Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

Merged: Tiger Tales

Old 3rd Aug 2014, 08:04
  #1501 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Harbour Master Place
Posts: 662
Not thread drift...

So this is the final result of the Brits attempting to run an Asia Pacific LCC.

Worked wonders didn't it Mr Ryan
The thinking behind this was articulated by Bruce Buchanan in July 2011.
"The total (fleet size of) the low-cost carrier market (in Asia-Pacific) is about 450 aircraft today and we envisage it to grow to in excess of 2000 aircraft by the end of the decade," he said on the sideline of a media briefing in Singapore.


"To maintain 20 per cent market share by 2020, we need about 400 aircraft," Buchanan added without elaborating when the carrier will start making orders of those aircraft.
Jetstar to invest $470m in Singapore hub

Of course, he was "talking his book" as Qantas was in the process of finalising it massive A320 order at the time, which was announced in October 2011: Qantas A320NEO order makes history.
CurtainTwitcher is online now  
Old 3rd Aug 2014, 18:43
  #1502 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Australia
Age: 47
Posts: 61
I find it shocking that a pilot can be falsely accused in such a manner and have no recourse to pursuit of a defamation claim. In fact, I am pretty sure that if the pilot has evidence that the accusation was made with malice, then a defamation action would succeed. Note that the law protects whistle-blowers who act in good faith, strictly follow protocols, act with discretion and the requisite level of confidentially when making claims of mis-behaviour against another. However, you aren't protected when these claims are false and with malicious intent.

Sadly, this sort of story is all too familiar. I am aware of a story from some years ago where a pilot was the subject of rumours within a previous company. This married man was subject to allegations that he was having an affair with the company base manager, but also the manager of cabin crew. However, there was also a rumour that he was involved in illicit criminal activity. A cabin crew staff member forwarded these rumours to the police who launched a criminal investigation. As would be expected, the pilot concerned was stood down. The pilot was subsequently cleared by the police investigation who said that he had no case to answer. The company even put out a memo to this effect to inform all staff and to warn of the dangers of malicious galley gossip.

What had happened in the background of this was that the cabin crew member concerned had been caught out by the pilot in a toilet having sex with a man who she had just met on an overnight and the pilot made the mistake of telling a person who was a friend of her fiancé. The cabin crew member here undoubtably thought these rumours about this pilot were all true, but was being vindictive. After being cleared by a company and police investigation, the pilot concerned wanted to sue the person who had been the source of these rumours, who was identified by circumstantial evidence as being another cabin crew member.

In response, the cabin crew member and some of her friends then embarked on a dirt-digging expedition and came up with some "safety breaches" in order to get the pilot sacked. Although the company management saw these new allegations for what they were, they were investigated and the pilot was returned to line flying. Regarding the source of the initial rumours, nobody 'could remember' who said what to who, so a defamation case was a non-starter.

At this stage the pilot had an offer of a better job and resigned. However, with union backing, he negotiated a deal where he received his salary until he started with the new company.

If these allegations of cocaine use have been made in good faith, that's one thing. If they have been made in accordance with an agenda or with malice, I hope that some natural justice will prevail...but I doubt this will happen.

Last edited by Crew rest.; 3rd Aug 2014 at 18:54.
Crew rest. is offline  
Old 3rd Aug 2014, 21:03
  #1503 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
A two bob call.

