News blamed for Ansett collapse
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well in that case you admire a scab, because under the definitionpropagated by the guy from Tassie, half the bother (and I mean bother not brother)team whose names I have forgotten, anyone who applied or negotiated prior to the AFAP giving the all clear, is a scab
Incidentally, I was never AN. 737 with the other side and then 767.
I lay a few baits to test the integrity of the system and it is found wanting fron time to time.
And the melee was real and the only reasonyouwere rejected KM. I'll be saying no more than that. It is not my intention to get involved in a tit for tat.
It seems that I may have been hoping for too much if I expected humility from you regardless of the fact that you slandered others here fromtime to time. That's OK. I'm assured by a couple who copped that crap that every dog has its day.
Bye bye. no more from me.
Incidentally, I was never AN. 737 with the other side and then 767.
I lay a few baits to test the integrity of the system and it is found wanting fron time to time.
And the melee was real and the only reasonyouwere rejected KM. I'll be saying no more than that. It is not my intention to get involved in a tit for tat.
It seems that I may have been hoping for too much if I expected humility from you regardless of the fact that you slandered others here fromtime to time. That's OK. I'm assured by a couple who copped that crap that every dog has its day.
Bye bye. no more from me.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Considering, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, that Kap NEVER signed ANYTHING, the definition is open to speculation!
I call scab anyone that went back, signed a contract, and flew again during the period so nominated.
Then there are the Opportunists.
And I suppose, under the definition (which I do NOT subscribe to) that you cannot call Wiltshire, King, and other NON-RESIGNEE'S scabs, because they never resigned, never signed a new contract (they may well have had to agree to a new contract; I am not sure).
It's all a mute point. I talk who I talk to, and ignore who I ignore. I once had a former mate come to my house that scabbed, trying to mend the bridges he burnt. It was the tensest moment of my life, and undoubtedly his, but I let him in, sat down, had a talk, and watched him leave. The anger was SEETHING in me, but I held my tongue; I stood firm. He tried apologising, but I simply said "You made your bed". I refused to shake his hand. Someone who couldn't make it beyond F/O in the old system became Capt. in under a year. How very sad times were, and maybe still are.
Test the "system" all you like. We all have differing opinions on that matter.
I call scab anyone that went back, signed a contract, and flew again during the period so nominated.
Then there are the Opportunists.
And I suppose, under the definition (which I do NOT subscribe to) that you cannot call Wiltshire, King, and other NON-RESIGNEE'S scabs, because they never resigned, never signed a new contract (they may well have had to agree to a new contract; I am not sure).
It's all a mute point. I talk who I talk to, and ignore who I ignore. I once had a former mate come to my house that scabbed, trying to mend the bridges he burnt. It was the tensest moment of my life, and undoubtedly his, but I let him in, sat down, had a talk, and watched him leave. The anger was SEETHING in me, but I held my tongue; I stood firm. He tried apologising, but I simply said "You made your bed". I refused to shake his hand. Someone who couldn't make it beyond F/O in the old system became Capt. in under a year. How very sad times were, and maybe still are.
Test the "system" all you like. We all have differing opinions on that matter.
Last edited by Romeo Tango Alpha; 1st Sep 2004 at 11:52.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Romeo Alpha Tango,
I said that I would say no more on this matter, and I am not about to comment on whether KM was involved in abrawl or not. That has been established.
However, you need correction on a few points. I nevr said he signed a contract. I said the definiition included 'appliedor negotiated' and he clearly did both.
Now not accepting the definition, and suggesting he isn't one of those because you don't accept it, , is a little like
Groucho Marx saying ' Ihave my principles; if you dont like them, I have others'. The easiest person to whom you can justify anything is yourself.
And incidentally, it is a 'moot' point, not a 'mute ' point, 'moot' meaning 'debatable', and 'mute' meaning 'silent',or without speech. And another. Anyone WHO went back, not anyone that etc. 'That' is used for animals and inanimate objects. Yes, yes, I know anyone who went back is an animal.
