Team AIPA blames others for poor showing at FWA
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: messemate way to bondi icebergs
Posts: 411
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Mr Anthill, I appreciate your take on this but I would agree to disagree on this matter. Companies can offer sub standard deals to Australians cause they live in Australia. Companies can offer crap deals - see Rex and Jetstar EBAs that dont attract experienced pilots within our shores because they are very crap EBAs and then claim that their is a skills shortage. Enter the 457 visa's from South Africa. They will take relatively far less conditions if it means raising thir kids in OZ compared to Joburg. How would this be raising conditions?
Anthill,
Those that propose or suport the abolition of datal seniority are usually either:
1. Those who have already achieved a command and now want to remove the last obstacles that prevent them getting exactly what they want wrt bidding, leave, etc,
2. Those who want a command and feel that they should be entitled to jump the queue because they feel that they already meet their own definition of someone who's put in the hard yards previously, or are someone who's smart enough to get the job above others.
3. Those who've already jumped the queue and are trying to justify their actions.
I know in your post that you stated that you work for neither J* or QF etc... so these definitions probably don't apply to you. But I'll say again what I've said previously in another thread that talked about datal seniority.
Say it was YOU that wanted the command, and somebody who was younger, "better qualified"/prepared or who had been in the company for less time than you got the job. If you could put your hand on your heart, wish the person well and think to yourself "better luck next time .... i'll just have to work harder", then you have a case (and are probably a much better person than most on this BB.
Those that propose or suport the abolition of datal seniority are usually either:
1. Those who have already achieved a command and now want to remove the last obstacles that prevent them getting exactly what they want wrt bidding, leave, etc,
2. Those who want a command and feel that they should be entitled to jump the queue because they feel that they already meet their own definition of someone who's put in the hard yards previously, or are someone who's smart enough to get the job above others.
3. Those who've already jumped the queue and are trying to justify their actions.
I know in your post that you stated that you work for neither J* or QF etc... so these definitions probably don't apply to you. But I'll say again what I've said previously in another thread that talked about datal seniority.
Say it was YOU that wanted the command, and somebody who was younger, "better qualified"/prepared or who had been in the company for less time than you got the job. If you could put your hand on your heart, wish the person well and think to yourself "better luck next time .... i'll just have to work harder", then you have a case (and are probably a much better person than most on this BB.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Sydney
Posts: 413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok, I have now read the entire transcript of proceedings at FWA and it appears there is more to this than meets the eye.
The following is a direct quote from the transcript. My bolding
"Mr L Cox: If the tribunal pleases, Cox, initial L, for the Australian Federation of Air Pilots, seeking leave to intervene in the matter. We are a direct party to the award and also there are a number of pilots who are providing specific instructions in this matter."
From this it is reasonable to assume that the AFAP were acting on instructions from their members. It also appears that this ROR agreement was well known about but no one took much notice till it reared its ugly head. The DEC's are obviously AFAP members and asked the AFAP to represent them to enforce the provisions of the ROR agreement. This happened to concur with what management wanted and if you read the transcript you can see why.
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.
The following is a direct quote from the transcript. My bolding
"Mr L Cox: If the tribunal pleases, Cox, initial L, for the Australian Federation of Air Pilots, seeking leave to intervene in the matter. We are a direct party to the award and also there are a number of pilots who are providing specific instructions in this matter."
From this it is reasonable to assume that the AFAP were acting on instructions from their members. It also appears that this ROR agreement was well known about but no one took much notice till it reared its ugly head. The DEC's are obviously AFAP members and asked the AFAP to represent them to enforce the provisions of the ROR agreement. This happened to concur with what management wanted and if you read the transcript you can see why.
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.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Australia
Age: 58
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
G'Day Shark,
The points that you raise supporting seniority are not an attack on my arguments. Objective debate demands that we play the issue, not the man.
I realised Seniority was a bad idea about 22 years ago when my Cheif Pilot at the time called me into his office and said "Anthill, we're getting B1900s. You, me, Bill Bloggs and Fred Nurk are going on course as the first crews". This cohort comprised seniority numbers 2,1,3 & 4 respectfully. None of us had flown turboprop or multi crew. I asked whether the 2 new guys (sen. nos. 21 & 22) would be considered as the each had 10,000+ and had flown B200, Do228, CASA 212s, The CP told me that they would get to fly the new aircraft "when they have done their time". My aversion to datal seniority is not new.
Wouldn't it be a better industry if we all would be like this? However, most people go for the short term gain and because of this miss the point that the seniority system serves to reduce our terms, conditions and career options. I am at least selfish enough to see that.
The points that you raise supporting seniority are not an attack on my arguments. Objective debate demands that we play the issue, not the man.
