News blamed for Ansett collapse
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
Quite intuitive, TNO as a matter of fact today is a "blank" day (the same as the old "grey days), and yesterday was "standby" - the equivalent of "Reserve" in pre-dispute AN - but became a duty day because of the disruption the wx caused to the flight schedules.
Oddly enough this airline still has pilots doing standby/reserve
whereas the "New Ansett" didn't find that necessary, which only adds more fuel to the fire that post '89 AN management were so far out of touch with reality as far as airline ops were concerned, in their determination to PROVE that pilots were just as dispensable as all other employees, that they were willing to reward the pilots with excessively high incentives to go to work at short notice.
Yes, post-'89 Ansett did NOT have "reserve" days, and post-'89 Ansett is, no more!
I have not intentionally attempted to cloud any issues, TNO - the fact that 1 or 2 of the pilot reps told you that the claim was not negotiable flies in the face of REALITY, and the decades of previous contract negotiations held between the companies and the Federation.
What else would you have expected the guys to have told you?
"Well we're hitting them with 29.47%, but in fact we'll take 10%", knowing that word would quickly leak back to B.S HQ.
Had we all been as greedy as you try to make out we were, don't you think we would have grabbed the new contracts with both hands when they were offered?
That was what Abeles & Murdoch were counting on - that "every man has his price", and that for the obscene $$$'s offered in the new contracts, we would desert the AFAP in droves.
Do you not find it somewhat puzzling, TNO, that the vast majority of '89 pilots remained fully financial members of the AFAP (as elektra indicates, and as am I) until today, in spite of the fact that most outsiders consider it was our union that cost us our jobs?
Pilots never saw the Federation as an industrially strong union - after all, the strength of any union comes from the resolve of its members, when put to the test...something the entire airline group membership had never before been asked to do as a united group. The AFAP had been successful in improving Australian pilot conditions, because of the depth of knowledge within its individual membership, and because of its flexibility in negotiations.
Can you HONESTLY say that Australian domestic airline pilots today enjoy the same (good) employer-employee relationships that they enjoyed pre-'89?
IMO, Hawke, Murdoch, Abeles & Kelty (ACTU), together with the "anti-pilot/tallpoppy" syndrome of many people helped achieve that under Hawke's Labor government.
Why then wouldn't a (historically anti-union) Liberal Government further capitalise on the opportunity to deal a heavy body blow to the major union movement, when their main aviation employer was teetering (by not providing financial assistance.).
Are the employment conditions of the ground staff, enjoyed in the airlines that have since replaced Ansett, equal to those enjoyed by the Ansett employees?
It's a big ferris wheel, isn't it TNO!!
[Edit:- "The companies stood some of you down. THis is what is correct."
WRONG again, Ralphie - they rang EVERY single one of us. There may have been a handful who deliberately avoided accepting the call, because they knew what they would be asked...and by a "handful", I mean probably 1/2 a dozen. Even pilots on o/s assignments were advised that upon return to Oz, they would be asked to work outside 9-5.
FYI, Ralph, the names supplied on any scab list that might exist, were - to the best of my knowledge - supplied by (non-pilot) ground staff members employed by the airlines at the time, and who supported the Federation pilots.
If you've got a beef, take it up with them
]
Oddly enough this airline still has pilots doing standby/reserve
whereas the "New Ansett" didn't find that necessary, which only adds more fuel to the fire that post '89 AN management were so far out of touch with reality as far as airline ops were concerned, in their determination to PROVE that pilots were just as dispensable as all other employees, that they were willing to reward the pilots with excessively high incentives to go to work at short notice.Yes, post-'89 Ansett did NOT have "reserve" days, and post-'89 Ansett is, no more!
I have not intentionally attempted to cloud any issues, TNO - the fact that 1 or 2 of the pilot reps told you that the claim was not negotiable flies in the face of REALITY, and the decades of previous contract negotiations held between the companies and the Federation.
What else would you have expected the guys to have told you?
