Merged: AFAP and the Mutual Benefit Fund
Thread Starter
Merged: AFAP and the Mutual Benefit Fund
Just read the latest missives from the AFAP and WR. I have to say there appears to be some selective arguing going on here.
When the Conflict of Interest issue was raised years ago, WR would know, but did not mention in his letter, that MC immediately quit his AFAP post. For WR to use MC's example as "it's OK to have a foot in both camps" without also mentioning Mike's action is a little disingenuous, I think. I note that TS also takes up this point in his memo of the 29th of July. He wrote “MC, as one example, was both for many years and did not find it an issue during those years when he was a Federation officer”, but also fails to point out that MC immediately resigned from his AFAP position when the conflict of interest issue came up.
My understanding is that, even though the AFAP started the MBF, many many years ago, the MBF was split off into it's own organisation (it is, after all, the Australian Air Pilots MBF, not the AFAP MBF). Obviously, the AFAP and/or MBF management (of which WR was one, according to his letter) at the time saw that a conflict of interest could potentially develop between the two, with the (especially now) significant monetary assets in the MBF possibly being compromised. Why is he now spreading doom and gloom just because the current MBF trustees simply want to return the situation to the status quo that existed prior to 2007 when the AFAP was not the trustee/custodian?
The reality is that there is no linkage between the AFAP and the MBF save the fact that you have to be a member of the AFAP to be a member of the MBF, which is enshrined in the rules. The AFAP never had any "control" over the MBF until it (the AFAP) was granted "trustee/custodian" status (the term “custodian” is the one used for this situation in financial circles) in 2007, and then only to facilitate the MBF being covered by the AFAP's simplified Financial Services Regulations arrangements. Any thinking person would agree that the MBF trustees were not handing over the reins of the MBF. Now that the MBF trustees have decided that the previous arrangement is no longer necessary, fierce resistance is coming from the AFAP. While the AFAP (BM, TS and WR) are arguing that they don’t want control over the fund, they are fighting tooth and nail to derail the MBF trustees and their plan to return the MBF to the status quo of 2007, when the AFAP had absolutely no control over the MBF.
Contrary to TS’s claim in his memo that dual appointments have been beneficial, in my view, there is an obvious potential conflict of interest. WR’s statement “a vote in favour of change …will end a tradition” needs further explanation. Is he implying that a principal officer of the AFAP will never have a conflict of interest being a trustee of the MBF, arguably a completely different organisation with no common function? I cannot see any beneficial argument for allowing AFAP principal officers to be trustees of the MBF. On the contrary, I can clearly see an argument for disallowing such an arrangement. Say for example there were a number of AFAP principal officers voted into MBF trustee positions. It is not hard to see a scenario where the MBF’s assets could be manipulated to suit the needs of the AFAP, which may not be in the best interests of the MBF member’s LOL facility. There needs to be an absolutely clear gap between both organisations and the proposed rule preventing dual roles is a fair one, in my view.
BM's letter of the 28th of July carries the same theme. The AFAP, at the MBF's request, was made trustee/custodian of the MBF. Then, suddenly, the AFAP has started demanding all manner of info about how the MBF is being run, in particular what the story was with Austair (which I’m sure WR could have filled him in on), urging a NO vote to stop a return to the pre-2007 situation.
As for the competence and integrity of the trustees running the MBF, the financial state of the fund speaks for itself. Under the stewardship of HO, admin processes and controls have been tightened significantly over previous “arrangements” and above all, the financial health of the fund is stunning compared with almost all other investment funds, again due to HO’s steerage. So much so that the benefit amounts have been increased. To imply that the MBF trustees are engaging in some sort of skullduggery without the best interests of the members at heart is unfair, unjustified scaremongering.
Perhaps the question that really needs to be asked is why, when it didn’t even initiate the transfer of trusteeship to it a couple of years ago, the AFAP is now so vociferous in it’s opposition to relinquishing it? In his memo, TS quotes HO as saying “[the AFAP] required control over the assets of the fund and legal title”. For HO to say such as thing, given all he has done to improve the running and performance of the MBF, alarm bells should be ringing among MBF members.
It is seems to me that the MBF trustees are doing the right thing here. They obviously have major concerns about the current arrangements and want to change them back to the previous setup. It’s a shame the communication to explain the situation isn’t better.
I say vote Yes.
When the Conflict of Interest issue was raised years ago, WR would know, but did not mention in his letter, that MC immediately quit his AFAP post. For WR to use MC's example as "it's OK to have a foot in both camps" without also mentioning Mike's action is a little disingenuous, I think. I note that TS also takes up this point in his memo of the 29th of July. He wrote “MC, as one example, was both for many years and did not find it an issue during those years when he was a Federation officer”, but also fails to point out that MC immediately resigned from his AFAP position when the conflict of interest issue came up.
