century this evening against Sri Lanka..... ;) :D

20th Dec 2002, 19:27
If you dont like the rules- leave, simple as that, no argument, start your own forum -whatever , the choice is yours. Thats freedom of choice, look it up sometime.

Kaptin M
20th Dec 2002, 23:08
EWL, 1989 the year is over - in that respect you are quite correct.
Unfortunately however, those that did the dirty on the the then encumbants, are AGAIN trying to practise their same rotten, underhanded tactics NOW.
read this post for further details:

And people wonder WHY the word "scab" is used!
It was used in the correct context in 1989, and applied to a very small percentage (by 2001) of pilots working in Australia`s 2 domestic airlines - Ansett, and QANTAS domestic (QANDOM) [previously Australian, previously TAA].
In spite of much bleating about the "scab" tag given them, and the oft used "I did it for my family" line, they are at it AGAIN - no doubt with the "I`m doing it for my family.", or perhaps"We will do it for less than those greedy pilots there now".

So you see East-West , those SAME people who actively destroyed the careers and personal lives of others 13 years ago, are HELL BENT on proving YOU (and I could add The Night Owl as well) WRONG.

History attempting to repeat itself.
Fortunately we have PPRuNe today, which allows everyone REAL TIME input and extraction of ongoing events.

23rd Dec 2002, 12:04

My initial reaction to your post was to be very concerned about censorship but reading the decision by the High Court on Joseph Gutnick's action against Dow Jones I recognise, just as Danny and Rob do, that any suggestion that the internet is free of constraints is entirely untrue.

I will miss however the rants and arrant nonsence that correspondents on '89 have posted, Slasher's on this topic being a prime example.

The media knows all about the Slashers of the world, they usually come out about Christmas time, it's not called the silly season for nothing. They do provide great entertainment and that I will miss.

And if I may be permitted to distill the history we are dealing with to basics it goes like this - A union (select one - AFAP, MUA, BLF, British miners, British printers) entered into a dispute with employers/government (select as many as required - airlines/Patricks/Bob Hawke/John Howard/Margaret Thatcher) over work, pay and conditions. The union lost.

No amount of words or actions on the part of any individual or group can possibly change that outcome.

23rd Dec 2002, 15:09
To tsnake (thats come out of the hole)
Since we have to stick to history as such :i dont beleive its fair to compare the BLF and others mentioned with the AFAP.
Historical events were not the same and/or the actions (violent demonstrations or acts on others) that were events of the other union disputes.
As far as unions always losing goes, the unions of Lufthansa, Air France ,British airways ,Delta etc etc. would beg to differ.
If they didnt have unions theyd all be flying on Impulse,Air Bruni
Maylasian,Britania, etc, etc conditions.
Maybe if the dispute was not brought on, Ansett may not have eventually collapsed?? maybe that can be a forum topic.

3 Holer
24th Dec 2002, 00:27
East West Loco You have raised a very valid point and some food for thought.Get over it guys, now - otherwise Hawke and Abeles are still winning. Hawke and Abeles despised the collective Pilot group. They set about to divide the Pilots for their own political and corporate gain back in '89.

To see this division still in place after 13 years must be very satisfying for Bob Hawke and Abeles is probably being showered with the Devil's accolades down there in Hell.

25th Dec 2002, 10:28

My intent was to attempt to draw a parallel between the actions of various unions and govts/business and to define the 89 dispute as not unique or particularly significant in the scheme of things without commenting on the tactics used by some, none of which I condone.

My only caveat about BA is that while BALPA may have "won", Rod Eddington is still cutting jobs like mad.

Your point as to whether or not the dispute was the cause or even instrumental in the ultimate collapse of Ansett is a very interesting one but it would probably bring the lunatic fringe out into the open again and Woomera wouldn't like that, or me for that matter. Anyway here goes.

For what its worth I think the dispute was only a small, but very visible part of the problem.