"Well we're hitting them with 29.47%, but in fact we'll take 10%", knowing that word would quickly leak back to B.S HQ.
Had we all been as greedy as you try to make out we were, don't you think we would have grabbed the new contracts with both hands when they were offered?
That was what Abeles & Murdoch were counting on - that "every man has his price", and that for the obscene $$$'s offered in the new contracts, we would desert the AFAP in droves.
Do you not find it somewhat puzzling, TNO, that the vast majority of '89 pilots remained fully financial members of the AFAP (as elektra indicates, and as am I) until today, in spite of the fact that most outsiders consider it was our union that cost us our jobs?
I'd bet London to a brick that it (the AFAP) doesn't profess the power it once believed it wielded!
Can you HONESTLY say that Australian domestic airline pilots today enjoy the same (good) employer-employee relationships that they enjoyed pre-'89?
...(the AFAP) did go some way to enhancing the power-base of the anti-union brigade
Why then wouldn't a (historically anti-union) Liberal Government further capitalise on the opportunity to deal a heavy body blow to the major union movement, when their main aviation employer was teetering (by not providing financial assistance.).
Are the employment conditions of the ground staff, enjoyed in the airlines that have since replaced Ansett, equal to those enjoyed by the Ansett employees?
It's a big ferris wheel, isn't it TNO!!
[Edit:- "The companies stood some of you down. THis is what is correct."
WRONG again, Ralphie - they rang EVERY single one of us. There may have been a handful who deliberately avoided accepting the call, because they knew what they would be asked...and by a "handful", I mean probably 1/2 a dozen. Even pilots on o/s assignments were advised that upon return to Oz, they would be asked to work outside 9-5.
FYI, Ralph, the names supplied on any scab list that might exist, were - to the best of my knowledge - supplied by (non-pilot) ground staff members employed by the airlines at the time, and who supported the Federation pilots.
If you've got a beef, take it up with them
]
Last edited by Kaptin M; 24th Aug 2004 at 08:41.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well they didn't ring me!! I wish like hell they had have though.
Now kaptin, you seem sto sidestep this issue of whether you did or didn't try to enter the halls of scabdom early in the dispute. You contend that you signed and withdrew you r application.
That is not true and well you know it.
What happened is this. Youapplied early in the 'dispute' but you were REJECTED because of the part you played in a brawl/fracas/ scrap(or whatever you want to call it) in Brisbane terminal.
When you applied, it was thought by management that you were too a great a risk because of your propensity for violence.
End of story. You did not withdraw your application but were REJECTED, and as such under that goose from Tasmania's definition, are a SCAB. Like it or not.
TNO, you are right on the button with your submission. They are the facts. A notaable error by kaptin is that the 29=% WAS NOT negotiable, and McCarthy said it numerous times, and it was reported in the newspapers as such. I could probably dig out the cuttings if I could get into my attic.
Now kaptin, you seem sto sidestep this issue of whether you did or didn't try to enter the halls of scabdom early in the dispute. You contend that you signed and withdrew you r application.
That is not true and well you know it.
What happened is this. Youapplied early in the 'dispute' but you were REJECTED because of the part you played in a brawl/fracas/ scrap(or whatever you want to call it) in Brisbane terminal.
When you applied, it was thought by management that you were too a great a risk because of your propensity for violence.
End of story. You did not withdraw your application but were REJECTED, and as such under that goose from Tasmania's definition, are a SCAB. Like it or not.
TNO, you are right on the button with your submission. They are the facts. A notaable error by kaptin is that the 29=% WAS NOT negotiable, and McCarthy said it numerous times, and it was reported in the newspapers as such. I could probably dig out the cuttings if I could get into my attic.
Kap,
I've kept quite until now, but really....
ABSOULUTE PAP!!!
Your last year as a 767 FO you earned what, 80K? And logged what, 359HRS (I mean LOGGED, not "Credited").
In my first full year as a 767 FO I flew 780 hours and recieved 99K.