Crew rest # 1513 –"If these allegations of cocaine use have been made in good faith, that's one thing. If they have been made in accordance with an agenda or with malice, I hope that some natural justice will prevail...but I doubt this will happen."
It always makes me smile – this guy has presumably flown multiple sectors with several other flight crew members; sim instructors; T&C guys: Check Captains, various cabin crew; dealt with engineers, operations, ground staff, passengers etc. been medically examined and passed in house routine DAMP tests; seriously - has no one noticed the pilot (we'll call him Guy) 'has a habit' by now? At face value it's a ludicrous call, but just for the exercise:

Even if 'you' suspected and were reluctant to cause a fuss; there would be a company system to make a report through, a published policy for drug and booze issues to assist Guy; there is also the discreet, but risky, method of a 'chat' with a grown up first. If Guy needs help it's up to you to make sure that help is given, people with a habit rarely make it to 'the other side' without it. There are three conceivable scenarios available here:

1) Someone is frustrated with the lack of response from the company to a documented report through the company SMS (by whatever name) and decided to bring the matter to an outside agency. The motivation is irrelevant to an external inquiry; it is very pertinent to the company and the individual – but not to an investigator. Lets assume it's CASA; the pilot medical – suspended, Guy essentially now on his own hook; but, the damage has only just started. The second victim here will be the credibility of the company SMS, that can lead to other audit areas; which at best are costly, time consuming and expensive – at worst; well Tiger has been there and done that.

2) A personality clash or an upset individual or group has decided to put Guy's weights up, good and proper; there are several well known methods for doing this, the old "Chop ride" is a perennial favourite and has many side benefits; sexual harassment is another tried and tested stalwart of the game; the new ones are the PC card (barked at some one and call them names), etc. But the anonymous 'drink or drugs' wheeze is a doozy. There is a certain satisfactory viciousness to it, it's personal, vindictive, grossly unfair and the screen of anonymity just puts the hat on 'a job well done'. There are individuals who will stoop that low and when questioned, take to the moral high ground like a herd of startled gazelles. Despicable – but a reality.

3) The company system has worked smoothly and correctly; Guy's little problem identified and the company policy has swung into discrete action. This can only be a good thing for all concerned. Which only leaves the 'leak' to be corrected. Though why an individual would take such an action, which can not only damage Guy, but takes a fair bit of shine of the company good name is beyond me...

Either way, it's a lot of unnecessary trouble but it highlights, for me at least, many of the inherent problems the industry has; beginning with CASA generated paranoia ending with natural justice swinging on a very thin thread.

I just hope Guy sorts it all out and can get over it in fairly short order; for everyone's sake. Remember, it may be great fun to watch Christians v Lions from the stand – but it's a very different argument when 'you' are the one in the ring. Think of the rubber necks at a fire, or car crash.

Time expired caller – to extend insert another two bob – Click, burrrrrrr.

Last edited by Kharon; 3rd Aug 2014 at 21:10. Reason: Can't type for toffee.
Kharon is offline  
Old 3rd Aug 2014, 21:51
  #1504 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 0
The problem with these sorts of incidents is that, even if investigated and found to be baseless, the subject of that investigation effectively already has one strike against them.

If someone else decides to try and help the first complainant along by submitting a seemingly unrelated allegation, then the old "where there is smoke there is fire" system kicks in and the poor bastard is investigated again (rightly) but with a more jaundiced eye.

Everyone, regardless of their piety, professionalism and caution is guilty of some form of infraction of company guidelines, CASA rules or such - ever caught yourself at 61 in a 60 zone?

A creative investigator can build a damning case from very little if they want to.

The big problem that I see is that the perpetrators of these malicious and vexatious allegations are for the most part left unpunished. They should be dealt with the fullest extent of both the law and company policy, however as managers typically don't want to discourage the honest and legitimate report these scumbags are left with a slap on the wrist and a stern "don't do it again".

I can think of one bloke in a large carrier in Australia who made a number of false accusations about someone. That someone was investigated and found innocent of all the allegations yet his/her reputation was irreparably damaged and the accuser was unpunished. Given the outrageous nature of the allegations and the pre and post report behaviour of this individual, they should have been sacked, yet they continue on to this day.

The accused suffered significant embarrassment, stress, sleepless nights and humiliation, all at the hands of this tool and yet didn't even get a formal (or informal) apology from either the company or the accuser.
Snakecharma is offline  
Old 3rd Aug 2014, 22:57
  #1505 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: In a box
Posts: 217
Snakecharma,

Very interesting. Also know of a very similar incident at a large Australian Airline.