My understanding is that, even though the AFAP started the MBF, many many years ago, the MBF was split off into it's own organisation (it is, after all, the Australian Air Pilots MBF, not the AFAP MBF). Obviously, the AFAP and/or MBF management (of which WR was one, according to his letter) at the time saw that a conflict of interest could potentially develop between the two, with the (especially now) significant monetary assets in the MBF possibly being compromised. Why is he now spreading doom and gloom just because the current MBF trustees simply want to return the situation to the status quo that existed prior to 2007 when the AFAP was not the trustee/custodian?
The reality is that there is no linkage between the AFAP and the MBF save the fact that you have to be a member of the AFAP to be a member of the MBF, which is enshrined in the rules. The AFAP never had any "control" over the MBF until it (the AFAP) was granted "trustee/custodian" status (the term “custodian” is the one used for this situation in financial circles) in 2007, and then only to facilitate the MBF being covered by the AFAP's simplified Financial Services Regulations arrangements. Any thinking person would agree that the MBF trustees were not handing over the reins of the MBF. Now that the MBF trustees have decided that the previous arrangement is no longer necessary, fierce resistance is coming from the AFAP. While the AFAP (BM, TS and WR) are arguing that they don’t want control over the fund, they are fighting tooth and nail to derail the MBF trustees and their plan to return the MBF to the status quo of 2007, when the AFAP had absolutely no control over the MBF.
Contrary to TS’s claim in his memo that dual appointments have been beneficial, in my view, there is an obvious potential conflict of interest. WR’s statement “a vote in favour of change …will end a tradition” needs further explanation. Is he implying that a principal officer of the AFAP will never have a conflict of interest being a trustee of the MBF, arguably a completely different organisation with no common function? I cannot see any beneficial argument for allowing AFAP principal officers to be trustees of the MBF. On the contrary, I can clearly see an argument for disallowing such an arrangement. Say for example there were a number of AFAP principal officers voted into MBF trustee positions. It is not hard to see a scenario where the MBF’s assets could be manipulated to suit the needs of the AFAP, which may not be in the best interests of the MBF member’s LOL facility. There needs to be an absolutely clear gap between both organisations and the proposed rule preventing dual roles is a fair one, in my view.
BM's letter of the 28th of July carries the same theme. The AFAP, at the MBF's request, was made trustee/custodian of the MBF. Then, suddenly, the AFAP has started demanding all manner of info about how the MBF is being run, in particular what the story was with Austair (which I’m sure WR could have filled him in on), urging a NO vote to stop a return to the pre-2007 situation.
As for the competence and integrity of the trustees running the MBF, the financial state of the fund speaks for itself. Under the stewardship of HO, admin processes and controls have been tightened significantly over previous “arrangements” and above all, the financial health of the fund is stunning compared with almost all other investment funds, again due to HO’s steerage. So much so that the benefit amounts have been increased. To imply that the MBF trustees are engaging in some sort of skullduggery without the best interests of the members at heart is unfair, unjustified scaremongering.
Perhaps the question that really needs to be asked is why, when it didn’t even initiate the transfer of trusteeship to it a couple of years ago, the AFAP is now so vociferous in it’s opposition to relinquishing it? In his memo, TS quotes HO as saying “[the AFAP] required control over the assets of the fund and legal title”. For HO to say such as thing, given all he has done to improve the running and performance of the MBF, alarm bells should be ringing among MBF members.
It is seems to me that the MBF trustees are doing the right thing here. They obviously have major concerns about the current arrangements and want to change them back to the previous setup. It’s a shame the communication to explain the situation isn’t better.
I say vote Yes.
Capt Bloggs.
If HO could unequivocably state that trusteeship and control of the fund will remain with the "Board"/ "Trustees" without outside influence and at no cost to the membership, I would be inclined to say YES.
However, such is not the case. In 2007 we were advised that we must move from the traditional Trusteeship, IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE FINACIAL SERVICES ACT. It was deemed that AFAP was the preferred option.
Nothing has changed. Any move away from the AFAP Trusteeship will cost the fund bulk dollars.
I intend to vote NO in this first vote. If the argument has merit it will get up again after we have been given full information and proper, rational, discussion has ensued.
This is a kneejerk response to a few bruised ego's brought on by the incumbents inability to properly think through and implement a proposal.
Currently we have only half the story. The return of Trusteeship to the Board is only the first of many moves. Following the 2007 Trustees argument, the legislation requires that.
Come on Harry, tell us the full story. Turn the lights on, come out of the dark.
Maui
If HO could unequivocably state that trusteeship and control of the fund will remain with the "Board"/ "Trustees" without outside influence and at no cost to the membership, I would be inclined to say YES.