Hourly cost for YOU $228/Hr. For me $126.
Express your opinion as forcefully as you like, just don't talk C%%P
I've kept quite until now, but really....
2-3 times MORE than we had been on, with overtime cutting in at 55 hours iso the 60 hours we had been on.
Your last year as a 767 FO you earned what, 80K? And logged what, 359HRS (I mean LOGGED, not "Credited").
In my first full year as a 767 FO I flew 780 hours and recieved 99K.
Hourly cost for YOU $228/Hr. For me $126.
Express your opinion as forcefully as you like, just don't talk C%%P
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
Unless you wrote your own rosters, Wiz, then both you - and I - were subject to Ansett's scheduling...correct?
I was available to fly for as much - or as little - as they wanted.
Pilot productivity was determined by the Company.
Neither you, nor I, nor the AFAP ever wrote pilots' flight schedules, month in and month out. Ansett ALONE did that, and managed to remain a profitable company for some 30 years.
You have proven a point though - that as a 1st year F/O, the company was willing to pay you some 23.75% MORE than I received in my 12th year with them!
I was available to fly for as much - or as little - as they wanted.
Pilot productivity was determined by the Company.
Neither you, nor I, nor the AFAP ever wrote pilots' flight schedules, month in and month out. Ansett ALONE did that, and managed to remain a profitable company for some 30 years.
You have proven a point though - that as a 1st year F/O, the company was willing to pay you some 23.75% MORE than I received in my 12th year with them!
Well Kap, just as long as we've established that in your world
Equals
The same world where, I guess, the AFAP was the only pilots union in the world that had no input into the flight, duty and rostering rules that it's members worked by, and where an employer willingly had it's workers operating at around 30% productivity.
Must be nice in there...
2-3 times MORE than we had been on
23.75%
Must be nice in there...
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
Let me be a little more detailed then. Wiz so that even the slower ones amongst us can follow.
Had ANSETT been more efficient with their scheduling, they could have rostered me for 60 hours a month and still have paid me $80k/year, which would have worked out at $102.56 per hour for 780 hours.
In the case of the post '89 pilots, the company put a cap of only 55 hours a month, after which they volunteered to pay EXTRA in overtime rates!
Using your figures, my overtime (at $102.56/hr) would have worked out at $6153.60 in 1 year - for the 60 hours o/t.
....whereas the company volunteered to pay you (using your figure of $126/hr) $15,120.00 - for 120 hours o/t!!
Now remember that I was on my 12th year increment - you were only on your 1st!
Compare apples with apples, Wiz - there was Absolutely no way in the world that a pre 1989 Ansett 1st year F/O was on anything remotely close to my salary - let alone that which they paid to new joiners such as yourself.
THAT is where the 2-3 times comes in.
The only input the AFAP had into the scheduling, was to basically see that the flying was reasonably evenly distributed across the flying rosters, that min. required rest, and max duty times were adhered to, and that "undesirable pairings" were avoided where possible for fatigue and Safety reasons.
Working now for a company where there is no such pilot input, I regularly see "favours" being done for some pilots by the scheduler, which can amount to large differences in remuneration between pilots - as much as USD3,000 per month!!
There is a lot to be said for a "bid system" wrt maintaining equity amongst the pilots.
You see, Wiz, in my world, people were willing to take their place in the queue and wait, and NOT follow "Scabs' Rules" where it's dog-eat-dog, and each man for himself...f#*k you pal!
Had ANSETT been more efficient with their scheduling, they could have rostered me for 60 hours a month and still have paid me $80k/year, which would have worked out at $102.56 per hour for 780 hours.
In the case of the post '89 pilots, the company put a cap of only 55 hours a month, after which they volunteered to pay EXTRA in overtime rates!
Using your figures, my overtime (at $102.56/hr) would have worked out at $6153.60 in 1 year - for the 60 hours o/t.
....whereas the company volunteered to pay you (using your figure of $126/hr) $15,120.00 - for 120 hours o/t!!