If you are going to enter into discussion with me, please be a little more grammatically correct. Typos can be excused, poor use of the language cannot!
I definitely won't be commenting further either on KM or your violationof the language.
Oh, and I had a friend who didn't go/come back to work as well,and he came to my house some timeearly in 1990, wishing to apologize also. Like you, I let him in,and listened to what he had to say. We had a beer or two. He tooapologized with tears i n his eyes, but for his own stupidity, and the need to leave Astralia and work overseas. In spite of that, we remain close friends, and go to the footy when he's in town. He's a 777 capt a nd has been for a few years, something I could never have hoped to achieve by returning to work.
Soyou see for every horrible, nasty story, there is a contrary story, a nice story, and people do remain good friends in spite of the stupidity of one.
I said that I would say no more on this matter, and I am not about to comment on whether KM was involved in abrawl or not. That has been established.
However, you need correction on a few points. I nevr said he signed a contract. I said the definiition included 'appliedor negotiated' and he clearly did both.
Now not accepting the definition, and suggesting he isn't one of those because you don't accept it, , is a little like
Groucho Marx saying ' Ihave my principles; if you dont like them, I have others'. The easiest person to whom you can justify anything is yourself.
And incidentally, it is a 'moot' point, not a 'mute ' point, 'moot' meaning 'debatable', and 'mute' meaning 'silent',or without speech. And another. Anyone WHO went back, not anyone that etc. 'That' is used for animals and inanimate objects. Yes, yes, I know anyone who went back is an animal.
If you are going to enter into discussion with me, please be a little more grammatically correct. Typos can be excused, poor use of the language cannot!
I definitely won't be commenting further either on KM or your violationof the language.
Oh, and I had a friend who didn't go/come back to work as well,and he came to my house some timeearly in 1990, wishing to apologize also. Like you, I let him in,and listened to what he had to say. We had a beer or two. He tooapologized with tears i n his eyes, but for his own stupidity, and the need to leave Astralia and work overseas. In spite of that, we remain close friends, and go to the footy when he's in town. He's a 777 capt a nd has been for a few years, something I could never have hoped to achieve by returning to work.
Soyou see for every horrible, nasty story, there is a contrary story, a nice story, and people do remain good friends in spite of the stupidity of one.
Last edited by ys120fz; 2nd Sep 2004 at 06:41.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Sydney
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the things that may have saved AN would be if it had at some stage been a privatised company with a board in it's own right instead of always being a someone's subsidiary.
Boards are required by law to make provision for the future of the company. That never happened with AN in the last 20 years of it's existence. Sad really.
Boards are required by law to make provision for the future of the company. That never happened with AN in the last 20 years of it's existence. Sad really.
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
What my role in anything during my time with, and after, Ansett, had to do with the topic subject is lost on me.
However, as ys120fz has decided to launch a personal, cowardly, and factually incorrect attack on me - from behind his cloak of anonymity...much like those who skulked back behind their peers' backs during the Dispute...I would like to use my right of reply to post some TRUTH.
Firstly, my identity is hardly a secret - I have never attempted to hide it when challenged, and have posted photos of myself on PPRuNe at different times.
Are you, ys120fz, man enough to expose your real identity? I doubt it.
Do you have the guts to stand by your own words?
The only incident I can recall, involving any physical "interaction", in which I was involved at Brisbane Airport in 1989, was during a march there when a taxi driver grabbed a handful of pamphlets from me titled "YOU ARE ABOUT TO FLY WITH A SCAB PILOT", and threw them onto the footpath.
I still have the video clip (from the television news) which shows that there was no physical retaliation on mine - nor anyone else's part.....undoubtedly much to the disappointment of the camera crew, and the TNT goons present.