However, such is not the case. In 2007 we were advised that we must move from the traditional Trusteeship, IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE FINACIAL SERVICES ACT. It was deemed that AFAP was the preferred option.
Nothing has changed. Any move away from the AFAP Trusteeship will cost the fund bulk dollars.
I intend to vote NO in this first vote. If the argument has merit it will get up again after we have been given full information and proper, rational, discussion has ensued.
This is a kneejerk response to a few bruised ego's brought on by the incumbents inability to properly think through and implement a proposal.
Currently we have only half the story. The return of Trusteeship to the Board is only the first of many moves. Following the 2007 Trustees argument, the legislation requires that.
Come on Harry, tell us the full story. Turn the lights on, come out of the dark.
Maui
I concur with Maui
IMHO we are not getting the whole story here from one side and I have no idea which side that is. Its a VERY rushed vote.
I have voted NO until more is known, ie after the AGM. It will be very hard (and $$$$$) to unscramble the egg.
IMHO we are not getting the whole story here from one side and I have no idea which side that is. Its a VERY rushed vote.
I have voted NO until more is known, ie after the AGM. It will be very hard (and $$$$$) to unscramble the egg.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Qld
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To say I have a limited understanding of the current situation would be an understatement but what I do know is at this time the MBF does not pay tax. In order for this to remain the case, the AFAP are required to continue as the trustee (or at least so I'm told). This is apparantly advice from the ATO and is required by legislation as Maui said.
I also voted NO as I don't think we have all the facts from either side. Annoying that my contributions to both parties are being used in this way.
I also voted NO as I don't think we have all the facts from either side. Annoying that my contributions to both parties are being used in this way.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: vic
Age: 23
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wouldnt happen to be mates with HO would you bloggs? Might be fairer to declare an interest before posting on the subject, makes your arguments more plausible when you do.
Thread Starter
Fair enough comment Dodgy. I am an aquaintance of HO, yes. But with all my Prune posts (apart from the s-stirring ones 
, I argue the case at hand; I don't push any particular barrow just for the ideological sake of it, as is happening with other input on this issue IMO. If I didn't think the issues that I have mentioned above had any merit, I would not have posted what I did, regardless of who the person was. I would ask you therefore to treat my opening post in that light rather than "he's a mate of ... so he must be FOS".
Being an aquaintance of HO has shown me that the MBF and it's member's potential payouts are currently in the safest hands that they have ever been. Any move to return to the "good old days" would be counter productive and has to be treated with great suspicion. Contrary to the claim of "breaking with tradition", there will always be AFAP members running the MBF as trustees and a paper ballot system in this day and age is morally mandatory.
, I argue the case at hand; I don't push any particular barrow just for the ideological sake of it, as is happening with other input on this issue IMO. If I didn't think the issues that I have mentioned above had any merit, I would not have posted what I did, regardless of who the person was. I would ask you therefore to treat my opening post in that light rather than "he's a mate of ... so he must be FOS".Being an aquaintance of HO has shown me that the MBF and it's member's potential payouts are currently in the safest hands that they have ever been. Any move to return to the "good old days" would be counter productive and has to be treated with great suspicion. Contrary to the claim of "breaking with tradition", there will always be AFAP members running the MBF as trustees and a paper ballot system in this day and age is morally mandatory.
I also voted NO. There is more to this than has become apparent yet. Let us have an extraordinary general meeting so that both parties can put their case. Vote NO, let the membership decide when all the cards are on the table, then make a fully informed and rational decision.
Capt Bloggs
Just what are you smoking.
You support the proposals, then you talk of a return to the "good old days" being counter productive.
That is exactly what is being proposed by the current Board.
A return to the good old days of 2007! Those same days that the then Trustees, (with remarkably similar names to the members of the current Board), deemed that to comply with the law, we must have a change of trusteeship, and that in the best interests of the membership that trustee should be the AFAP.
If you have any knowledge of the concept of trusteeship, please help me understand how you can appoint a trustee without handing over the assets to be held in trust. The trustee is LEGALLY, ULTIMATELY responsible for the assets.
If by some chance the assets disappeared, the members would ONLY have recourse to the TRUSTEE. And yet the current Board expect the AFAP to accept that responsibility but will not allow them even to hold the title to the assets. You can bet your bottom dollar that the Fund's legal advice would have covered this requirement. In the absence of the transfer of title to the assets, we have a situation where a group of 9 persons, not accountable to anyone, are in possession of the assets, technically able to do with them whatever they wish. Including shipping them off to the Bahamas. But hey that is OK, the AFAP are legally responsible, they will pick up the tab. This is why the AFAP have insisted that title be handed over.
