Team AIPA blames others for poor showing at FWA
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Land of Oz
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
History repeats...
Vorsicht, while I agree that we shouldn't dwell on the past, we must NOT forget it and the events that surrounded it. It is a part of history and history will repeat itself if we do nothing different and don't learn from what happened.
Someone once said that the definition of stupidity is doing the same thing over again expecting different results.
It is only a matter of time before this situtation arises again and how it is handled will be dictated by the experiences of the current pilot group.
While there are numerous groups attempting to represent pilots, none do it really well (in my limited experience and from the bitching that goes on in these forums). Until there is an umbrella organisation that unites the various organisations on the major issues that effect all pilots and provides one voice to government/industry then nothing of any significance will ever really happen.
It would mean that if there are conflicts between say GA and Airline pilots - these issues could be sorted out in the umbrella organisation (and not in the public forum) and decided for the good of the industry as a whole and not for a section of the pilot group.
I was 15 years old during the pilot strike and remember it as a time when the government did whatever they had to to keep the image that they were in control. Nothings changed.
The public (travelling passengers and aquaintances) still believe pilots are paid extremely well (like doctors/lawyers) and we don't work much because of our restrictive (in their opinion) flight and duty time limitations. Not once (that I'm aware of) has an organisation representing pilots has ever come out and told the reality of wages or explained how flight and duty limits work (or how they don't). When that happens then perhaps our plight may fall on more sympathetic public ears and government/industry can't peddle out the usual overpaid/underworked line.
I agree with Anthill's take on seniority. I am not aware of any industry in the world where you can be a senior manager in one company, but if you choose/forced to move, say to be closer to a sick relative, then your only choice is to start at the bottom again.
Off soapbox...
Someone once said that the definition of stupidity is doing the same thing over again expecting different results.
It is only a matter of time before this situtation arises again and how it is handled will be dictated by the experiences of the current pilot group.
While there are numerous groups attempting to represent pilots, none do it really well (in my limited experience and from the bitching that goes on in these forums). Until there is an umbrella organisation that unites the various organisations on the major issues that effect all pilots and provides one voice to government/industry then nothing of any significance will ever really happen.
It would mean that if there are conflicts between say GA and Airline pilots - these issues could be sorted out in the umbrella organisation (and not in the public forum) and decided for the good of the industry as a whole and not for a section of the pilot group.
I was 15 years old during the pilot strike and remember it as a time when the government did whatever they had to to keep the image that they were in control. Nothings changed.
The public (travelling passengers and aquaintances) still believe pilots are paid extremely well (like doctors/lawyers) and we don't work much because of our restrictive (in their opinion) flight and duty time limitations. Not once (that I'm aware of) has an organisation representing pilots has ever come out and told the reality of wages or explained how flight and duty limits work (or how they don't). When that happens then perhaps our plight may fall on more sympathetic public ears and government/industry can't peddle out the usual overpaid/underworked line.
I agree with Anthill's take on seniority. I am not aware of any industry in the world where you can be a senior manager in one company, but if you choose/forced to move, say to be closer to a sick relative, then your only choice is to start at the bottom again.
Off soapbox...
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vorsicht, the only DEC positions likely near future these parts are Tiger or Jetstar NZ. You will need a second job at the brothel if you agree to bend over in Aukland. Choose carefully, good luck.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Aust
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When you allow management to tinker with a seniority system this is what can happen.
IMO the ROR should never have been agreed to in the first place. If you are on the bottom and you get sent to Darwin or wherever, you stay there until your number gets you out.
I am not in any way affected so feel free to enlighten me if there are other mitigating factors.
IMO the ROR should never have been agreed to in the first place. If you are on the bottom and you get sent to Darwin or wherever, you stay there until your number gets you out.
I am not in any way affected so feel free to enlighten me if there are other mitigating factors.
Ansett management were flown by QF pilots, I saw several of them on board a 747 with my own eyes when paxing QF MEL-SYD for a QANTAS interview after resigning from AN in 'that year', and they saw me. (QF job was offered and politely declined to join CX). Also spoke to domestic passengers sharing taxi who were travelling QF. And never heard anything from AIPA to the effect that our actions were not advisable.