As I have stated in earlier posts, my application to Ansett was made in January or February of 1990, however I telephoned from the Brisbane AFAP Branch office and advised Brian King - the RFM at the time - that I was withdrawing it some 3 days later (it had been lodged at the Fortitude Valley Ansett office).
King said that he had not received it.
I had at least 2 other witnesses with me, listening to the conversation at the time, and whom I had asked to be present.
There was never any negotiation involved.
So you see, ys120fz, I have FACTS that I am able to back up, and am not ashamed that my identity is no secret to friends, and lowlifes alike.
As this is an anonymous forum, you are abusing the privileges of it, by publishing LIES to try to slander me.
If you are as confident in stating about me, that which you have, then PM your name to me to prove your own belief in yourself as a man.
However, as ys120fz has decided to launch a personal, cowardly, and factually incorrect attack on me - from behind his cloak of anonymity...much like those who skulked back behind their peers' backs during the Dispute...I would like to use my right of reply to post some TRUTH.
Firstly, my identity is hardly a secret - I have never attempted to hide it when challenged, and have posted photos of myself on PPRuNe at different times.
Are you, ys120fz, man enough to expose your real identity? I doubt it.
Do you have the guts to stand by your own words?
I love witnessing humility.
I still have the video clip (from the television news) which shows that there was no physical retaliation on mine - nor anyone else's part.....undoubtedly much to the disappointment of the camera crew, and the TNT goons present.
As I have stated in earlier posts, my application to Ansett was made in January or February of 1990, however I telephoned from the Brisbane AFAP Branch office and advised Brian King - the RFM at the time - that I was withdrawing it some 3 days later (it had been lodged at the Fortitude Valley Ansett office).
King said that he had not received it.
I had at least 2 other witnesses with me, listening to the conversation at the time, and whom I had asked to be present.
There was never any negotiation involved.
So you see, ys120fz, I have FACTS that I am able to back up, and am not ashamed that my identity is no secret to friends, and lowlifes alike.
As this is an anonymous forum, you are abusing the privileges of it, by publishing LIES to try to slander me.
If you are as confident in stating about me, that which you have, then PM your name to me to prove your own belief in yourself as a man.
Kap,
I for one believe your version of events from that time. But before being quite so vehement towards people throwing accusations at you, however unfounded, realise that YOU have often COLOURFULLY AND LOUDLY stated as FACT thing about the post '89 pilots that were simply not so, then stubbornly argued the toss when the truth has been explained to you.
Saying that we earned 300K+ (how is your accountant), stating with religious furver that we received four-figure call out fees (and accusing me of lying when I told that wasn't true), stating we received 2 or 3 times what our pre '89 counterparts did (this got rapidly rationalised though never withdrawn).
You reserve the right to very offensively talk B*****ks about one group. Don't get too sniffy when one of them talks CR@P about you...
I for one believe your version of events from that time. But before being quite so vehement towards people throwing accusations at you, however unfounded, realise that YOU have often COLOURFULLY AND LOUDLY stated as FACT thing about the post '89 pilots that were simply not so, then stubbornly argued the toss when the truth has been explained to you.
Saying that we earned 300K+ (how is your accountant), stating with religious furver that we received four-figure call out fees (and accusing me of lying when I told that wasn't true), stating we received 2 or 3 times what our pre '89 counterparts did (this got rapidly rationalised though never withdrawn).
You reserve the right to very offensively talk B*****ks about one group. Don't get too sniffy when one of them talks CR@P about you...
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you Wiz.
What a shame it is that I undertook to speak no further about KMs propensity for violence nor Romeo Alpha Tango's gross misuse of the language. The reference to 'illiteration' (does he mean illiteracy?)surely deserves investigation, but I will be true to my word.
KM, you're right. My post regarding your violence has absolutely nothing to dowith this thread, but now you may have some appreciation of what thousands of other ppruners think when you wade into any and every thread and somehow twist it round to the usual old boring scab %$^& scab #$%*& scab.