Now remember that I was on my 12th year increment - you were only on your 1st!
Compare apples with apples, Wiz - there was Absolutely no way in the world that a pre 1989 Ansett 1st year F/O was on anything remotely close to my salary - let alone that which they paid to new joiners such as yourself.
THAT is where the 2-3 times comes in.
The only input the AFAP had into the scheduling, was to basically see that the flying was reasonably evenly distributed across the flying rosters, that min. required rest, and max duty times were adhered to, and that "undesirable pairings" were avoided where possible for fatigue and Safety reasons.
Working now for a company where there is no such pilot input, I regularly see "favours" being done for some pilots by the scheduler, which can amount to large differences in remuneration between pilots - as much as USD3,000 per month!!
There is a lot to be said for a "bid system" wrt maintaining equity amongst the pilots.
You see, Wiz, in my world, people were willing to take their place in the queue and wait, and NOT follow "Scabs' Rules" where it's dog-eat-dog, and each man for himself...f#*k you pal!
Yes, but that was 55 STICK HOURS / month, Kap. Not credit hours. To do your "60 Hours" how many actual, start up till shut down, revenue earning hour would you have flown?
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
That depended upon the Company's efficiency in scheduling, Wiz.
Again it was NOTHING that either you or I had ANY control over!!
Is the message getting through yet??
Again it was NOTHING that either you or I had ANY control over!!
Is the message getting through yet??
Ah!! So the COMPANY decided to give you extra credit for lates, credit for duty as opposed to flight hours, extra credit for longer duties, credit for reserve, credcit for displacement etc. etc.
The AFAP never negotiated for any of that and just stood back and said thankyou.
Yes, the truth of your argument is sinking in just fine thanks...
The AFAP never negotiated for any of that and just stood back and said thankyou.
Yes, the truth of your argument is sinking in just fine thanks...
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
The AFAP never negotiated for any of that...
You said that, Wiz - not I!
And you are correct - ALL of the conditions under which we worked, had been previously negotiated, agreed upon by BOTH sides, and signed. "Negotiated" meaning trade-offs...give and take on both sides.
That Ansett didn't elect to fully utilise the conditions their negotiators had gained for them was their business.
The pilots were obligated to do as they were directed to, under the mutually agreed contract of employment - often we WOULD give extra, at no penalty to the company...and it worked well, for over 30 years.
That they couldn't survive more than 11 years with you guys, sure as hell says something!!
You said that, Wiz - not I!
And you are correct - ALL of the conditions under which we worked, had been previously negotiated, agreed upon by BOTH sides, and signed. "Negotiated" meaning trade-offs...give and take on both sides.
That Ansett didn't elect to fully utilise the conditions their negotiators had gained for them was their business.
The pilots were obligated to do as they were directed to, under the mutually agreed contract of employment - often we WOULD give extra, at no penalty to the company...and it worked well, for over 30 years.
That they couldn't survive more than 11 years with you guys, sure as hell says something!!
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: PERTH
Age: 77
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
kAPTIN I am flying up to Vietnam soon to see a few mates,no chance you do any runs up there do you.Perhaps I will go QF as there is no chance then that I could be sitting in the back with you up the front,not that you dont appear very very knowlegable in all aviation matters to you but I see it another way.
That they couldn't survive more than 11 years with you guys, sure as hell says something!!
Kap, it helps you cope with your decistions (Including your decision to apply to get your job back) to blame every thing from Ansetts collapse to the Kennedy assasination on the post '89 pilots.
Be my guest. Just don't expect to post blatent BS (how is your accountant) and not have it challenged.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Age: 84
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems that you all are in need of amos2's advice, slow down, people!! This is becoming ridiculous, it's heading for the old slanging match again, so I'm backing off altogether. I'm prepared for a robust argument, and I have no patience with the '89ers argument, but I'm not about to weigh into a personal battle over it.