I realised Seniority was a bad idea about 22 years ago when my Cheif Pilot at the time called me into his office and said "Anthill, we're getting B1900s. You, me, Bill Bloggs and Fred Nurk are going on course as the first crews". This cohort comprised seniority numbers 2,1,3 & 4 respectfully. None of us had flown turboprop or multi crew. I asked whether the 2 new guys (sen. nos. 21 & 22) would be considered as the each had 10,000+ and had flown B200, Do228, CASA 212s, The CP told me that they would get to fly the new aircraft "when they have done their time". My aversion to datal seniority is not new.
Say it was YOU that wanted the command, and somebody who was younger, "better qualified"/prepared or who had been in the company for less time than you got the job. If you could put your hand on your heart, wish the person well and think to yourself "better luck next time .... i'll just have to work harder", then you have a case (and are probably a much better person than most on this BB
Last edited by Anthill; 23rd Jan 2010 at 21:56.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On a long enough timeline the survival rate for everyone is zero
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anthill, you have correctly identified that there is a "dysfunctional market" for pilots. However, I'm not sure the seniority/no-seniority arguments encapsulate the actual problem.
The simple problem is there are many sellers (pilots), and in effect only two major buyers (airlines). This is a monopsony - the opposite of a monopoly (many buyers, few sellers). This tends to significantly distort the market power to favour the buyers.
The strength of arguments both for and against seniority/brown-nosing models show that whichever model is used, the dominant market power has a range of tools available to significantly distort the market to favour the buyers.
The only way to remedy this is to reduce the number of sellers, either band together as a single union or as a commercial entity (crewing company).
The simple problem is there are many sellers (pilots), and in effect only two major buyers (airlines). This is a monopsony - the opposite of a monopoly (many buyers, few sellers). This tends to significantly distort the market power to favour the buyers.
The strength of arguments both for and against seniority/brown-nosing models show that whichever model is used, the dominant market power has a range of tools available to significantly distort the market to favour the buyers.
The only way to remedy this is to reduce the number of sellers, either band together as a single union or as a commercial entity (crewing company).
Anthill,
I don't think I've played the man at all. My three "definitions" include the likely emotions of some of the players involved - I have deliberately not made any derogatory remarks concerning those individuals who may fit these three definitions; just laid out my opinion of the likely motivations involved.
You are attemting to debate datal/non-datal seniority without considering the emotion of those involved. When it comes down to who gets promotions, believe me, there will always be a lot of emotion involved.
Although you quoted my question in your repsonse, you didn't directly answer it. If you can say "yes, I would be happy for that person to get that promotion instead of me", then you are an incredibly rare commodity in an industry where the general catchcry is "Every man for himself".
I have no problems with datal seniority, other than leave allocation. In Qantas, we were all told that we were "recruited to be Captains, not S/Os or F/Os". Therefore, everyone is deserving of a chance. Those who feel that they would struggle during an upgrade, do not have to apply for promotions, while others who come up for promotion are required to undergo simulator sessions to determine whether they are suitable (or ready) for an upgrade. So the system already has some checks and balances.
The problem that I see with any other form of promotional system is that I cannot think of one other variant that is not open to corruption and abuse by either the individuals or the system. I'm afraid I also can't see the link between seniority and T&Cs.
I don't think I've played the man at all. My three "definitions" include the likely emotions of some of the players involved - I have deliberately not made any derogatory remarks concerning those individuals who may fit these three definitions; just laid out my opinion of the likely motivations involved.
You are attemting to debate datal/non-datal seniority without considering the emotion of those involved. When it comes down to who gets promotions, believe me, there will always be a lot of emotion involved.
Although you quoted my question in your repsonse, you didn't directly answer it. If you can say "yes, I would be happy for that person to get that promotion instead of me", then you are an incredibly rare commodity in an industry where the general catchcry is "Every man for himself".
I have no problems with datal seniority, other than leave allocation. In Qantas, we were all told that we were "recruited to be Captains, not S/Os or F/Os". Therefore, everyone is deserving of a chance. Those who feel that they would struggle during an upgrade, do not have to apply for promotions, while others who come up for promotion are required to undergo simulator sessions to determine whether they are suitable (or ready) for an upgrade. So the system already has some checks and balances.
The problem that I see with any other form of promotional system is that I cannot think of one other variant that is not open to corruption and abuse by either the individuals or the system. I'm afraid I also can't see the link between seniority and T&Cs.
Wouldn't it be a better industry if we all would be like this? However, most people go for the short term gain and because of this miss the point that the seniority system serves to reduce our terms, conditions and career options. I am at least selfish enough to see that.