Anyhoo, back to the thread. QF, J* and VB pilots are at present fragmented between two unions with the prospect of Australia based CX pilots forming and/or affiliating with a third. Cathay Pacific and Dragonair pilots in Hong Kong have their own 'umbrella' organisation, HKALPA. It is time for a similar setup in Australia as an alternative to the 'dinosaur' pilot unions we have now. Otherwise it's the TWU for me and many colleagues.
Anyhoo, back to the thread. QF, J* and VB pilots are at present fragmented between two unions with the prospect of Australia based CX pilots forming and/or affiliating with a third. Cathay Pacific and Dragonair pilots in Hong Kong have their own 'umbrella' organisation, HKALPA. It is time for a similar setup in Australia as an alternative to the 'dinosaur' pilot unions we have now. Otherwise it's the TWU for me and many colleagues.
Last edited by Captain Dart; 26th Jan 2010 at 06:26.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Until there is an umbrella organisation that unites the various organisations on the major issues that effect all pilots and provides one voice to government/industry then nothing of any significance will ever really happen.
AUSALPA or any other version is no panacea for the perceived ills of todays Australian aviation world.
In the modern era of AIPA covering QF and JQ pilots and in the unlike event of the much touted GOAL being acheived, if all the expansion is in JQ for example, who gets preference for the Captains' jobs; QF F/os or JQ F/Os? Who gets first hack at A330 positions? Does a new hire JQ direct entry Captain recruited last year get preference over a QF F/O whose been in 15 years? Don't tell me datal seniority will rule and don't tell me a system based on merit will be anything other than a quagmire of bitter competing pilots.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Roguesville, cloud cuckooland
Posts: 1,197
Likes: 0
Received 16 Likes
on
5 Posts
Ansett management were flown by QF pilots...
If a dispute by another union was was in progress you would then unilaterally apply an illegal secondary boycott to those passengers you magically identified and expose yourself to massive damages, as well would you?
No, of course you wouldn't. Neither did any QF pilot.
But don't let ignoring the base realities of our job stop you from making silly statements about people in an organisation you patently know nothing about.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Australia
Age: 58
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok, slight thread drift..
At companies where Meritorious promotion occurs prospective candidates have been typically identified by the C&T establishment well in advance. It would be 'ethical' to have a promotions committee to oversee the process so as to keep the process transparent and fair. A promotions committee would/should comprise the CP, head of C&T, some check captains, training captains and line captains also a representative of the pilots union (preferably a captain so as to prevent any 'deals' being made).
It is difficult for a management to be 100% ethical, all of the time. High ethics should, of course, be an overiding priority. This should be understood. The application of datal seniority does have as a redeming feature a reduction of personal bias. However, the selection of a candidate for any position is an intrinsically subjective and discriminatory process.
Despite the seeming objectivity of datal seniority, I am aware of instances in absolutely strict seniority companies where Managment has manipulatued the process to acheive an outcome which subverted the so-called 'protection' of datal seniority. Defamation laws prevent me from giving specific details.
As some other posters have pointed out, the topic is a very emotional one. Despite ones person preference towards either system, it is valueable to at least discuss the various options - if only to re-inforce our own preference!
At companies where Meritorious promotion occurs prospective candidates have been typically identified by the C&T establishment well in advance. It would be 'ethical' to have a promotions committee to oversee the process so as to keep the process transparent and fair. A promotions committee would/should comprise the CP, head of C&T, some check captains, training captains and line captains also a representative of the pilots union (preferably a captain so as to prevent any 'deals' being made).
It is difficult for a management to be 100% ethical, all of the time. High ethics should, of course, be an overiding priority. This should be understood. The application of datal seniority does have as a redeming feature a reduction of personal bias. However, the selection of a candidate for any position is an intrinsically subjective and discriminatory process.