We are NEVER going to resolve our philosophical differences, Kap, so I guess we will have to agree to differ. I will believe to my dying day that the old AFAP was the architect of the downfall of the pilot body in Australia and, along with a group of singularly greedy and self-serving business-men and politicians, caused untold harm to the company which was an Australian icon totally undeserving of its demise. What part you, personally, played in that downfall, is for your conscience to tell you, I only hope you and your '89 cohorts are satisfied with outcome of your greed and intransigence.
All for now, but reserving the right to give you a verbal right hook in the future if I read a comment too unpalatable!
Kind regards to all,
TheNightOwl.
We are NEVER going to resolve our philosophical differences, Kap, so I guess we will have to agree to differ. I will believe to my dying day that the old AFAP was the architect of the downfall of the pilot body in Australia and, along with a group of singularly greedy and self-serving business-men and politicians, caused untold harm to the company which was an Australian icon totally undeserving of its demise. What part you, personally, played in that downfall, is for your conscience to tell you, I only hope you and your '89 cohorts are satisfied with outcome of your greed and intransigence.
All for now, but reserving the right to give you a verbal right hook in the future if I read a comment too unpalatable!
Kind regards to all,
TheNightOwl.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With 15 years hindsight, and a more matured brain, I have to agree with a fair degree of what TNO has written. I disagree with his thought's on 89'ers, but I am sure he disagrees with my vehement hatred of scabs too. To each his own.
As I have said before, we all made our beds, now we have to sleep in them. Some got the fleas in the bedding, others got the plush fittings. Home is where you make it.
What happened in '89 can never be reversed, naturally, and what happened to AN is just as past. It's all history; an interesting and heated one at that.
What is the point in blaming McCarthy et al in the AFAP? Where is it going to get anyone?
WE, and by WE I mean ALL pre-'89 pilots, didn't stand a CHANCE against Abeles, Murdoch, MacMahon, Strong, and Hawke and his government. EVERYONE knows the bed that Hawke and Abeles slept in, and had done for quite a while. Unfortunately, IN HINDSIGHT, how the AFAP boffins thought we could have a crack at the airlines is open to conjecture - one that will be purely speculatory!
Gone were the "glory days" of Reg Ansett, and the TAA reps. Gone were the days when the likes of "Red Ned" and Charlie Gray had some effect in the company. The companies were now run by business brains, with nary a former link to aviation.
I admit to whooping like a crane the day Abele's died, and hoped it was painful (slander me all you like). Nothing will ever change my feelings toward him, Hawke, and Murdoch, and Strong.
Same goes for '89 scabs. The hatred is there, but the care factor these days is negligable. Like a former TN check captain, non-scab, once said to me, "You walk through ghosts". NUFF SAID! Yet, quoting the Bible:" The sins of the fathers is visited on the children to the third and fourth generation of those that hate them". In other words, it will ALWAYS be remembered by those involved.
15 years has come and gone. Personally, I've moved onto bigger and better things. For that, perhaps, thanks is required! Shift me off my lazy arse!
I'll still NEVER fly QAN Dom and one of it's off-growths, but that is a purely personal choice. (Yes, I advocate to my friends not to travel with them either....)
As I have said before, we all made our beds, now we have to sleep in them. Some got the fleas in the bedding, others got the plush fittings. Home is where you make it.
What happened in '89 can never be reversed, naturally, and what happened to AN is just as past. It's all history; an interesting and heated one at that.
What is the point in blaming McCarthy et al in the AFAP? Where is it going to get anyone?
WE, and by WE I mean ALL pre-'89 pilots, didn't stand a CHANCE against Abeles, Murdoch, MacMahon, Strong, and Hawke and his government. EVERYONE knows the bed that Hawke and Abeles slept in, and had done for quite a while. Unfortunately, IN HINDSIGHT, how the AFAP boffins thought we could have a crack at the airlines is open to conjecture - one that will be purely speculatory!
Gone were the "glory days" of Reg Ansett, and the TAA reps. Gone were the days when the likes of "Red Ned" and Charlie Gray had some effect in the company. The companies were now run by business brains, with nary a former link to aviation.
