Has the AFAP ever had a decent win?
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Southern Sun
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wombat Watcher; Leadsled
As one intimately involved in the events when the Qantas pilots walked out of the AFAP and upon their fellow pilots; one who happened to be Chairing the Convention/Executive the day Westwood stood upon the table baring his A$$ to the Chair and AFAP Honour Board, I reject your recollection and assertion of events.
Yes Graeme Cant did devote a huge amount of his private, family life to his fellow pilots as did Bert Smithwell (QF), Dick Holt, etc, etc to name but a couple but to question `How many of you have done that ???’ is a gross slur upon, and insult to each and every pilot who has served his fellow pilots in any union! Of which there are Many!
It only became impossible for the Qantas pilots to live with the domestic pilot attitude purely and simply because of the Qantas pilots’ attitude, an attitude promoted to fester by the then leadership of the Qantas pilots.
Is indicative of this attitude as there were many within domestic side more than well aware of what was happening within the `real world’ and I reject those claims totally. (I suggest that should you go and check history you may find Ansett through the amalgamation of ANA and others airlines still held a number of international route rights in many world areas.)
Wombat watcher does NOT have a number of points right or correct as he would like to recall them; there are always two or more sides to any story.
I could argue/ debate many at length disputing them with facts, figures and records however, I have no desire to refight battles of yesteryear. Suffice to say there were many, many differences between all groups within the AFAP, Branches, etc, viz; Between Ansett - TAA; East West; Ansett – Qantas; TAA – Qantas; Between Branches, QLD – VIC – SA – NSW – International (Qantas) – WA and GA where many, many hours in meetings, behind the scenes meetings, etc, were spent attempting to resolve these. Most involved at the time were more than well aware of the politics, world aviation scene plus AFAP politics; through the perceived differences and difficulties of the time a review of improvements to Australian pilot salaries and lifestyles demonstrate a successful period of achievement comparable to any in the world.
One thing which really got up the Qantas pilots collective noses was the amount of time considering GA matters plus the fact `their’ annual; dues contributed to GA regardless that the AFAP was by and for all pilots.
However, within the AFAP was an overriding desire, intention, to improve the lot of ALL pilots where the selfish desires, aspirations, expectations of all were subject to examination and decision by their peers! Therein does lie the nub of alienation!
The process was often slow, long, tedious, and occasionally acrimonious with agreement or consensus reached however, as within any solution, particularly one involving compromise, not all could or will be satisfied. Enough of us learned, were taught, garnered the information to know the value of this, had the knowledge to understand further improvements could be sort in the next round of negotiations.
Whilst there was a desire to work collectively supporting gaining solutions and improvements for ALL pilots regardless of differences, much was achieved. When divisions were created and implemented the value of the cohesive group rapidly diminished, ultimate success then moved to airline management.
I suggest a comprehensive review of history and the value, standing and conditions of pilots within Australia today vividly illustrates the results of selfish division.
DK
pps>> And, if it was not for Dick Holt, Ted Meredith and I think, Bert Smithwell (QF and a couple of other QF pilots), inserting a big rod up the Qantas pilots backsides for the only time the Qantas pilots ever stood up to go on strike, organising IFALPA to threaten to boycott flying into Australia then Qantas pilots probably would not benefitted from its introduction!
A compromise is the art of dividing a cake in such a way that everyone believes he has the biggest piece.
As one intimately involved in the events when the Qantas pilots walked out of the AFAP and upon their fellow pilots; one who happened to be Chairing the Convention/Executive the day Westwood stood upon the table baring his A$$ to the Chair and AFAP Honour Board, I reject your recollection and assertion of events.
Yes Graeme Cant did devote a huge amount of his private, family life to his fellow pilots as did Bert Smithwell (QF), Dick Holt, etc, etc to name but a couple but to question `How many of you have done that ???’ is a gross slur upon, and insult to each and every pilot who has served his fellow pilots in any union! Of which there are Many!
It only became impossible for the Qantas pilots to live with the domestic pilot attitude purely and simply because of the Qantas pilots’ attitude, an attitude promoted to fester by the then leadership of the Qantas pilots.
`Qantas had to live with cost competition in the real world, not the cosy two airline policy world of Ansett and the National Airlines Commission ( by whatever trading name at the time).
Going along with "AFAP Policy" would have made QF hopelessly uncompetitive.’
Going along with "AFAP Policy" would have made QF hopelessly uncompetitive.’
Wombat watcher does NOT have a number of points right or correct as he would like to recall them; there are always two or more sides to any story.