There may have never been any negotiation involved, but there wa s an application,and the definition was 'applied or negotiated'.
But as Romeo Alpha Tango points out, hedoes not accept the definition, and if you don't accept the definition, then it didn't happen. Those who went back to work no doubt apply the same logic, and the definition of 'scab' is someone who takes the job of a striking worker. You spend a lot of time on these pages pointing out that there was never a strike. I leave the subtlety of my argument there so that you may ponder it for some time and perhaps, and it is a BIG perhaps, grasp the underlying point.
And you are unable to refute that you have made, or caused to have made, many cowardly attacks on individuals on these forums, some in the most colourful language which inevitably included a few scab %$&* scabs. You have even alluded to some involving themselves in marital infidelity, and made veiled threats to expose them to their spouses. Let me say, and you will know what I mean, 'People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones'.
I now leave this thread and will make no further comment, either on topic or off. It will be difficult though after witnessing Romeo Alpha Tango's assault upon the English language.
What a shame it is that I undertook to speak no further about KMs propensity for violence nor Romeo Alpha Tango's gross misuse of the language. The reference to 'illiteration' (does he mean illiteracy?)surely deserves investigation, but I will be true to my word.
KM, you're right. My post regarding your violence has absolutely nothing to dowith this thread, but now you may have some appreciation of what thousands of other ppruners think when you wade into any and every thread and somehow twist it round to the usual old boring scab %$^& scab #$%*& scab.
There may have never been any negotiation involved, but there wa s an application,and the definition was 'applied or negotiated'.
But as Romeo Alpha Tango points out, hedoes not accept the definition, and if you don't accept the definition, then it didn't happen. Those who went back to work no doubt apply the same logic, and the definition of 'scab' is someone who takes the job of a striking worker. You spend a lot of time on these pages pointing out that there was never a strike. I leave the subtlety of my argument there so that you may ponder it for some time and perhaps, and it is a BIG perhaps, grasp the underlying point.
And you are unable to refute that you have made, or caused to have made, many cowardly attacks on individuals on these forums, some in the most colourful language which inevitably included a few scab %$&* scabs. You have even alluded to some involving themselves in marital infidelity, and made veiled threats to expose them to their spouses. Let me say, and you will know what I mean, 'People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones'.
I now leave this thread and will make no further comment, either on topic or off. It will be difficult though after witnessing Romeo Alpha Tango's assault upon the English language.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You KNOW when someone has run out of steam, run out of venom, and realises he/she is cornered and defeated, when that person resorts to 'picking' on the spelling and grammar of a post.
Bravo. Well done. You made your argument SO strong there by insulting me in such a way. I am SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO offended, and distressed. Ouch. OOOH. How will I ever recover.
Oh, I am SURE you will recover your sense and sensibilities. I could pick on your bad syntax and typographical errors in your last post, but could NEVER sink to your sordid level.
Now, go back to chasing down lost R/C aircraft in the jungles of Lae.
Bravo. Well done. You made your argument SO strong there by insulting me in such a way. I am SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO offended, and distressed. Ouch. OOOH. How will I ever recover.
It will be difficult though after witnessing Romeo Alpha Tango's assault upon the English language.
Now, go back to chasing down lost R/C aircraft in the jungles of Lae.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Having just read pages and pages and pages........etc, of ANSETT bagging by the people that worked there (I'll assume). Could someone remind me, just exactly how that Company was/is such a great "Aussie Icon", and not something to be sliced and added to a G & T???
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
slamer, I can't help you. I never worked for them, but I would have liked to see them survive; many good friends there over the years.
Romeo Alpha Tango, Regarding your animal quip back a few posts, my wife says I'm a real animal in the cot. Does that count? Lae?? Never been there.
Please see my para from my previous post reprinted below.