I admit to whooping like a crane the day Abele's died, and hoped it was painful (slander me all you like). Nothing will ever change my feelings toward him, Hawke, and Murdoch, and Strong.
Same goes for '89 scabs. The hatred is there, but the care factor these days is negligable. Like a former TN check captain, non-scab, once said to me, "You walk through ghosts". NUFF SAID! Yet, quoting the Bible:" The sins of the fathers is visited on the children to the third and fourth generation of those that hate them". In other words, it will ALWAYS be remembered by those involved.
15 years has come and gone. Personally, I've moved onto bigger and better things. For that, perhaps, thanks is required! Shift me off my lazy arse!
I'll still NEVER fly QAN Dom and one of it's off-growths, but that is a purely personal choice. (Yes, I advocate to my friends not to travel with them either....)
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Age: 84
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A very balanced view, RTA, I commend you and wish I was possessed of your sanguine attitude! You are quite correct, we all have our view, coloured by our individual experiences, and mine simply does not reflect yours. Unlike some, I don't give a damn when referred to as "scab-lover", I have friends from pre-89 and others post-89, if they cannot talk to each other then they have the problem, not I. I accept that the pilot body didn't stand much of a chance against the total power railed against them, but I am still at a loss to understand HOW they came to believe so strongly in the infallibility of the then AFAP. How was it that a group of obviously-educated and professional people could be led down the path of destruction by a leadership so arrogant and blind? It beggars belief!
Your comment re "scabs", a loathsome description, reminds me of something I had intended posting in reply to KapM's comment "...names supplied on any scab list that might exist..." - on request I will happily provide him with the url pointing to the current list or, if he prefers, a hard copy of same. It exists, my word it does!
Kind regards,
TheNightOwl.
Your comment re "scabs", a loathsome description, reminds me of something I had intended posting in reply to KapM's comment "...names supplied on any scab list that might exist..." - on request I will happily provide him with the url pointing to the current list or, if he prefers, a hard copy of same. It exists, my word it does!
Kind regards,
TheNightOwl.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes TNO ,the"Scab List" does still exist & I have a copy.I have moved on,but the feelings are still there.I can hold my head up and look people in the eye when I walk through an airport terminal.Istill trust my friends;can the "heroes" say that?
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 704
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it true that AN and QF had a list of all striking pilots who did not re-apply for their positions with a "Never Recruit Under Any Circumstances" tag attached to each name?
I've heard the rumours but I have always wondered how they could possibly get away with it.
I've heard the rumours but I have always wondered how they could possibly get away with it.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Cheer-up, I recall a senior AN management type saying at some time post dispute that certain individuals would never be re-employed. There were some pre '89ers who were re-employed by AN during '91-'92. I presume that they were regarded as non-trouble makers. I understand that these 12 were refered to as the "dirty dozen" by AFAP.
There where a great many pilots from the dispute who gained employment at QF in subsequent years.
The answer to your question is 'yes' but 'no' and perhaps, 'maybe'...
There where a great many pilots from the dispute who gained employment at QF in subsequent years.
The answer to your question is 'yes' but 'no' and perhaps, 'maybe'...
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Dunnunda & Godzone
Age: 74
Posts: 4,275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This seems to have gone off thread a little, it started off OK and now has gotten personal again chaps.
I think we all understand each others feelings by now, so how about we take that advice and "slow down".
Nobody seems to be paying attention to the "characters and events" subsequent to the collapse, wherein another considerable fortune has been garnered out of the debris.
I rather thought that was the most interesting new matter that came out of the media report.
Lets move on shall we.
I think we all understand each others feelings by now, so how about we take that advice and "slow down".
Nobody seems to be paying attention to the "characters and events" subsequent to the collapse, wherein another considerable fortune has been garnered out of the debris.
I rather thought that was the most interesting new matter that came out of the media report.
Lets move on shall we.