I could argue/ debate many at length disputing them with facts, figures and records however, I have no desire to refight battles of yesteryear. Suffice to say there were many, many differences between all groups within the AFAP, Branches, etc, viz; Between Ansett - TAA; East West; Ansett – Qantas; TAA – Qantas; Between Branches, QLD – VIC – SA – NSW – International (Qantas) – WA and GA where many, many hours in meetings, behind the scenes meetings, etc, were spent attempting to resolve these. Most involved at the time were more than well aware of the politics, world aviation scene plus AFAP politics; through the perceived differences and difficulties of the time a review of improvements to Australian pilot salaries and lifestyles demonstrate a successful period of achievement comparable to any in the world.
One thing which really got up the Qantas pilots collective noses was the amount of time considering GA matters plus the fact `their’ annual; dues contributed to GA regardless that the AFAP was by and for all pilots.
However, within the AFAP was an overriding desire, intention, to improve the lot of ALL pilots where the selfish desires, aspirations, expectations of all were subject to examination and decision by their peers! Therein does lie the nub of alienation!
The process was often slow, long, tedious, and occasionally acrimonious with agreement or consensus reached however, as within any solution, particularly one involving compromise, not all could or will be satisfied. Enough of us learned, were taught, garnered the information to know the value of this, had the knowledge to understand further improvements could be sort in the next round of negotiations.
Whilst there was a desire to work collectively supporting gaining solutions and improvements for ALL pilots regardless of differences, much was achieved. When divisions were created and implemented the value of the cohesive group rapidly diminished, ultimate success then moved to airline management.
I suggest a comprehensive review of history and the value, standing and conditions of pilots within Australia today vividly illustrates the results of selfish division.
DK
PS: AFAP did have one big win, the introduction of the "North American Contract" in the '60's.
A compromise is the art of dividing a cake in such a way that everyone believes he has the biggest piece.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wombat Watcher
I was not attributing anything to Cant and nothing should be read into that other than many Qantas pilots that i have spoken to about it who were there at the time confirmed the opposition but agreed to go with the majority.
In respect to the funding i was referring to the payment for duty of the officers of the Qantas Pilots union to do the job in the Union. This was something no other Union enjoyed from the Company and was recently withdrawn when the relationship soured. I was not referring to the LOL structure at all.
Trust that clarifies the point.
Lawrie Cox
I was not attributing anything to Cant and nothing should be read into that other than many Qantas pilots that i have spoken to about it who were there at the time confirmed the opposition but agreed to go with the majority.
In respect to the funding i was referring to the payment for duty of the officers of the Qantas Pilots union to do the job in the Union. This was something no other Union enjoyed from the Company and was recently withdrawn when the relationship soured. I was not referring to the LOL structure at all.
Trust that clarifies the point.
Lawrie Cox
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: shivering in the cold dark shadow of my own magnificence.
Posts: 522
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Something that I love about Australia's democratic society is that virtually no organisation is above the scrutiny (criticism) of the public or its members, whether it be government, religion, trade unions etc. Further, as a democracy we have the right to criticize (to within legal limits) anonymously. We vote anonymously, we can have letters published in newspapers anonymously, and we can use the internet anonymously. Without fear of being hunted down, jailed, killed etc. To question these rights is to question the fabric of democracy.
A question was posted here regarding positive AFAP activities or "wins".
Regardless of the posters intent it was an opportunity for the AFAP powers that be to communicate the pro's of AFAP membership, outline some of the short term wins and provide an overall "big picture" plan for where the Federation is headed in the future, particularly with regard to strengths, weaknesses within the organisation, dealing with a changing workplace legislative environment, and plans to work with/around/against other unions to achieve said objectives (threats). Sure some, if not all of this information is available elsewhere and if you're a member then you get the newsletter. But for the uninitiated & disillusioned this was another opportunity for the AFAP management types the spruik the product.
Instead, we get extremely reactive statements from the industrial relations man attacking anonymous criticism and a lot of dialogue about who said what to whom in 1981 and how they damaged the power base of the AFAP.
From this thread one could be of the belief that the AFAP is;
The only response that came close to answering the question is:
Is that it? .
A question was posted here regarding positive AFAP activities or "wins".
Regardless of the posters intent it was an opportunity for the AFAP powers that be to communicate the pro's of AFAP membership, outline some of the short term wins and provide an overall "big picture" plan for where the Federation is headed in the future, particularly with regard to strengths, weaknesses within the organisation, dealing with a changing workplace legislative environment, and plans to work with/around/against other unions to achieve said objectives (threats). Sure some, if not all of this information is available elsewhere and if you're a member then you get the newsletter. But for the uninitiated & disillusioned this was another opportunity for the AFAP management types the spruik the product.