But as Romeo Alpha Tango points out, hedoes not accept the definition, and if you don't accept the definition, then it didn't happen. Those who went back to work no doubt apply the same logic, and the definition of 'scab' is someone who takes the job of a striking worker. You spend a lot of time on these pages pointing out that there was never a strike. I leave the subtlety of my argument there so that you may ponder it for some time and perhaps, and it is a BIG perhaps, grasp the underlying point.
The comments on your 'illiteration' I consider just an amusing side issue, and they are quite amusing!
Romeo Alpha Tango, Regarding your animal quip back a few posts, my wife says I'm a real animal in the cot. Does that count? Lae?? Never been there.
Please see my para from my previous post reprinted below.
But as Romeo Alpha Tango points out, hedoes not accept the definition, and if you don't accept the definition, then it didn't happen. Those who went back to work no doubt apply the same logic, and the definition of 'scab' is someone who takes the job of a striking worker. You spend a lot of time on these pages pointing out that there was never a strike. I leave the subtlety of my argument there so that you may ponder it for some time and perhaps, and it is a BIG perhaps, grasp the underlying point.
The comments on your 'illiteration' I consider just an amusing side issue, and they are quite amusing!
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cutest of Borg,
AN was as you call it a privatized company.
I don't recall the maximum number of shareholders that a private company can have, but I think it's over 20. However there were only TWO shareholders in AN, TNT and Newscorp. The fact that they had millions of shareholders as public companies was irrelevant; those companies were the only two shareholders. It was not a public company.
I'm not sure if you're confusing a listed company with an unlisted company. Listed companies, i.e., those listed on the stock exchange as public companies have much more onerous reporting obligations (to the public and stock exchange)than unlisted companies.
Private companies do not have to report to the public at all, but only to shareholders, and presumably the shareholders are close enough to the action to know what's going on.
Now after all that, I suppose the punters invest in public companies like TNT and Newscorp knowing that an unlisted company is part of the whole, and expect that it will contribute to the profits of the parent.
That's how it was all explained to me over a beer by my accountant a few years back.
E & OE though
Beyond that, the intricacies of accounting are beyond me.
AN was as you call it a privatized company.
I don't recall the maximum number of shareholders that a private company can have, but I think it's over 20. However there were only TWO shareholders in AN, TNT and Newscorp. The fact that they had millions of shareholders as public companies was irrelevant; those companies were the only two shareholders. It was not a public company.
I'm not sure if you're confusing a listed company with an unlisted company. Listed companies, i.e., those listed on the stock exchange as public companies have much more onerous reporting obligations (to the public and stock exchange)than unlisted companies.
Private companies do not have to report to the public at all, but only to shareholders, and presumably the shareholders are close enough to the action to know what's going on.
Now after all that, I suppose the punters invest in public companies like TNT and Newscorp knowing that an unlisted company is part of the whole, and expect that it will contribute to the profits of the parent.
That's how it was all explained to me over a beer by my accountant a few years back.
E & OE though
Beyond that, the intricacies of accounting are beyond me.
Guest
Posts: n/a
The difference between AN, VB & JetStar etc of today is that AN had a heart and soul pure and simple. The people who worked there were responsible for this. Sadly this has dissapeared with LCC's. That's it in a nut shell.
KAP has been highjacking threads here for years then acting like the victim just like he did in 89. Hey KAP "no one gives a toss about your pissy 89 rubbish any more except you" I don't here my AN friends going on like you ex 89 guys! They lost just as much if not more than you & your mates. Get your therapy elsewhere. I don't know why you're proud of posting your photos here. I saw them and it made me laugh. You even look like a complete dick!
KAP has been highjacking threads here for years then acting like the victim just like he did in 89. Hey KAP "no one gives a toss about your pissy 89 rubbish any more except you" I don't here my AN friends going on like you ex 89 guys! They lost just as much if not more than you & your mates. Get your therapy elsewhere. I don't know why you're proud of posting your photos here. I saw them and it made me laugh. You even look like a complete dick!