Despite the seeming objectivity of datal seniority, I am aware of instances in absolutely strict seniority companies where Managment has manipulatued the process to acheive an outcome which subverted the so-called 'protection' of datal seniority. Defamation laws prevent me from giving specific details.
As some other posters have pointed out, the topic is a very emotional one. Despite ones person preference towards either system, it is valueable to at least discuss the various options - if only to re-inforce our own preference!
OK, enuff said about 'that year', I was just telling what I saw in response to a previous posting, Capt Kremin. And if my union gave me appropriate guidance I would do what was required.
Now, having stated my own position, with the prospect of several hundred Cathay Pacific pilots 'onshoring' to Australia this year, would anyone from either the AFAP or AIPA care to offer a 'sales pitch' as to should other Australian-based CX crew align themselves with either organisation, if at all?
Now, having stated my own position, with the prospect of several hundred Cathay Pacific pilots 'onshoring' to Australia this year, would anyone from either the AFAP or AIPA care to offer a 'sales pitch' as to should other Australian-based CX crew align themselves with either organisation, if at all?
Now, having stated my own position, with the prospect of several hundred Cathay Pacific pilots 'onshoring' to Australia this year, would anyone from either the AFAP or AIPA care to offer a 'sales pitch' as to should other Australian-based CX crew align themselves with either organisation, if at all?
Strangely enough the discussions are being conducted through more appropriate channels than Pprune.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Sydney
Posts: 413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Partial response from the AFAP. If true shows AIPA as pretty amateur.
"AIPA made this application without notifying the Federation who is the only direct union party to the agreement.
AIPA are seeking to protect QF rights into Jetstar under the MOU which is contrary to strict seniority and will disadvantage many current and future Jetstar pilots. The application has been made under the wrong sections of the Fair Work Act.
The application is seen as a blatant attempt to raise the profile of AIPA as an organisation which has nothing to do with seniority.
The Commissioner refused the application because he had no power under the legislation or the Agreement to make any orders as sought by AIPA. The Federation ’ s intervention did not influence this outcome. If AIPA ’ s arguments had merit, the Commissioner would have granted its application.
Finally, and hypocritically, AIPA has previously made an offer to the Company to support the ROR policy (offer made in a letter 11 th September 2009) provided that future changes are approved by JPA.
The ROR policy was opposed by the Federation in correspondence to the Company in June 2009.
Notwithstanding our opposition at this time, the Company has the discretion to determine its own policy in accordance with the wording of clause 21.8 and 21.11.
The question is whether in determining its own policy, the observance of clause 21.8 would be expected to meet the company ’ s needs in the circumstances."
"AIPA made this application without notifying the Federation who is the only direct union party to the agreement.
AIPA are seeking to protect QF rights into Jetstar under the MOU which is contrary to strict seniority and will disadvantage many current and future Jetstar pilots. The application has been made under the wrong sections of the Fair Work Act.
The application is seen as a blatant attempt to raise the profile of AIPA as an organisation which has nothing to do with seniority.
The Commissioner refused the application because he had no power under the legislation or the Agreement to make any orders as sought by AIPA. The Federation ’ s intervention did not influence this outcome. If AIPA ’ s arguments had merit, the Commissioner would have granted its application.
Finally, and hypocritically, AIPA has previously made an offer to the Company to support the ROR policy (offer made in a letter 11 th September 2009) provided that future changes are approved by JPA.
The ROR policy was opposed by the Federation in correspondence to the Company in June 2009.
Notwithstanding our opposition at this time, the Company has the discretion to determine its own policy in accordance with the wording of clause 21.8 and 21.11.
The question is whether in determining its own policy, the observance of clause 21.8 would be expected to meet the company ’ s needs in the circumstances."
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bonvol,
I'd argue it makes the AFAP look pretty amateurish. They interverned in the wrong case! Instead of seeking leave to invervene in the hearing about seniority, they decided to back jetstar about relocating crews 3 weeks before a hearing about the legality of it. In order to show their displeasure at AIPA they were willing to put their pilots in the terrible position of being awarded basings and training with no certainty.