No one with an ounce of intelligence would be critical of the execellent financial result that has occured over the last few years. But credit where credit is due, this has all been down to one decision to move out of the market. Prior to that one pivotal decision, any monkey could make **** loads in the market. We must all be eternally grateful that the Investment Committee had the foresight to sell out when they did.
But the current situation is not about financial results, it is about administrative and procedural correctness and legality. Two years ago the proposition was put that we should move towards the AFAP. The laws requiring that move have not altered. The argument still stands.
Talk of greater democracy is all smoke and mirrors. It is a side show designed to take your attention away from the real issues of governance. The postal vote for Trustees would get up on its own, there was no need to tie it into this current vote. Equally the argument about Principal Officers is specious. It's a distraction and it's personal.
I reissue the challenge.
Harry give us an unequivocal committment that the proposed changes will stand on their own. Tell us with your hand on your heart that the fund will remain free of outside influence and at no increased cost to the membership.
Then I will give you my vote.
Maui
Just what are you smoking.
You support the proposals, then you talk of a return to the "good old days" being counter productive.
That is exactly what is being proposed by the current Board.
A return to the good old days of 2007! Those same days that the then Trustees, (with remarkably similar names to the members of the current Board), deemed that to comply with the law, we must have a change of trusteeship, and that in the best interests of the membership that trustee should be the AFAP.
If you have any knowledge of the concept of trusteeship, please help me understand how you can appoint a trustee without handing over the assets to be held in trust. The trustee is LEGALLY, ULTIMATELY responsible for the assets.
If by some chance the assets disappeared, the members would ONLY have recourse to the TRUSTEE. And yet the current Board expect the AFAP to accept that responsibility but will not allow them even to hold the title to the assets. You can bet your bottom dollar that the Fund's legal advice would have covered this requirement. In the absence of the transfer of title to the assets, we have a situation where a group of 9 persons, not accountable to anyone, are in possession of the assets, technically able to do with them whatever they wish. Including shipping them off to the Bahamas. But hey that is OK, the AFAP are legally responsible, they will pick up the tab. This is why the AFAP have insisted that title be handed over.
No one with an ounce of intelligence would be critical of the execellent financial result that has occured over the last few years. But credit where credit is due, this has all been down to one decision to move out of the market. Prior to that one pivotal decision, any monkey could make **** loads in the market. We must all be eternally grateful that the Investment Committee had the foresight to sell out when they did.
But the current situation is not about financial results, it is about administrative and procedural correctness and legality. Two years ago the proposition was put that we should move towards the AFAP. The laws requiring that move have not altered. The argument still stands.
Talk of greater democracy is all smoke and mirrors. It is a side show designed to take your attention away from the real issues of governance. The postal vote for Trustees would get up on its own, there was no need to tie it into this current vote. Equally the argument about Principal Officers is specious. It's a distraction and it's personal.
I reissue the challenge.
Harry give us an unequivocal committment that the proposed changes will stand on their own. Tell us with your hand on your heart that the fund will remain free of outside influence and at no increased cost to the membership.
Then I will give you my vote.
Maui
Last edited by maui; 10th Aug 2009 at 12:01.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How ridiculous,
I will be voting NO!
The guys on the MBF need a good swift kick up the ass. It has turned into a real boys club.
If we wish to make a rule change, how about one that precludes retired pilots who are no longer financial member of the MBF from being trustees. There are at least 3 there at the moment. These guys are making decisions with the funds money when they have retired, are no longer financial contributing fund members and have taken their 5B refunds.
3 rule changs but only one box to tick. In the past the copy of the old rule was included to compare with the new one. Where is it? Why can I not vote for individual rule changes, why the vote for one vote for all?
This entire mess has been conjured up in record time without due consideration or consultation. The states have taken the fund to court 3 times already to try and change their classificaton and therefore their tax consessions, and thus far they have lost. Maybe not next time.
The AFAP were appointed custodians to avoid the regulated and expensive FSL. Why don't the MBF publish the expected setup and ongoing cost associated with holding and FSL? I have seen the cost estimated from last time they looked at it. We are not talking just a few thousand $$$$.
This will also put the fund one step closer to the state governments having the MBF classified as an insurance as opposed to a mutual benefit fund and losing all its current tax advantages.
I have spoken to TOC, BW, TS and all have said that the AFAP don't want to control the funds as the MBF would have us believe. As custodians they hold the resonsibility however. They don't want to take over the running of the fund. This can be assured within the rules. It’s quite easy. As for the exclusion of AFAP board members being unable to hold the position of trustee is equally ridiculous. AFAP board members have been trustees for years.
At least 2 of the MBF trustees who were absent from the meeting where this situation arose oppose the rest of the trustees on this issue, so it is far from an unanimous trustee decision.