Don't forget it is not a level international playing field. In Asia, Europe and the Middle East there is no GA. You start in a Jet or possibly a regional. So whilst you battle your way through all the BS over here guys at your same level in Asia/India/Europe are sitting in a jet. Plenty of Australian pilots in the past have been unable to get a Jet job in Australia have gone overseas to Europe/ME/Asia and picked up jet jobs and quick commands. Do we really want to force Australian pilots to go overseas just for the privilege of being able to get a command in Australia?
The other point of consideration is that with direct entry commands Airlines could potentially drill down wages to ridiculous levels by advertising high minimums for jet commands and then sponsor people from third world countries who have the experience and are willing to work for peanuts just to be able to qualify for permanent residency.
I believe REX tried to pull such a stunt a few years ago but couldn't pull it off because the salary wasn't high enough to qualify for the work visa.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Here & There
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You make a good point Burrito- a combined pilots’ association is absolutely fundamental to creating a level playing field.
Alas, no matter how compelling the economic theory, suspect there are too many near sighted Neanderthals more interested in ego and power for it to happen simply because it’s good for pilots. In the absence of unifying self interest, no doubt union in-fighting and representative short sightedness will continue unabated.
Your idea of a pilot owned ‘labour providing co-operative’ may be able to provide the necessary self interest, but even if the ACCC didn’t rule it anticompetitive, can’t really see AFAP, AIPA, VIPA or the TWU for that matter, providing the funding necessary to give birth to the idea.
An alternative first step would be shareholder support for the establishment of a South West Airlines style operation in Australia that could lead the way, but given that VB hasn’t gone that way and Qantas has set up Jetstar to divide and conquer; regretfully can’t see this embryonic step happening anytime soon.
Then again, necessity is the mother of invention.
Alas, no matter how compelling the economic theory, suspect there are too many near sighted Neanderthals more interested in ego and power for it to happen simply because it’s good for pilots. In the absence of unifying self interest, no doubt union in-fighting and representative short sightedness will continue unabated.
Your idea of a pilot owned ‘labour providing co-operative’ may be able to provide the necessary self interest, but even if the ACCC didn’t rule it anticompetitive, can’t really see AFAP, AIPA, VIPA or the TWU for that matter, providing the funding necessary to give birth to the idea.
An alternative first step would be shareholder support for the establishment of a South West Airlines style operation in Australia that could lead the way, but given that VB hasn’t gone that way and Qantas has set up Jetstar to divide and conquer; regretfully can’t see this embryonic step happening anytime soon.
Then again, necessity is the mother of invention.
Last edited by struggling; 24th Jan 2010 at 05:16. Reason: Font
For those who are pro-merit, anti-seniority for promotions, explain to me exactly how you measure performance?
Ranking pilots by their performance in simulators, line checks etc is far from foolproof and extremely subjective. Pilots are often assessed by their peers, their mates and in some cases their adversaries.
Can anyone give an example of an airline where performance is accurately used as a means for promotion? I'm just curious how it works, assuming you have two or more candidates with similar backgrounds and experience levels applying for the same position.
Ranking pilots by their performance in simulators, line checks etc is far from foolproof and extremely subjective. Pilots are often assessed by their peers, their mates and in some cases their adversaries.
Can anyone give an example of an airline where performance is accurately used as a means for promotion? I'm just curious how it works, assuming you have two or more candidates with similar backgrounds and experience levels applying for the same position.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: aus
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jetstar for one, where senority is a "major considersation". Not the sole consideration. The argument is not to abandon seniority altogether here.
Just about every other carrier in the world, bar a couple of dying legacy carriers works in similar fashion through different variations. I know TL, as I've worked for some.
The point being discussed runs deeper than just promotion though: it relates to change of aircraft type, change of base, redundancy lists, etc.
A myriad of complex scenarios.
The business model at Jetstar is too complex for strict datal seniority.
-The operation is growing too quickly
-Has introduced many aircraft types rapidly
-Has too many bases, which it tends to close/open/vary all too flipantly
-Is a complex mix of operation
-Has a wide range of experience levels
-IS A LOW COST CARRIER
Want strict datal seniority and what it can afford, then there's always QF.
Just about every other carrier in the world, bar a couple of dying legacy carriers works in similar fashion through different variations. I know TL, as I've worked for some.
The point being discussed runs deeper than just promotion though: it relates to change of aircraft type, change of base, redundancy lists, etc.
A myriad of complex scenarios.
The business model at Jetstar is too complex for strict datal seniority.
-The operation is growing too quickly
-Has introduced many aircraft types rapidly
-Has too many bases, which it tends to close/open/vary all too flipantly
-Is a complex mix of operation
-Has a wide range of experience levels
-IS A LOW COST CARRIER
Want strict datal seniority and what it can afford, then there's always QF.