I agree with one sentiment, however - them sticking their oar in had no ultimate affect on the decision. That was the commissioners belief that it was on Jetstar's head that they'd have to sort out their own mess if AIPA wins the next case, and that the economics of crewing their aeroplanes was more important than crew stability.
The AFAP will have to argue that they should be allowed to intervene in the case in FEB, as it is an entirely DIFFERENT case in front of a different commissioner.
I'd argue it makes the AFAP look pretty amateurish. They interverned in the wrong case! Instead of seeking leave to invervene in the hearing about seniority, they decided to back jetstar about relocating crews 3 weeks before a hearing about the legality of it. In order to show their displeasure at AIPA they were willing to put their pilots in the terrible position of being awarded basings and training with no certainty.
I agree with one sentiment, however - them sticking their oar in had no ultimate affect on the decision. That was the commissioners belief that it was on Jetstar's head that they'd have to sort out their own mess if AIPA wins the next case, and that the economics of crewing their aeroplanes was more important than crew stability.
The AFAP will have to argue that they should be allowed to intervene in the case in FEB, as it is an entirely DIFFERENT case in front of a different commissioner.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Bolivia
Posts: 434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It looks fairly self evident to me that the AFAP has used the fact that they are respondents to the EBA in a malicious attempt to undermine the majority view of J* pilots for the sole purpose of political point scoring between themselves and AIPA.
Regardless of who is right and who is wrong here, it would appear that AIPA were acting on the wishes of a majority of J* pilots and the AFAP weren't. Which put another way, the AFAP do not act in the best interests or wishes of the majority of their members.
There would be a caveat to the above comment. And that is that it is possible that so many J* pilots have joined AIPA, that the few pilots in Darwin may well represent a majority of AFAP members. In that case, I would have to concede that the AFAP have acted correctly.
V
Regardless of who is right and who is wrong here, it would appear that AIPA were acting on the wishes of a majority of J* pilots and the AFAP weren't. Which put another way, the AFAP do not act in the best interests or wishes of the majority of their members.
There would be a caveat to the above comment. And that is that it is possible that so many J* pilots have joined AIPA, that the few pilots in Darwin may well represent a majority of AFAP members. In that case, I would have to concede that the AFAP have acted correctly.
V
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Roguesville, cloud cuckooland
Posts: 1,197
Likes: 0
Received 16 Likes
on
5 Posts
Captain Dart, I don't know about the situation under the FWA, but I am pretty sure that if you are Australian based in an airline performing the majority of its flying internationally out of Australia, then AIPA has automatic coverage.
It is one of the reasons that there is no actual airline called Jetstar International. If there was then coverage would have gone straight away to AIPA.
Now whether this applies in your case, who knows.
It is one of the reasons that there is no actual airline called Jetstar International. If there was then coverage would have gone straight away to AIPA.
Now whether this applies in your case, who knows.
Thanks Capt. Kremin, we will see...but I am still interested in the opinions of rank-and-file members of both unions on this matter.
Nunc est bibendum
As in which association you should make enquiries with? In reality you need to do your homework and do both.
Which do I personally think is able to serve you more effectively? AIPA. It's bigger, got deeper pockets, is used to representing crew engaged in longhaul international ops, has a better idea of the 'big picture' (as evidenced by recent AFAP actions), etc.
Note: I'm a 15 year AIPA member and have never been formally involved at any level with AFAP. I've never served on the AIPA COM (although that may change in the next year or 2). My knowledge on the AFAP is based upon reports on PPRUNE, contributions by Lawrie Cox both here and in the wider media, and discussions with colleagues who have been members of the AFAP.
Which do I personally think is able to serve you more effectively? AIPA. It's bigger, got deeper pockets, is used to representing crew engaged in longhaul international ops, has a better idea of the 'big picture' (as evidenced by recent AFAP actions), etc.