Instead, we get extremely reactive statements from the industrial relations man attacking anonymous criticism and a lot of dialogue about who said what to whom in 1981 and how they damaged the power base of the AFAP.
From this thread one could be of the belief that the AFAP is;
- Reactive - rather that pro-active.
- Is looking firmly into the past - rather than the future
- Is largely preoccupied with power.
The only response that came close to answering the question is:
Last year, the Feds drove the FWA to make a ruling that gave Eastern and Sunstate pilots to change companies (within the Qantas group) without having to take three months off work. A big win for us; especially the Sunstate guys who wanted to transfer to Melbourne/Sydney!
IMO there should be a union rep in Kununurra/Broome and all the GAAP zones where there is extensive flight training batting for the guys as they enter the industry. Helping with T&Cs unfair dismissals and someone to go to when they are being asked to do things that are stretching the company/employee relationship anonymously (flight and duty times, weights, non pilot duties etc) If you gain their loyalty then you will have them for life.
Free membership should also be given to the unemployed (with a clause after 2 years or so that they must be working) and a free membership to every Australian who gains a CPL for the first year. You should also only pay your membership once you reach a cap (say 30k or so) and it should be a nominal fee for the guys earning a pittance at the lower end of GA.
Free membership should also be given to the unemployed (with a clause after 2 years or so that they must be working) and a free membership to every Australian who gains a CPL for the first year. You should also only pay your membership once you reach a cap (say 30k or so) and it should be a nominal fee for the guys earning a pittance at the lower end of GA.
---who oppposed (sic)and were in the miniority (sic)supported the formation once it was clear there was a majority.
Not really, and I, for one, opposed the original breakaway ( I was on the OSB Committee at the time) because I was one of a number who favored the ALPA framework, with a Master Executive Council, but each airline branch largely running its own race, within a policy framework which would NOT have allowed other pilot groups to dictate operational policy for "competitor" or "other" airlines.
But once the die was cast, all but a handful adopted the new framework, and I, for one, was happy to later admit that Westwood was right. There is no way the domestic recalcitrants of the day would have changed their attitude, as I later came to realise.
I was just as sick and tired of the domination of Ansett/TAA ( the cockeyed Convention voting structure --- with "Ansett" having all the state votes) as Westwood a Co, and the troglodyte approach to technical innovation ----- three pilots or two plus F/E on anything with more then 100 seats/no glass cockpits ( yes, that right --- and Cathay pilots were on the same tack) and many smaller but quite important issues: no reduced power takeoffs, no wet runway V1, no intersection takeoffs, yada, yada, yada.
A not inconsiderable concern of OSB was the party politics in Melbourne, and the attempts to turn the General Manager position into Executive General Manager. The OSB was not going to have a bar of AFAP becoming just another union supporting Labor. Nor would we have a bar of the "Executive General Manager" using our funds to promote his ambitions to become a Labor Senator for Victoria.
If you want to talk about rampant egos, have a look at the "management" of the 1966 QF strike (AFAP President Captain R. Holt) where we finally settled for a deal that was not as good as the QF "final offer" before the strike. "Somebody" was determined to have a strike. It took quite a few years for many F/Os and S/O salaries to catch up to pre-strike levels, I was on a "savings clause" for almost 5 years.We didn't even get datal seniority ---- and for whom to we give thanks for that.
And it was QF pilots who signed personal guarantees to raise enough money to get all the crews stranded overseas home --- quite a risk to take.
Mr. Cox, it is my opinion that, to this day, AFAP has followed a narrow, even introverted and myopic agenda, and I speak from years and years of listening to AFAP representatives talking unsubstantiated rubbish at various technical/consultation meeting ------ it is always the same agenda, making unsubstantiated safety claims to block change ------ pretty much the same as demanding three man crews on anything with more than 100 seats --- or no glass cockpits, because we would all become epileptics.
You will not probably remember, but I was instrumental in getting one of your members out of very serious p** in the west, but this is not the place to go further into that problem.