Before they MBF launch into an impulse and reactive course of action they need to sit down with the AFAP like adults and talk to them.
If not I think we may need to ensure the current trustees are not returned to their position. The MBF is a great fund which may be ruined forever. Why the rush. Let’s take a breather, take time to analyse the facts, talk to the AFAP and then make an informed decision.
I will be voting NO!
The guys on the MBF need a good swift kick up the ass. It has turned into a real boys club.
If we wish to make a rule change, how about one that precludes retired pilots who are no longer financial member of the MBF from being trustees. There are at least 3 there at the moment. These guys are making decisions with the funds money when they have retired, are no longer financial contributing fund members and have taken their 5B refunds.
3 rule changs but only one box to tick. In the past the copy of the old rule was included to compare with the new one. Where is it? Why can I not vote for individual rule changes, why the vote for one vote for all?
This entire mess has been conjured up in record time without due consideration or consultation. The states have taken the fund to court 3 times already to try and change their classificaton and therefore their tax consessions, and thus far they have lost. Maybe not next time.
The AFAP were appointed custodians to avoid the regulated and expensive FSL. Why don't the MBF publish the expected setup and ongoing cost associated with holding and FSL? I have seen the cost estimated from last time they looked at it. We are not talking just a few thousand $$$$.
This will also put the fund one step closer to the state governments having the MBF classified as an insurance as opposed to a mutual benefit fund and losing all its current tax advantages.
I have spoken to TOC, BW, TS and all have said that the AFAP don't want to control the funds as the MBF would have us believe. As custodians they hold the resonsibility however. They don't want to take over the running of the fund. This can be assured within the rules. It’s quite easy. As for the exclusion of AFAP board members being unable to hold the position of trustee is equally ridiculous. AFAP board members have been trustees for years.
At least 2 of the MBF trustees who were absent from the meeting where this situation arose oppose the rest of the trustees on this issue, so it is far from an unanimous trustee decision.
Before they MBF launch into an impulse and reactive course of action they need to sit down with the AFAP like adults and talk to them.
If not I think we may need to ensure the current trustees are not returned to their position. The MBF is a great fund which may be ruined forever. Why the rush. Let’s take a breather, take time to analyse the facts, talk to the AFAP and then make an informed decision.
Last edited by fmcinop; 13th Aug 2009 at 01:05.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An Open letter to Capt O’Neil Board Chairman AAPMBF
From Paul Makin. Former Trustee and Chairman of Trustees of AAPMBF
Harry, I refer to you letter of 12 August.
As you point out, a NO vote (on it's own), will not reinstate the AFAP, as Trustee. However a NO vote will require that to get the proposal up, the Board will need to discuss the matter fully and properly with the membership, before putting the question again. The Board will need to justify its actions.
At the moment the membership have no idea of the circumstances behind this precipitous action.
The membership have not been informed of where you propose to take the fund should your proposal be accepted.
Is it proposed that this reversion to 2007 is the end of the matter?
If the 2007 arguments as to why the AAPMBF should be placed in the Trusteeship of the AFAP were valid, what has changed to allow a return to the pre 2007 status quo, or is some other arrangement still required, should your poll be successful?
What has the AFAP done to warrant its removal as Trustee?
The usual procedure for rule change is to put each change separately, to argue each point and to vote on each separately. Why do you feel the need to lump all these changes together and process them under a single vote? Could it be that you want the motherhood issue of postal voting for Board Members, to cloak a darker side of your proposal?
What are the transitional arrangements? Given that the vote closes just days before the scheduled AGM, what process is to apply for elections at that AGM. Old rules or new rules?
There are too many unanswered questions in this matter. The membership deserve to know what is going on. To put a proposal on the basis of “we reckon this is good for you, swallow it and don’t ask questions”, could be perceived as being somewhat arrogant.
On behalf of the membership I ask that you share with us your concerns. We appointed you to look after our interests, not to treat us like mushrooms. That appointment was not a blank cheque.
Harry. Please talk to us.
Regards
Paul Makin
From Paul Makin. Former Trustee and Chairman of Trustees of AAPMBF
Harry, I refer to you letter of 12 August.
As you point out, a NO vote (on it's own), will not reinstate the AFAP, as Trustee. However a NO vote will require that to get the proposal up, the Board will need to discuss the matter fully and properly with the membership, before putting the question again. The Board will need to justify its actions.
At the moment the membership have no idea of the circumstances behind this precipitous action.
The membership have not been informed of where you propose to take the fund should your proposal be accepted.
Is it proposed that this reversion to 2007 is the end of the matter?
If the 2007 arguments as to why the AAPMBF should be placed in the Trusteeship of the AFAP were valid, what has changed to allow a return to the pre 2007 status quo, or is some other arrangement still required, should your poll be successful?