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Between land masses
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This thread has lost all direction i.r.o. the topic heading.
That the previous poster bothered to register, simply to write 5 out of 7 lines denigrating another poster indicates a serious insecurity on his part, and is superfluos to the core topic issue.
That the previous poster bothered to register, simply to write 5 out of 7 lines denigrating another poster indicates a serious insecurity on his part, and is superfluos to the core topic issue.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Age: 84
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FW - you are quite correct, the topic is rapidly being lost in the mire of vitriol and bullsh1t being posted in the name of grammatical accuracy.
To summarize, IMHO, and as one who lived through the demise:
1. Abeles AND Murdoch played their individual parts in AN's downfall, principally by their unwillingness to run the business AS AN AIRLINE instead of just a bottom-line figure. Too many aircraft types, chosen on price and suitability for a different function and environment than we needed, and an almost total lack of investment capital WHERE IT WAS NEEDED put us on the slippery slope.
2. The '89 stoush played a part, in that we lost invaluable numbers of experienced pilots who had to be replaced to keep us going. The pros and cons of the means of accomplishing this end are for another, more sedate, place and time. Suffice to say that the AFAP of the day,
, have a great deal to answer for, IMHO!
3. The avarice of our final owners, may they rot in Hell, was the final nail in an already prepared coffin, but they must, I believe, take responsibility for their actions. Who hammered in the last nail is a moot point, and depends on perception for the laying of blame, but it lies fairly and squarely at the door of AirNZ/Brierly Investments and SIA, again IMHO!
As a company, AN was NOT a "lemon" or "basket-case", it became such from the day it was removed from the care of RM and fell into the hands of people who had NO interest in running a service industry concept and creamed every last cent they could from the company before selling it off to another of their ilk.
We had a well-deserved reputation for service and friendliness, derived from years of being exposed to the "AN ethos", an undefinable willingness to go the extra yards for your customer.
Now, there will be some amongst you who will disagree with my view, that is your right, as is the option to have a pop at me. Go right ahead, you won't change my mind - I spent twenty of the happiest years of my working life with AN, and I regret to this day the ruination of what was a fine company.
Rant over, it's all yours,
Kind regards,
TheNightOwl.
To summarize, IMHO, and as one who lived through the demise:
1. Abeles AND Murdoch played their individual parts in AN's downfall, principally by their unwillingness to run the business AS AN AIRLINE instead of just a bottom-line figure. Too many aircraft types, chosen on price and suitability for a different function and environment than we needed, and an almost total lack of investment capital WHERE IT WAS NEEDED put us on the slippery slope.
2. The '89 stoush played a part, in that we lost invaluable numbers of experienced pilots who had to be replaced to keep us going. The pros and cons of the means of accomplishing this end are for another, more sedate, place and time. Suffice to say that the AFAP of the day,
, have a great deal to answer for, IMHO!3. The avarice of our final owners, may they rot in Hell, was the final nail in an already prepared coffin, but they must, I believe, take responsibility for their actions. Who hammered in the last nail is a moot point, and depends on perception for the laying of blame, but it lies fairly and squarely at the door of AirNZ/Brierly Investments and SIA, again IMHO!
As a company, AN was NOT a "lemon" or "basket-case", it became such from the day it was removed from the care of RM and fell into the hands of people who had NO interest in running a service industry concept and creamed every last cent they could from the company before selling it off to another of their ilk.
We had a well-deserved reputation for service and friendliness, derived from years of being exposed to the "AN ethos", an undefinable willingness to go the extra yards for your customer.
Now, there will be some amongst you who will disagree with my view, that is your right, as is the option to have a pop at me. Go right ahead, you won't change my mind - I spent twenty of the happiest years of my working life with AN, and I regret to this day the ruination of what was a fine company.
Rant over, it's all yours,
Kind regards,
TheNightOwl.