As to the comments about OSB and GA ----- again, absolute rubbish, as a member of the OSB, I spent many hours assisting the NSW GA guys, and one thing I noticed then, that I still see to this day ----- in an unfortunately large percentage of cases ---- as soon as a bloke gets an airline job, their suddenly adopted attitude of contempt for GA blossoms ----- something I never saw in the OSB/AIPA. I spent a lot of time as an OSB RAPAC rep. arguing against AFAP "airlines reps" demanding restrictions on GA operations ---- that had no evidence based safety case, just assertions. Assertions which, if accepted, would have cost quite a few GA members their jobs ----- and I am still hearing and seeing the same thing, to this day.
I never once heard the cost of supporting GA brought up at an OSB Committee meeting, and I spent more than enough time there.
Tootle pip!!
It even took a "wonderful chap" from Ansett to dob in our DDFO for alleged low flying at Oskosh --- the smallest of small time actions.
Last edited by LeadSled; 5th Jun 2010 at 08:59.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Southern Sun
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just wondering, in the wake of lots of very negative views, whether the AFAP has EVER had a decent win in Australian aviation history? or have they consistently made a bit of noise then folded?
Regardless of the posters intent it was an opportunity for the AFAP powers that be to communicate the pro's of AFAP membership, outline some of the short term wins and provide an overall "big picture" plan for where the Federation is headed in the future, particularly with regard to strengths, weaknesses within the organisation, dealing with a changing workplace legislative environment, and plans to work with/around/against other unions to achieve said objectives (threats). Sure some, if not all of this information is available elsewhere and if you're a member then you get the newsletter. But for the uninitiated & disillusioned this was another opportunity for the AFAP management types the spruik the product.
Some of the achievements and particularly methods of doing things relate to or are derived from other industries ie. The original speed/weight formula for deriving pilot pay originated from the USA railways.
Has the AFAP ever had a decent win in Australian Aviation History? Yes!
There are many; many very successful ones.
However, the achievement of these successes derived from dedicated, meticulous research, advice by both pilots and their employed staff; hours of negotiation within the pilot group/s to arrive at a united claim to put to management followed by, often, long and tedious AFAP/Management negotiation some ending up in various Industrial Relation Courts/Tribunals.
Underpinning the successes was a united, supportive pilot group prepared to stand for the AFAP which in the end, and always is/was, the pilot group.
The moment this support and unity was shattered the level of success any pilot group was severely limited.
I suggest history fully supports degradation of pilot remuneration and working conditions within this country; Success of/by the AFAP is only achievable by the full and UNITED support of the pilot group!
DK
A compromise is the art of dividing a cake in such a way that everyone believes he has the biggest piece.
Last edited by Dark Knight; 6th Jun 2010 at 01:39. Reason: additional thoughts
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: shivering in the cold dark shadow of my own magnificence.
Posts: 522
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dark Knight: I am not, never have been, nor ever will be Apache! I don't know any Apaches' I've never worn feathers, I don't fly helicopters, and I don't hail from North America!
And at no point in your barely coherent rambling AFAP political rhetoric did you even come close to answering the original question.
And at no point in your barely coherent rambling AFAP political rhetoric did you even come close to answering the original question.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Sydney
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ummm... I have not posted since the thread started.
It has been interesting to see how quickly some people got all negative, and went on the defensive.
The reason i asked the original question was that it was interesting to read how many people were negative re the V-Australia post, and how they thought that the afap would not be victorious in this quest.
As far as I am concerned, the precedent has already been set at JQ intl, therefore should be an easy win, and good on them for championing the cause.I am all for progressing the terms and conditions of pilots the world over, starting right here in our own back yard.
It has been interesting to see how quickly some people got all negative, and went on the defensive.
The reason i asked the original question was that it was interesting to read how many people were negative re the V-Australia post, and how they thought that the afap would not be victorious in this quest.
As far as I am concerned, the precedent has already been set at JQ intl, therefore should be an easy win, and good on them for championing the cause.I am all for progressing the terms and conditions of pilots the world over, starting right here in our own back yard.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(I suggest that should you go and check history you may find Ansett through the amalgamation of ANA and others airlines still held a number of international route rights in many world areas.)
An interesting variation on the theme. Just in case your theme holds water, what's your theory that justified TAA flying HBA/CHC. Now who did they amalgamate with to have international route rights?
Of course if you want to say the the AFAP route protection policy was just another useless policy that was a waste of paper and ink then I'd be happy to strike those 2 items from my grudge list.
HBA/CHC
Very strange that I remember this, but I'm fairly certain that when TN operated the HBA to CHC service it also carried a QF flight number (in those days they were known as 'Joint' services rather than 'Codeshare'. QF around that era was a single type 747 only operator (may have been introducing 767s) so HBA to CHC would have not been viable in a 'Jumbo', therefore the route was palmed off for TN to operate.