Note: I'm a 15 year AIPA member and have never been formally involved at any level with AFAP. I've never served on the AIPA COM (although that may change in the next year or 2). My knowledge on the AFAP is based upon reports on PPRUNE, contributions by Lawrie Cox both here and in the wider media, and discussions with colleagues who have been members of the AFAP.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: aus
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jetstar Pilots be warned... Qantas pilots bearing gifts!
Caveat: The following is a generalisation; but according to this thread, majority rules right..
A little history regarding AIPA...
I had a bit to do with AIPA some years back, namely the QF pilot integration "dispute". Whereby, it was very easy to prove QF was deliberately pillaging its Ansett owned regional airlines for pilots, however barely recruiting a soul from its own regionals. Makes business sense I guess, but not overly fair for those within the QF regional ranks wishing to further their career.
AIPA's president of the time came to speak to us en masse (by invitation), and made it blatantly clear that his membership had absolutely zero interest in becoming involved in the ensuing legal action, other than to support the company in locking regional pilots out.
I found him, and by default the majority of those he represented to be arrogant, self serving and myopic. AIPA then went further in creating LIFELONG enemies by having a senior 747 Captain take the stand in the subsequent legal action, saying under oath, that regional pilots would not be suitable for a Qantas long haul operation, as they "lacked instrument flying experience". As well as similar comments of idiocy.
Yes, it's true, read the transcript.
Another important note: AFAP supported the regional pilots throughout this legal battle, when ultimately it would have been to their membership numbers detriment had the case had won. Every regional pilot would then have fallen under AIPA's banner on employment.
That's pragmatic representation...no?
AIPA were warned that they may have awoken a sleeping giant amongst the regional pilot group with their attitude. It was nothing short of hatred at the time. Naturally, QF management could see this division as a potential windfall, and the seed was sewn for seeking the option of encroaching on the domestic jet market, offering a slightly lesser package to regional pilots. Who naturally would have jumped at the chance.
Ultimately through circumstance, it fell into the lap of Impulse. And full credit to those within Impulse who had the foresight to negotiate the deal. Many owe those people the jobs they now hold within Jetstar.
So ultimately, I feel AIPA is partly resonsible for the creation of Jetstar. And funnily enough, despite all AIPA's venom against Jetstar on it's inception, now want us as "friends" and have us join their spiteful union.
You can't tell me that there isn't an ulterior motive; like the re-establishment of QF ghost numbering on the JQ seniority list. Especially that now it would seem that JQ is the only facet of the business with any real expansion? Or maybe to try and create parity in pay and conditions will ultimately take the heat off QF mainline, potentially at JQ's expense however?
Any which way you look at it, its to serve their own purpose, as it has always been. And if push were to come to shove, JQ pilots are the lesser portion of their membership, and will be out voted on just about everything.
So for those younger generation of JQ pilot who have fallen for the slick spoon salesmen tactics of AIPA and its cohorts within JQ, be warned the Trojan horse.
JQ was formed, exists and will continue to grow because industrially it isn't QF. For greedy pilot's to try and make it such will only see the whole shebang put to bed. And maybe that would suit AIPA right down to their socks.
And for the record, I wonder how many AIPA members are even aware that AIPA is spending a small fortune on this current FWA case regarding Jetstar's (quite legal in my opinion) Right of Return implementation relating to the pilot displacement/base realignment FSO at Jetstar? Certainly those friends of mine at QF weren't aware.
It's all smoke and mirrors: AIPA's case is designed at achieving:
1. To prove to JQ pilot's that they're the schoolyard bully - and that they're the tail wagging the dog where they come from. May get a nasty shock at JQ however...
2. Create mass disruption to JQ expansion plans (tie the whole thing up in a legal quagmire), stifling training plans, costing the company millions.
No one doubts Jetstar senior management made a mess of the base realignment - but lets be pragmatic about its unwinding, as they seem to be.
The irony is, there will be so much expansion if we work WITH the company, everyone will end up ultimately where they want to be, in the chair they want to be in, within the next 12-24 months anyway.
Let's leave AIPA and their agenda out of it.
Caveat: The following is a generalisation; but according to this thread, majority rules right..
A little history regarding AIPA...