Two events stand out in my mind as pivotal in the demise of the company, the first being Reg Ansett's refusal to give his son Bob a job in the airline in 1965 thus telling the world he had no succession plan (I hold no brief for Bob and I suspect he would have junked Ansett just as he did Budget Rent-a-Car) and secondly, Reg's disastrous involvement in Associated Securities in the mid-70's when he did possibly as much as $500m cold when the property market collapsed.

Trevor Sykes (the Financial Review's Pierpoint), in his book Two Centuries of Panic, makes a case, well before the collapse, that the airline was in terminal decline after 1979.

But then I would also have to consider the fleet decisions of the early 1980s including 767s with f/e's, Compass I and II, the GST, the passenger downturn of the mid-70s which delayed the introduction of widebodied a/c until the 1980s, the refusal of News Limited to fund fleet replacements in the 1990s, going to a three-class domestic cabin following TAA's business class, the ill-fated foray into international routes and the extraordinary decision to pour $20m into Sydney Olympic Games sponsorship and then letting QF hijack the whole thing!

There's probably a book in this lot but no one's interested in picking over the AN carcass any more.

26th Dec 2002, 06:56
Ya whatever, I wont be reading the book if its comes out.
Its a shame that Sir Peter didnt live to see the demise of Ansett.

26th Dec 2002, 11:22

We (ATC) has our own dispute back in 1989. I for one believe that the consolidation of sectors out of Sydney had as much to do with industrial payback as it did with the mighty dollar. Even today, I think that some managers are still out for revenge, but then again I suppose one's viepoint depends on which side of the fence one sits on.

Why not have a separate D&G 89 arena, like the D&G Reporting Points, D&G Aircrew Notices, D&G General Aviation and D&G Questions. I for one wouldn't visit or play in the arena, but others may choose to do so for "sport" or any other reasons.

This option allows those that want to partake the opportunity to do so without censureship and you (as moderator) can move any ill- or mis-placed posts into the correct are(n)a.

For consideration.


26th Dec 2002, 13:27

Thank you very much for your thoughts

From Danny;
PPRuNe started out as a hobby but has grown into an organisation dedicated to providing the ability for anyone with an interest and something worthwhile to say, a platform directly to the people who make the aviation world go round. Use it but please don't abuse it. It can be addictive, so be warned!

I had forgotten about your own dispute and PPRuNe is available to both sides and is dedicated to providing the platform for discussion of the effects of that one as well.

Now as distinct from then, the agenda can not be controlled by whoever has the most influence or access to spin doctors. :rolleyes:

For spin doctors the internet has become their greatest blessing, at the same time as their greatest curse and defrocker.

You can get your point out and may in fact be able to influence the thinking of the decision makers and others who monitor these halls, at least the smart ones who do anyway.

The effective use of this very important and respected international Forum for your point of view, demands that it continue to be respectful of each others view and professional in behaviour lest it be consigned as an irrelevancy.

For that to happen, a little restraint is called for some times, in order that the discussion does not degenerate into a slanging match and turn off for everyone.

D & G '89 has been tried already, without unforunately a noticeable reduction in emails, writs or angst.

PPRuNe Dunnunda and its various long suffering mderators has never censored in the manner that is apparently felt here, incorrectly by definition in fact, i.e. "to try and impose our view of the world or subject." by supporting one side or 'tother.
We have recieved about equal numbers of emails accusing us of
supporting the others, so we must getting it about right.

Some of those that do, often confuse censorship with propaganda = an organised programme of publicity, selected information etc., used to propagate a doctrine, practise etc.

Sorry haven't got the time, inclination or smarts for that one.

censure = criticise harshly; reprove; expression of diapproval
(often confused with censor = an official authorised to examine printed matter or media before public release, and to suppress any parts on the grounds of obscenity, public decency, and in PPRuNe parlance, anything likely to be defamatory, slanderous or libelous )
absolutely yes, those who cross the bounds of decency and obscenity

Unfortunately some of those who have been censured, confuse that action with censorship/propaganda.

Enough of semantics.

We do not need another D & G '89er forum, all that can and needs to be discussed, can be done here.