What has the AFAP done to warrant its removal as Trustee?
The usual procedure for rule change is to put each change separately, to argue each point and to vote on each separately. Why do you feel the need to lump all these changes together and process them under a single vote? Could it be that you want the motherhood issue of postal voting for Board Members, to cloak a darker side of your proposal?
What are the transitional arrangements? Given that the vote closes just days before the scheduled AGM, what process is to apply for elections at that AGM. Old rules or new rules?
There are too many unanswered questions in this matter. The membership deserve to know what is going on. To put a proposal on the basis of “we reckon this is good for you, swallow it and don’t ask questions”, could be perceived as being somewhat arrogant.
On behalf of the membership I ask that you share with us your concerns. We appointed you to look after our interests, not to treat us like mushrooms. That appointment was not a blank cheque.
Harry. Please talk to us.
Regards
Paul Makin
Last edited by paul makin; 13th Aug 2009 at 23:47. Reason: layout
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 725
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Point of order!
Slow down a little, fellas! I can understand why an AFAP and an MBF member might be confused about all this. For your average fund member, this debate came 'out of the blue.'
However, lets avoid the temptation to follow the path from uncertainty, via fear, to suspicion.
It is unfair to conclude that those proposing a rule change do so to benefit themselves, or could somehow care less because 'their money' is not involved.
It has been my experience that those pilots who willingly give up valuable drinking time/family time/recreation time to administer and represent pilots in union activities and not-for-profit organisations, are usually motivated by a sense of the group, responsibility to the community and advancement of the profession.
I too am a little concerned about this "AFAP v MBF" issue.
I have had the pleasure of working alongside both the AFAP president and the MBF chair, and know them to be men who, if faced with a choice, will think it through, and do what they believe is right, not what suits them. Both have been faced similar tests in the past, and chosen the path that they believed was right, and wore the personal cost.
My "master caution" light is going off because two men whose views I respect, have opposing views on a serious matter.
So please, as we move forward on this ... Play the ball, not the man!
we have a situation where a group of 9 persons, not accountable to anyone, are in possession of the assets, technically able to do with them whatever they wish.
The guys on the MBF need a good swift kick up the ass. It has turned into a real boys club.
However, lets avoid the temptation to follow the path from uncertainty, via fear, to suspicion.
It is unfair to conclude that those proposing a rule change do so to benefit themselves, or could somehow care less because 'their money' is not involved.
It has been my experience that those pilots who willingly give up valuable drinking time/family time/recreation time to administer and represent pilots in union activities and not-for-profit organisations, are usually motivated by a sense of the group, responsibility to the community and advancement of the profession.
I too am a little concerned about this "AFAP v MBF" issue.
I have had the pleasure of working alongside both the AFAP president and the MBF chair, and know them to be men who, if faced with a choice, will think it through, and do what they believe is right, not what suits them. Both have been faced similar tests in the past, and chosen the path that they believed was right, and wore the personal cost.
My "master caution" light is going off because two men whose views I respect, have opposing views on a serious matter.
So please, as we move forward on this ... Play the ball, not the man!
Last edited by ITCZ; 14th Aug 2009 at 14:02.
ITCZ
Like the meterological area you represent, you are a tad confused.
If you are inferrring, my comments suggested this, read again. (keyword technically)
Toatally concur.
If this is the case. How is that two individuals, apparently working to the same ideals, can be so at loggerheads. If they both are doing what they believe is right and if their perception of what is right is alligned, there could be no difference between the two. As it is, there is a major rift.
Ergo there is a major difference between the two, as to what is right.
Ergo there is a need for serious discussion betweeen the parties to determine what IS RIGHT.
It is my understandng that the AAPMBF Chairman has refused any meaningful dscussion, and has even failed to disclose tothe AFAP President,what the AFAP has done to incurr the wrath of the AAPMBF board.
Shame on that man.
Point of order overruled.
Maui
Like the meterological area you represent, you are a tad confused.
It is unfair to conclude that those proposing a rule change do so to benefit themselves, or could somehow care less because 'their money' is not involved
It has been my experience that those pilots who willingly give up valuable drinking time/family time/recreation time to administer and represent pilots in union activities and not-for-profit organisations, are usually motivated by a sense of the group, responsibility to the community and advancement of the profession.
I have had the pleasure of working alongside both the AFAP president and the MBF chair, and know them to be men who, if faced with a choice, will think it through, and do what they believe is right, not what suits them. Both have been faced similar tests in the past, and chosen the path that they believed was right, and wore the personal cost.
Ergo there is a major difference between the two, as to what is right.
Ergo there is a need for serious discussion betweeen the parties to determine what IS RIGHT.