Pretty disgusting behavior both from the accuser and the company. Very much a dob in culture, most of which is based on lies and untruths.

Fear and Intimidation, great way to operate an airline.
Servo is online now  
Old 4th Aug 2014, 05:28
  #1506 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 54
Posts: 21
Shortly after reporting the flight plan error, the captain's medical certificate was suspended after an anonymous allegation was made to Tiger, Virgin Australia and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority accusing him of cocaine use.

The captain, who is understood to strenuously deny the allegation, had three months earlier passed drug and alcohol tests.

A CASA spokesman said it was standard procedure to suspend the medical certificate of any pilot accused of drug use until another drug test was conducted.
Seriously? Guilty until proven innocent.

Attempts by the captain to find out the source of the drug allegation have been unsuccessful, with CASA refusing to disclose whether it was someone in Tigerair management or elsewhere responsible.

CASA has refused a freedom of information request lodged by the captain for all documents regarding the drug use allegations because it would involve an “unreasonable disclosure” of personal information about the source of the complaint.

CASA also said release of information could harm Tiger’s business affairs and affect its ability to enforce aviation safety laws.
Don’t worry about procedural fairness or natural justice. The kangaroo court is in full session.
Tony the Tiler is offline  
Old 4th Aug 2014, 05:30
  #1507 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: south pacific vagrant
Posts: 1,312
CASA has refused a freedom of information request lodged by the captain for all documents regarding the drug use allegations because it would involve an “unreasonable disclosure” of personal information about the source of the complaint.

CASA also said release of information could harm Tiger’s business affairs and affect its ability to enforce aviation safety laws
if it were me i would get that tested in court.

by my union.
waren9 is offline  
Old 4th Aug 2014, 05:38
  #1508 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Oz
Posts: 131
Very interested to know on what grounds his employment was terminated.

Not so long ago I was subject to an allegation of recreational drug use by an anonymous person ('colleague'). I was hauled in off a reserve period for a DAMP test.

As the tester confirmed my negative result, I informed her of the reason I was there. "You'd be surprised how often that happens..." was her response (the clinic wasn't aviation specific).

My company was understanding, discreet and as shocked as I was that an accusation came my way considering my solid work history and reputation amongst colleagues. I still to this day have no idea who made the accusation and wonder whether it may have come from outside the company, masquerading as a colleague. I found it more than interesting that there was no follow up concern from the anonymous person. One would suspect if the allegation was made out of genuine concern, that this person would like to see action taken against me, and when that was not forthcoming, send another letter. Nothing since.....

It's a despicable act and aviation can well do without toxic, anonymous scumbags who reach their tentacles throughout a base/organisation pushing their own agenda for personal gain, or whatever bizzare motivation that exists for this kind of behavior.
strim is offline  
Old 4th Aug 2014, 05:42
  #1509 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Brisvegas
Posts: 2,805
It would be a very interesting legal case if the Pilot concerned here refused to cooperate with CASA and took them to the AAT for his medical. Then the person making the reports would have to front up. If they then reneged CASA would be in hot seat as they have cancelled someone's license without any firm evidence medical or otherwise.
What makes you believe that the reporter would need to show up?

The administrative action is by CASA, any appeal through the AAT is between the pilot and CASA only.

There seems to be a few people here who have watched too many courtroom tv shows and movies. In the real world, the rules of evidence are different for a criminal trial, a civil trial and an administrative action.

Creampuff may like to weigh in here.

Put yourself in the shoes of a CASA medical officer for a moment. You receive a letter or phone call telling you that a pilot to whom you have issued a medical certifiacte is a habitual drug user. What do you do? Ignore it?
Of course a process will be followed and it is pretty awful for the person concerned. In my company the stand down would be on full pay, not sure with Tiger, seems to me it may even be personal/sick leave if you do not have a medical certificate.