You can and should discuss and/or bring to our attention any matter that effects us in aviation, there will be no censorship beyond the above, nor any attempt to manipulate the discussion for propaganda purposes,

Your argument or point must stand on its own and you should expect even welcome an alternative point of view. That's how we all learn about each other and negotiate a solution.

You can expect censure should you step beyond the pale, and we all know the Lat. 'n Long. of that place:D

A very fresh example, if I may, of how really difficult it is, to know exctly where that Lat. 'n Long. is.
I bought Mrs Woomera (of 30 years, a happy marriage, despite including the usual war, pestilence and famine) a personalised number plate for her new car, as one of her Christmas presents.
Sorta Harry Potter thingy and a recognition of her parenting and husbandry skills. :D She also has a quirky and fun sense of humour, I thought, as well as the respect and love of our friends for the way she has brought up her husband and children.:D

It was witty enough, I thought, but being a serial coward, I took the precaution of checking it out with our adult daughters, son and close friends who all thought it was very clever, funny and so her. So far so good.
So Christmas eve comes, down to the Licensing centre to collect the new plates and return the old.
Tomorrow, unless I am given a last minute reprieve, it will be down to the Licensing centre to retrieve the old plates and put the new ones in storage.

Moral of the story, you only think you know what others may think or do, even when you have been together all those years.

Think about it.:cool::)

28th Dec 2002, 09:01
Yep "CENSORSHIP" at it's best I feel!!!!!!!!! :D

Typical Ozzie reaction with the support of "the towers". If you can't educate (or can't be bothered) BAN IT/LEGISLATE THEIR RIGHTS AWAY, very Australian.


So now if I'm born in '89, was in Oz in '89, mention '89, drink an '89 red or any other [email protected]#$%ing thing to do with '89 I'm subject to "censorship"

Woomera you can put it anyway you like it is CENSORSHIP, like the forces on active duty or in jail. Every letter is opened and vetted.

If you had any balls you would just delete the offenders and say nothing, to stir the subject up like you have done in this post smacks of a lack of integrity.

OK I'm off to the sin bin, I've said my bit! ;) :D :rolleyes:

28th Dec 2002, 09:15

I don't know which planet you've been on all this time but you must have been absent the day they did the English Comprehension bit of the curriculum.:rolleyes:

And no, I'm not going to bin you, I'll let you twist in the breeze.:(

28th Dec 2002, 13:57
Got it in one Woomera, failed "Angerlash" miserably at HSC level but no one to my knowledge has yet decided that anyone even me needs an "A" With Distinction to sit in the front of a 21st Century Jet!

Who in there right mind would consider any decision made by an Australian Court would be not only just but correct?
However unfortunately we are "saddled" with their stupidity.

It doesn't mean we have to agree with it.

What happened to freedom of speech?

Give the guys some slack and jump on the "[email protected]#$&*%^s" :D :D

29th Dec 2002, 11:49
An objective history of the dispute by Alex Paterson is available on the web.
Appendices include a short history of the AFAP's predecessor, the Australian Air Pilots Association lead by former WW2 RAAF pilot Dick Holt.


30th Dec 2002, 13:35

I'm always happy to take part in intelligent debate, but that is just PARC backwards!!!

Alex Patterson has a very definite point of view caused by being directly involved in ONE side of the dispute.

He is about as objective as Goering was on the holocaust.

31st Dec 2002, 03:28
I am a little suprised that Alex Patterson would be reccommended as an objective information provider of that time.
Quixote, that is not all the information said website provides.
I'm with Wizofoz, this viewpoint is lopsided

2nd Jan 2003, 04:31
Back to the actual thread topic....

Got to say, good call. I find '89 topics occasionally interesting (like the majority, I wasn't involved on either side), but the usual accompanying comments range from boring (self-interest or snide comments) to unacceptable (pure vitriol minus any content).

To Voltaire ("I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to my death your right to say it"), I'd add "but nobody should either have to have it forced down their throat, or be forced to wade through it to get to any interesting stuff".

Good move Woomera, say I.:)

6th Jan 2003, 19:24
Well said Cheers Q :D