Also remember Mum and Dad travelling to Portugese East Timor on an international TAA Heron.
So obviously not all international sectors were the sole preserve of QF.
Regards,
Also remember Mum and Dad travelling to Portugese East Timor on an international TAA Heron.
So obviously not all international sectors were the sole preserve of QF.
Regards,
Gday Lawrie,
Although all this history is interesting would it not be far more beneficial looking forwards and getting both unions back working together for the greater good of the industry? The quicker the AFAP and AIPA start working with one another the better. Can you see this happening in the near future? Regards.
Although all this history is interesting would it not be far more beneficial looking forwards and getting both unions back working together for the greater good of the industry? The quicker the AFAP and AIPA start working with one another the better. Can you see this happening in the near future? Regards.
Wombat Watcher and Res Bunny.
The interest in HBA-CHC-HBA originated in Ansett and was marketed as the Southern Connection. Flight numbers were QF due to Qantas being the only designated International Airline. Due to the 2 airline policy both Ansett and TAA operated the service.
Ps1. There was an interesting rumour that a TAA B727-200 made contact with a man made object after lift-off on R/W12 on one occasion.
Ps2. There was also a B737-200 service for a period operated by New Zealanders.
The interest in HBA-CHC-HBA originated in Ansett and was marketed as the Southern Connection. Flight numbers were QF due to Qantas being the only designated International Airline. Due to the 2 airline policy both Ansett and TAA operated the service.
Ps1. There was an interesting rumour that a TAA B727-200 made contact with a man made object after lift-off on R/W12 on one occasion.
Ps2. There was also a B737-200 service for a period operated by New Zealanders.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Packs On
Whilst it would be nice to get over the history, it is unfortunate that we have a tendency to repeat the same errors if it is not understood.
You will find from all of my posts here that i have advoocated a united pilot body not the continuing splinters.
Will it happen it is up to you as pilots. As to how it comes together?
The one point that has been made time and again is that EQUITY in standing is necessary for it to work. That means the GA pilot has as much standing as the A380 Captain. This point has not been accepted by Qantas pilots since the talks started, if we have one group trying to 'control' the situation then we have a repeat of 1981 of the group in the minority (perceived or otherwise) taking their bat and ball and leaving.
Further it is clear to us that Qantas pilots are financially supporting and encouraging splinter groups that too defeats the purpose of unity and sets back any attempt to unite Australian Pilots under one umbrella.
I would encourage those who advocate one body to get active as there appears to be a long way to go if the current behaviour continues.
Lawrie Cox
Whilst it would be nice to get over the history, it is unfortunate that we have a tendency to repeat the same errors if it is not understood.
You will find from all of my posts here that i have advoocated a united pilot body not the continuing splinters.
Will it happen it is up to you as pilots. As to how it comes together?
The one point that has been made time and again is that EQUITY in standing is necessary for it to work. That means the GA pilot has as much standing as the A380 Captain. This point has not been accepted by Qantas pilots since the talks started, if we have one group trying to 'control' the situation then we have a repeat of 1981 of the group in the minority (perceived or otherwise) taking their bat and ball and leaving.
Further it is clear to us that Qantas pilots are financially supporting and encouraging splinter groups that too defeats the purpose of unity and sets back any attempt to unite Australian Pilots under one umbrella.
I would encourage those who advocate one body to get active as there appears to be a long way to go if the current behaviour continues.
Lawrie Cox
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Question to Lawrie Cox:
Lawrie,
Green Goblin has put forward a very straight commonsense post re; gaining new members.
My question is has AFAP ever looked at something along those lines?
I'll be honest, insofar as GA ( particulary at the lowest levels) is concerned, your organisation seems to be at best irrelevant.
?
Lawrie,
Green Goblin has put forward a very straight commonsense post re; gaining new members.
My question is has AFAP ever looked at something along those lines?
I'll be honest, insofar as GA ( particulary at the lowest levels) is concerned, your organisation seems to be at best irrelevant.
?
Last edited by GADRIVR; 9th Jun 2010 at 11:56.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst it would be nice to get over the history, it is unfortunate that we have a tendency to repeat the same errors if it is not understood.
You will find from all of my posts here that i have advoocated a united pilot body not the continuing splinters.
Will it happen it is up to you as pilots. As to how it comes together?
You will find from all of my posts here that i have advoocated a united pilot body not the continuing splinters.
Will it happen it is up to you as pilots. As to how it comes together?