It is my understandng that the AAPMBF Chairman has refused any meaningful dscussion, and has even failed to disclose tothe AFAP President,what the AFAP has done to incurr the wrath of the AAPMBF board.
Shame on that man.
Point of order overruled.
Maui
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don Diego,
As an ex trustee and having been invloved in some of the rule changes we are all talking about I think I know exactly what I am talking about.
Maybe it is you who should get their facts straight.
As an ex trustee and having been invloved in some of the rule changes we are all talking about I think I know exactly what I am talking about.
Maybe it is you who should get their facts straight.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As has been said elsewhere:
..with globalisation bearing down on the Virgin and Qantas Groups, it’s time for Qantas Group pilots to embrace innovative change which, inter alia, means merging AFAP & AIPA, to bring into existence an Australian Pilots Association (APA)....that the MBF Trustees appears to understand that the MBF needs new blood if it is to grow and continue to offer very attractive LOL insurance to its members, is ...compelling reason to bring on the AFAP/AIPA merger asap.
..with globalisation bearing down on the Virgin and Qantas Groups, it’s time for Qantas Group pilots to embrace innovative change which, inter alia, means merging AFAP & AIPA, to bring into existence an Australian Pilots Association (APA)....that the MBF Trustees appears to understand that the MBF needs new blood if it is to grow and continue to offer very attractive LOL insurance to its members, is ...compelling reason to bring on the AFAP/AIPA merger asap.
WoodenEye
This discussion has nothing to do with the current state of affairs between AIPA and AFAP. How about leaving this discussion in it's own context, and refrain from muddying these waters with " that other battle royal" that is raging on.
The AAPMBF neither needs to expand nor does it need new blood to grow and to continue to provide it's excellent coverage. It is basically self sustaining now. The fund has grown year on year, and to the best of my knowledge, for the last 25 years or so, has been able to pay all claims out of profits and subscriptions.
Sorry sport we dont need you. Don't conjure up a ficticious need of the MBF, to support your amalgamation ambitions. Let that rise or fall on its industrial merit.
Having said that, I am sure the AAPMBF will be able to make reasonable accomodations for the AIPA members should an amalgamation eventually take place, and should they be invited to join.
Maui
This discussion has nothing to do with the current state of affairs between AIPA and AFAP. How about leaving this discussion in it's own context, and refrain from muddying these waters with " that other battle royal" that is raging on.
The AAPMBF neither needs to expand nor does it need new blood to grow and to continue to provide it's excellent coverage. It is basically self sustaining now. The fund has grown year on year, and to the best of my knowledge, for the last 25 years or so, has been able to pay all claims out of profits and subscriptions.
Sorry sport we dont need you. Don't conjure up a ficticious need of the MBF, to support your amalgamation ambitions. Let that rise or fall on its industrial merit.
Having said that, I am sure the AAPMBF will be able to make reasonable accomodations for the AIPA members should an amalgamation eventually take place, and should they be invited to join.
Maui
fmcinop,in your post you mention those in the AFAP you have contacted in regard to this matter yet there is no mention of any contact with the Fund so have you really only heard one version??
You say you have seen costings on obtaining an FSL so why not put them all here for us to see??
You take a shot at the over 65 years of age trustees because they no longer contribute and have taken their refund yet are happy to hand legal title and control of the Funds assets to the AFAP that have no rules in place to deal with that and has over 800 members who are not Fund members.
You mention a meeting where two trustees were absent,your point being?The AFAP conducts meetings with a bare quorum and all those decisions are not always unanimous.
For the record I agree that dialogue is best way to solve this.DD.
PS this is not AFAP bashing,if you have any doubts then just have a look at some of my older posts on other matters.
You say you have seen costings on obtaining an FSL so why not put them all here for us to see??
You take a shot at the over 65 years of age trustees because they no longer contribute and have taken their refund yet are happy to hand legal title and control of the Funds assets to the AFAP that have no rules in place to deal with that and has over 800 members who are not Fund members.
You mention a meeting where two trustees were absent,your point being?The AFAP conducts meetings with a bare quorum and all those decisions are not always unanimous.
For the record I agree that dialogue is best way to solve this.DD.
PS this is not AFAP bashing,if you have any doubts then just have a look at some of my older posts on other matters.
Last edited by Don Diego; 16th Aug 2009 at 05:04.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First of all, I have spoken to some of nut not all of the MBF trustees and the AFAP so have a good grasp of both sides of the story.
The costing I have related to the setup and ongoing cost of having a FSL are about 4 years old so are no longer relevant. I can remember being horrified at the time after being presented with the costing. I would be willing to bet the costing have gone up since then!
