89 what is it really about

[Zorg]

I have been reading many posts on Pprune for some time now and almost every one where a debate is involved has some reference to the 89 dispute. I am in my early 20's thus I was too young to have a clue what was going on. I'm wanting to know what was the conflict about and what happened. What I don't want to do is start a debate or conflict just concerned with the facts.
Look forward to hearing about the topic that everybody has an opinion on apart from me :)

[dingo084]

ZORG

This is a RUMOUR network, facts have no place in it.

Besides the 'facts' you seek will depend on through who's eyes they are seen. Expect those eyes to be a bit blurry given the passing of many years from said event.

The usual suspects may now pour forth with their "facts", better still....................CLICK

Ding

[Ang737]

Have a look into the two airline policy the Hawke labour government introduced. You will able to find some facts in that...

[Wizofoz]

????????

You mean the two-airline policy the Hawke goverment REVOKED

The two airline policy was introduced just after WW2!

[Mr. Hat]

Zorg sorry for hijacking but I have a question which I think is related.


Can someone in very simple terms explain to me the situation on pilot unions in Australia. Correct me if I'm wrong but there was a stage when all pilots were under one union right?..and then at some stage this stopped.. was this 89 or was it before?

From my perspective pilots seem to have little power when it comes to management....and what is the go with enterprise barganing? The people I know have been involved just rolled their eyes at it.

Not a wind up - I know bits and pieces just wondering if someone can shed some light on this stuff for me.

:confused:

[Ang737]

My apologises wizofoz I believe it was the Truman government that introduced the two airline policy making a duopoly in teh Australian industry. It was the Hawke government that started the ball rolling to de-regulate the industry and bring in o/s competition. Correct me if I'm wrong...

[OzExpat]

Might be safer to do a topic search in PPRuNe for any subject that includes "89" or "1989". There's been PLENTY written here in the last few years that I've been registered here.

[Blue Hauler]

Ang737

…I believe it was the Truman government that introduced the two airline policy making a duopoly in teh Australian industry…

Wasn’t Harry Truman a US President? When did we vote him in? :eek:

[Ang737]

Good point. Evident I don't know too much about the strike. I was 13 at the time but hey no excuse. I wrote a paper on it for uni last year, the memory evades me....

I might try Robert Menzies....

[emeritus]

ZORG...at the time of the dispute I had been a pilot with Ansett for more than 25 years and was very proud to be an employee of a great company. You ask "what was it about"? The Hawke Govt had decided that the "Two Airline Policy" had to go and competition was the go. Abeles and Murdoch did not want to compete with a "VB style" airline so cheaper aircrew costs were one of many options considered essential. A short time previosly a Mr Icahn had been successful in sacking the Continental Airlines pilots and telling them that they could reapply for their jobs the following week on a "different " contract. So that was to be the go. Basically they succeeded but it was expected to be over in 2 weeks but not so. Then the media started to smell an agenda and the rests history...Do your own research,stick to known facts.I was amazed at the amount of "psychological warfare" involved. If reading the papers of the time ,do so with regard to the fact that Murdoch owned about 90% of the media. Suggest you visit Alex Patersons website.."Pilots perspective of the 1989 australian pilots dispute"..and in particular App 1..Minutes of meeting in Hawkes office on 15 Aug 1989 (app8 days before the dispute started)...Remember the old saying...those that forget the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them...particularly when it comes to the ACTU...I wish you well.

[DIVINE WIND]

LIKE EMERITUS SAYS,DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH. THESE UNFORTUNATE BLOKES FAILED TO DO THIS BY RESIGNING AS THE UNION REALLY HAD JACK SH*T WHEN IT CAME TO BARGAINING POWER.ASKING FOR A 27% RAISE WAS NOT SOMETHING THAT YOU COULD POSSIBLY EXPECT PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR IN SOMETHING THAT WAS ONCE SEEN AS A GLAMOROUS CAREER.
DIRTY GAMES WERE IN ORDER FROM HAWKE AND ABLES, HANDING OUT AUSSIE TICKETS TO ANY OUTSIDER WHO COULD TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IT.
LIKE IT HAS BEEN SAID IN THIS POST,THE MEDIA DID NOT WANT THE TRUTH ANYWAY.
BAD DAYS, WITH MANY GUYS STILL FAILING TO MOVE ON!

IF YOU KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE UNION THEN YOU WILL SEE THAT THEY HAD IT COMING FROM YEARS OF ABUSE AND TOOK ALOT OF PEOPLE DOWN WITH THE TITANIC.:(

[robair]

At the time I was doing my CPL theory training and an Ansett capt was teachung us.
The main issue was The job security concerns over the de-regulation of the industry, and the prospect that salaries may drop as a result of this. There was also same safety concerns they had as well.
But as usual the press got their side of it and made the pilots out to be greedy pigs or wanting an increase of thier allready huge salaries:mad:
The sad thing poeple in this country are stupid enough to believe what the press say!:mad:
But at the end of the day, it ws a poorly handled dispute by the union that was meant to protect its members, and alot of good poeple either lost their careers or had them severly hurt.:(
I hope that helps you and I am suprised that your question has not attracted more hot headed responses then what I have seen:O

[topend3]

it amazes me that the pilot union of the time (AFAP) successfully held a gun to the unions head and managed to force the introduction of flight engineer's station on the DC-9 and later the 767, a dedicated 2 crew airliner which the union s forced ansett to modify...

[PLovett]

Zorg

Last year ABC Radio National did a 2 part series on the '89 strike. From memory it was part of the BACKGROUND BRIEFING series.

The programs interviewed many of the players involved, it explained the background to the strike, the effect it had on the pilots and the hardships they faced at the time and the lasting effect it has had on aviation in this country.

A search of the ABC's web site may prove useful as a lot of their programs are transcribed and available on the website. If not, then a query to them may produce a result.

[megle2]

Divine Wind

Your post just about sums it up!

Lets move on and close this topic down - too much grief.

[Random Electron]

Zorg.

You can get the whole sordid story if you look at Alex Patterson's web site devoted to the subject.

Alex was a pilot affected by this dispute, and I know of no pilot who did not 'cross the line' so to speak, who would alter one word of Alex's account.

Find it all at:-

http://www.vision.net.au/~apaterson/aviation/pd89_introduction.htm

I believe it to be a hanging offence on PPRuNe to advertise this web page, so, subject to the wrath of Woomera, this reply will probably be scrubbed.

I hope you see it before then.

Good hunting.

R.E.

[emeritus]

Zorg...my apologies..I have no desire to hijack your subject but "topend3" made erroneous statements in his post that I feel should be corrected.

Firstly the DC9 was delivered as a 2 crew aircraft and was never set up to have a Flt Eng... AFAP policy at the time was to have a F/E on all jet a/c and after unsucessfully endevouring to implement this policy eventually abandoned the exercise.

As for the B767 ,it was originally built as a 3 crew a/c and was operated as a 3 crew by launch customers Delta and United albeit only a very few. At that time Boeing still believed in the 3 crew concept however Airbus came out with the A300 with only 2 crew and Boeing had no option but to follow,however quite a few of the early a/c including Ansetts were still hardwired for 3 crew.
Ansetts a/c were built as 3 crew after Abeles set up a joint committee to examine the issue and reccomended 3 crew....one could hardly describe that as having been "forced".

Methinks topend3's post was more about union bashing than enlightening the masses