Is it fair? Of course not but fair is not a word to be used in the modern world really, there is only...is it legal and was the correct process followed.

Best wishes if the guy is innocent.
Icarus2001 is offline  
Old 4th Aug 2014, 06:13
  #1510 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Dark Side of the Moon
Posts: 884
Surely there is more to this story. If not, why would he be sacked? It would seem you can't sack him on the basis of the drug 'accusation' until it is proven true by a drug test. This would mean being sacked because he amended the flight plan so that he had the required amount of fuel onboard? Am I missing something here??
Ollie Onion is online now  
Old 4th Aug 2014, 06:33
  #1511 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: In a box
Posts: 217
Ollie, not sure about this case, but the one I mentioned, there was NOT more to the story.

An individual with a personal grudge went to "management" and the rest is history. As mentioned very expensive, with the individual on the receiving end close to losing their house.

It is the current management style in this particular "business". Keeping the in-house lawyers busy with these decisions, knowing that most will have not have the resources to go up against them.

OEB, wont be the only court case.

What ever happened to honesty, integrity and professional conduct (not talking about flight crew either).

They will do anything to keep it out of the media. Hopefully this will all come out.

I feel very sorry for the Captain. Keep your head up high.

Last edited by Servo; 4th Aug 2014 at 07:10.
Servo is online now  
Old 4th Aug 2014, 06:44
  #1512 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 311
Is the skipper in question a union member? If so, what are they doing?
bankrunner is offline  
Old 4th Aug 2014, 06:54
  #1513 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 204
You can't go to the AAT because CASA require a DAMP test. There are only certain things that can be appealed. If they suspend or cancel the pilot's license then he can appeal to the AAT even then you may not get to see the name of the accuser.Only the reasons for the suspension or cancellation.
Lookleft is offline  
Old 4th Aug 2014, 07:26
  #1514 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Australia
Age: 54
Posts: 425
The name of the whistle-blower can be obtained by court order. If the imputation made by the allegation has caused unjust harm or damage to a person, they can argue that the Law of Torts needs to be applied. The court will then decide on the merit of the case and possibly order CASA to release the name and all paperwork associated with the complaint and any internal correspondence. CASA could/would, of course appeal. This can get expensive and time consuming and that's probably what CaSA would like to see happen- they have no interest in justice, they are too busy covering their ass.

If you are ever caught in this situation and found "not guilty" of what you have been accused of, this is my advice:

Initially return to the line and resist ANY attempt for instant justice or gratification. Don't ask any one about who said what. Don't engage on any 'fishing expeditions'....yet. Be a good guy, don't engage in discussion of the case other than to say stuff like "well, I'm glad that's over and my name's been cleared".

Get legal advice. Speak to a union rep and gradually uncover the facts. Take notes, keep a daily diary and record any conversations that you have with management or colleagues. Don't go to HR as they are only there to protect the company's interest, not yours. A company Harrassment Contact Officer, could possibly be approached, but they have a strict code which limits their involvement. However, they can be called as a witness at a later date. This may or may not work in your interest so be careful what you say and DON'T name ANYBODY as a 'suspect'. A contact officer is legally bound to confidentiality, but can be called to give evidence.

Insist that the company issue a memo that recognises that your reputation haste been besmirched by a false allegation and they you have been totally absolved in an investigation. The memo should also have words to the effect that any gossip or discussion regarding this will be treated as workplace harassment and dealt with accordingly (the company would face massive legal repercussions should they fail to take strenuous action in this regard). If they fail to do this, get legal advice. You could sue them for allowing a hostile work environment.