I have no real problem with guys giving up their time to be trustees. I know the sacrifice after having done it for 3 years. There is a push however to disallow AFAP board member from being trustees, many of the current trustees have been both at the same time. So what is the real issue? My point is that if there is an issue with AFAP board members boing trustees then I think that there should also be an issue with non current MBF members being trustees.
At least 2 of the current trustee disagree with the current push. If there is not a unanimous agreement by the trustees, why not. What are their concerns?
This is a major change that will alter the fund forever. Why the rush to try and push it all through before the AGM?
Slow down, take a breath, establish communication with the AFAP and go from there.
Don Diego I can only assume you are a trustee at the moment so answer this:
Why the rush??????
The costing I have related to the setup and ongoing cost of having a FSL are about 4 years old so are no longer relevant. I can remember being horrified at the time after being presented with the costing. I would be willing to bet the costing have gone up since then!
I have no real problem with guys giving up their time to be trustees. I know the sacrifice after having done it for 3 years. There is a push however to disallow AFAP board member from being trustees, many of the current trustees have been both at the same time. So what is the real issue? My point is that if there is an issue with AFAP board members boing trustees then I think that there should also be an issue with non current MBF members being trustees.
At least 2 of the current trustee disagree with the current push. If there is not a unanimous agreement by the trustees, why not. What are their concerns?
This is a major change that will alter the fund forever. Why the rush to try and push it all through before the AGM?
Slow down, take a breath, establish communication with the AFAP and go from there.
Don Diego I can only assume you are a trustee at the moment so answer this:
Why the rush??????
Don.
A couple of points.
The AAPMBF, (then) Trustrees were aware, in 2007, of the points that you mention. That AFAP had no specific structure in this regard, and that they had several members who were not AAPMBF members. Yet they (AAPMBF Trustees) strongly recommended that we adopt the AFAP as Trustee.
The structure is not an issue, as the AAPMBF Trustees must have realised. Trusteeship is governed by the Trustee Laws of the state of Victoria. Those laws dictate the way funds held in trust may be dealt with.
In practice and in accordance with the rules that we voted for (at the behest of the then Trustees), until the dismissal, the AFAP was to have title, as Trustee, and the AAPMBF Board was to administer the fund and monies. THE TRUSTEE LAWS REQUIRE THAT THE TRUSTEE HOLDS TITLE TO THE ASSETS OF THE FUND. The AAPMBF have legal advice which confirms that fact.
This has all occurred because of a perception that the AFAP, by insisting that the LAW be abided by, has sought to grasp the funds. It hasn't. It has merely sought to run the 2007 proposals to their logical and legal conclusion.
If the AAPMBF Board claim that they were unaware of the consequences of the rule change that they promoted, they are either lying, or are totally inept. Any clown knows that you cannot transfer reponsibility but not transfer access/control to the things for which you are shedding responsibility.
Maui
A couple of points.
The AAPMBF, (then) Trustrees were aware, in 2007, of the points that you mention. That AFAP had no specific structure in this regard, and that they had several members who were not AAPMBF members. Yet they (AAPMBF Trustees) strongly recommended that we adopt the AFAP as Trustee.
The structure is not an issue, as the AAPMBF Trustees must have realised. Trusteeship is governed by the Trustee Laws of the state of Victoria. Those laws dictate the way funds held in trust may be dealt with.
In practice and in accordance with the rules that we voted for (at the behest of the then Trustees), until the dismissal, the AFAP was to have title, as Trustee, and the AAPMBF Board was to administer the fund and monies. THE TRUSTEE LAWS REQUIRE THAT THE TRUSTEE HOLDS TITLE TO THE ASSETS OF THE FUND. The AAPMBF have legal advice which confirms that fact.
This has all occurred because of a perception that the AFAP, by insisting that the LAW be abided by, has sought to grasp the funds. It hasn't. It has merely sought to run the 2007 proposals to their logical and legal conclusion.
If the AAPMBF Board claim that they were unaware of the consequences of the rule change that they promoted, they are either lying, or are totally inept. Any clown knows that you cannot transfer reponsibility but not transfer access/control to the things for which you are shedding responsibility.
Maui
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 725
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maui, you ask the question...
.... and you supply your own answer:
If that were only the case. History books would be thinner and family court lawyers would be driving Daewoos not Daimlers.
Another Pprune hero with 'the facts'. Just more hot air and bombast.
Enough, Maui. I'm tempted to vote YES just to p ss you off.
Lets hear from somebody else.
How is that two individuals, apparently working to the same ideals, can be so at loggerheads.
If they both are doing what they believe is right and if their perception of what is right is alligned, there could be no difference between the two.
Another Pprune hero with 'the facts'. Just more hot air and bombast.
Enough, Maui. I'm tempted to vote YES just to p ss you off.
Lets hear from somebody else.