Last edited by titan uranus; 24th Jan 2010 at 16:56.
To further add to the mix, Cathay Pacific Australian-based pilots will be 'on-shored' as of 01 July this year. They will probably form their own Australian offshoot of their Hong Kong Association but it will probably also need to be 'attached' to an existing Australian union. CX crew I have spoken to would not touch AFAP or AIPA with a barge pole that had a French letter on the end. My personal experiences during 'that year' (the start of the Great Australian Pilot Race to the Bottom):
AFAP: lost my last job for me, and still not relevant to airline pilots
AIPA: during 'that year', didn't say 'boo' when 'war' was declared on the domestic pilots, flew domestic passengers and Ansett management around Australia, and welcomed the 'heroes' into the fold when TN was wound up. And now not representative of all QF Group pilots.
What price the TWU?
AFAP: lost my last job for me, and still not relevant to airline pilots
AIPA: during 'that year', didn't say 'boo' when 'war' was declared on the domestic pilots, flew domestic passengers and Ansett management around Australia, and welcomed the 'heroes' into the fold when TN was wound up. And now not representative of all QF Group pilots.
What price the TWU?
Nunc est bibendum
Some of this is a bit before my time so it may not be spot on. It's been gleaned from discussions with my colleagues who were there when it happened as well as some research into the dispute for various uni assignments.
That's inaccurate. AIPA said quite a bit to AFAP at the time. They told them not to be bloody idiots in the manner in which they were pursuing what they wanted. They also told AFAP what the outcome would be and explained why they wouldn't be following the AFAP down that path.
I don't think they did. My reading of the dispute (uni assignment) indicated that the domestic legs of international flights were NOT used to fly domestic passengers except for those who were flying (say) LAX-SYD-MEL. IE they were 'through' passengers. I also recall that the reason for this was AIPA standing firm on the basis of Aussie law at the time. It was a few years later that the law was amended to allow pax to fly domestically between international terminals.
Given QF didn't fly domestic passengers then I'm not sure how this would have occurred unless those pax went o/s first. I recall many people flying SYD-AKL-MEL if they had to get to MEL and so perhaps this is what you mean?!? Either way, I'm not sure what they're supposed to do.
This one is something that I didn't cover in my uni work and something that I haven't often discussed with colleagues so I'm not sure how it actually went down. I do know that there are still some SH crew who are not members of AIPA. I do know that there are many SH crew (from '89) who have provided valuable service to AIPA. Whatever occurred, iff this is enough to preclude some Aussie based CX drivers from joining AIPA (who count among their membership about 1500-1600 mainline pilots and another few hundred J* and QLink pilots who weren't even employed by the QF group prior to 93) then they're cutting off their nose to spite their face.
Anyway, whether AIPAs rules would allow it I'm not certain. I know that they're keen to be a part of a more coherent national association.
I'd say they're closer to being the representation of choice now due to the efforts over the past 3-4 years than at any time in their history. My reading on the subject would indicate that they are far more representative of the various 'haul's than the AFAP ever were of long haul prior to the split.
AIPA: during 'that year', didn't say 'boo' when 'war' was declared on the domestic pilots,
AIPA:... flew domestic passengers
AIPA:... flew...Ansett management
AIPA:... welcomed the 'heroes' into the fold when TN was wound up.
Anyway, whether AIPAs rules would allow it I'm not certain. I know that they're keen to be a part of a more coherent national association.
AIPA:... now not representative of all QF Group pilots.
Captain Dart, I totally agree with Keg's response and I'll also add that during the dispute there were 4 non scheduled domestic flights operated by QF pilots because of compassionate reasons - those flights had prior approval by the AFAP executive at that time. If you don't think that AIPA offered any support during that dispute, why don't you go have a chat to the senior executives - I'm sure when they tell you the truth, you'll have a different view.
Now hopefully we can get back to the thread.
Now hopefully we can get back to the thread.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: On the road
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't believe that the guys and girls involved in 89 will ever totally get over 89, although they seem to have mellowed. Hows EK at the moment Vorsicht?Have you completed your upgrade?
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anthill I agree with your take on seniority. I don't underestimate the difficulty of unscambling the egg or that there may be some losses in the short term but in the long term the restriction of our ability to move means that we give away one of our biggest levers, the ability to move our labour.
Its similar to home loans with banks. We don't chop and change our mortgages because of the cost of moving is too high, therefore the banks don't need to work too hard to hold our bisness.
Its similar to home loans with banks. We don't chop and change our mortgages because of the cost of moving is too high, therefore the banks don't need to work too hard to hold our bisness.