In the event that you are in any way harassed/ostracised/passed over by either management or other staff, take notes, recordings, diarise, get witnesses etc. only when you have iron-clad evidence should you take action and lodge a claim for damages. If there are any repercussions, go for unfair dismissal or workplace Harrassment. By this stage, with patience, you should have them by the balls.
Anthill is offline  
Old 4th Aug 2014, 08:36
  #1515 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,426
It would seem that those who wish, for whatever nefarious reason, to engage in this despicable behaviour, can do so with impunity.
Having been on the receiving end of this absolutely unconscionable behavior there is little chance of getting CAsA to give up their snitches.
They are a protected species, especially in Wodger Wabbits warren.
The head bunny is a complete sociopathic psychopath, no conscience, no morals, absolutely no conscience for the havoc his minions create.
thorn bird is offline  
Old 4th Aug 2014, 09:02
  #1516 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
The man with the twisted lip.

Bear with me; there is a point. Many years ago; Conan Doyle wrote the fictitious 'Sherlock Holmes' stories. One was about 'the man with the twisted lip'. In short, a junior journalist researching a story dressed as a beggar to get the story;and, was successful; so much so that he resigned his job and took up permanent residence on the London streets as a beggar; he simply made more money that way. Anyway – one day his wife 'saw' him being murdered while she was lost in the back streets; through a window of an opium den owned and operated by some very shady characters. Enter Holmes – he nuts it all out and at the end of the tale, everyone realises that, for various reasons the wrong man had been identified as murdered. Turns out, the 'victim' would rather be in jail, as a murder, than let his wife know that the family wealth came from his dressing as a beggar each day. Great story and worth a read; but no where near as bizarre as the current Tiger tale.

The elements appear parallel though; drugs, misidentification, false imprisonment etc. etc. Just no Holmes to 'sort it' all out before the public knows....

Maybe, it's just me; but deputy chief pilots have always seemed 'suss'; never had a flicker of 'bovver' with the boss; but DCP? – mostly at the dizzy limit of Toller-ance. Seems to me changes need to occur at Tiger, tout de suite; the tooter, the sweeter. You can't just barge about, sacking blokes on a whim; laying accusations on a fancy. Those who do not have fact and empirical evidence to support it, need to apologise, re instate and then; on account of cocking it up so completely: RESIGN.

Now; I've never been sure how to express 'bugger off' in more than one sentence; however; if three pages suit, then I shall endeavour to do it. Just so long as the message is completely, utterly and Virginaly understood. That is - the penalty for crucifying the wrong man, on the wrong agenda, for the wrong reasons, sacking and then; leaking the wrong blessed report to a half wit press is unacceptable.

Total cock-up; the man with the twisted lip was a fantasy, a fiction: this is very real and very, very offensive. No operator; I'm done.....

Last edited by Kharon; 4th Aug 2014 at 09:25.
Kharon is offline  
Old 4th Aug 2014, 09:36
  #1517 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: In a box
Posts: 217
Nicely written Kharon.

Unfortunately these decision makers are untouchable..........
Servo is online now  
Old 4th Aug 2014, 09:38
  #1518 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 64
Posts: 681
I am sure I am not alone in finding this latest development at Tiger Australia immensely disturbing.

We have $12/hr staff supported by $ 500K/yr CASA (ex-colleague) who can decide in a blink to destroy the life of someone without evidence.

Maybe this has become modern Australia. If so, count me out

The union needs to fund a civil case that will require disclosure...assuming Australia still subscribes to the common law
VR-HFX is offline  
Old 4th Aug 2014, 10:07
  #1519 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Tanx....

Servo - Nicely written Kharon.
Thank you. Best I could do, considering; just departed the BRB meeting, no AP/FMS/AT and hells fury at the gate (seems it was my turn to cook and B&E just won't do). No matter – what a mess eh? Makes you wonder why they go broke and the old McComic could stitch 'em up so very easily.. Lord, what a life eh??? but; it's all for Lurv, at least so they tell me.

Toot toot.
Kharon is offline  
Old 4th Aug 2014, 12:36
  #1520 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 559
Welcome to the great western fallacy called 'democracy'.
004wercras is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.