I had a bit to do with AIPA some years back, namely the QF pilot integration "dispute". Whereby, it was very easy to prove QF was deliberately pillaging its Ansett owned regional airlines for pilots, however barely recruiting a soul from its own regionals. Makes business sense I guess, but not overly fair for those within the QF regional ranks wishing to further their career.
AIPA's president of the time came to speak to us en masse (by invitation), and made it blatantly clear that his membership had absolutely zero interest in becoming involved in the ensuing legal action, other than to support the company in locking regional pilots out.
I found him, and by default the majority of those he represented to be arrogant, self serving and myopic. AIPA then went further in creating LIFELONG enemies by having a senior 747 Captain take the stand in the subsequent legal action, saying under oath, that regional pilots would not be suitable for a Qantas long haul operation, as they "lacked instrument flying experience". As well as similar comments of idiocy.
Yes, it's true, read the transcript.
Another important note: AFAP supported the regional pilots throughout this legal battle, when ultimately it would have been to their membership numbers detriment had the case had won. Every regional pilot would then have fallen under AIPA's banner on employment.
That's pragmatic representation...no?
AIPA were warned that they may have awoken a sleeping giant amongst the regional pilot group with their attitude. It was nothing short of hatred at the time. Naturally, QF management could see this division as a potential windfall, and the seed was sewn for seeking the option of encroaching on the domestic jet market, offering a slightly lesser package to regional pilots. Who naturally would have jumped at the chance.
Ultimately through circumstance, it fell into the lap of Impulse. And full credit to those within Impulse who had the foresight to negotiate the deal. Many owe those people the jobs they now hold within Jetstar.
So ultimately, I feel AIPA is partly resonsible for the creation of Jetstar. And funnily enough, despite all AIPA's venom against Jetstar on it's inception, now want us as "friends" and have us join their spiteful union.
You can't tell me that there isn't an ulterior motive; like the re-establishment of QF ghost numbering on the JQ seniority list. Especially that now it would seem that JQ is the only facet of the business with any real expansion? Or maybe to try and create parity in pay and conditions will ultimately take the heat off QF mainline, potentially at JQ's expense however?
Any which way you look at it, its to serve their own purpose, as it has always been. And if push were to come to shove, JQ pilots are the lesser portion of their membership, and will be out voted on just about everything.
So for those younger generation of JQ pilot who have fallen for the slick spoon salesmen tactics of AIPA and its cohorts within JQ, be warned the Trojan horse.
JQ was formed, exists and will continue to grow because industrially it isn't QF. For greedy pilot's to try and make it such will only see the whole shebang put to bed. And maybe that would suit AIPA right down to their socks.
And for the record, I wonder how many AIPA members are even aware that AIPA is spending a small fortune on this current FWA case regarding Jetstar's (quite legal in my opinion) Right of Return implementation relating to the pilot displacement/base realignment FSO at Jetstar? Certainly those friends of mine at QF weren't aware.
It's all smoke and mirrors: AIPA's case is designed at achieving:
1. To prove to JQ pilot's that they're the schoolyard bully - and that they're the tail wagging the dog where they come from. May get a nasty shock at JQ however...
2. Create mass disruption to JQ expansion plans (tie the whole thing up in a legal quagmire), stifling training plans, costing the company millions.
No one doubts Jetstar senior management made a mess of the base realignment - but lets be pragmatic about its unwinding, as they seem to be.
The irony is, there will be so much expansion if we work WITH the company, everyone will end up ultimately where they want to be, in the chair they want to be in, within the next 12-24 months anyway.
Let's leave AIPA and their agenda out of it.
Kremin - AIPA does not represent V Aus crew. As the years go by I think AIPA are going to find themselves swimming in ever decreasing circles, much of it their own making. Don't get me wrong, I am no fan of any airline management or what has happened to Flight crew T & Cs, but AIPA are the QF mainline union, and only ever will be the QF mainline union.
Nunc est bibendum
...AIPA are the QF mainline union, and only ever will be the QF mainline union.