One pilot union for all Australian pilots.
You put it out there and you won't follow it up. P$ss off you dingbat.
P.S. you can only be had up for libel if what you are stating is incorrect, so aren't you so sure now??
P.S. you can only be had up for libel if what you are stating is incorrect, so aren't you so sure now??
one should never be asked to substantiate even the wildest claims
Is this the unity I hear so much about?
So as for RAPAC back in 1980 it wouldn't have made a rats ar#e difference to you blokes whether or not gliders gave full position reports so why mention it
Why, because it was an example of the OSB, ie: Qantas pilots, giving a rats about GA and other light aviation, when the domestic "airline" pilots didn't and mostly still don't give a damn for rational risk management, only their own immediate "perceived" risks and interests and anybody else is supposed to lump it.
One thing I mentioned in an early post was all the all the impediments to progress that was AFAP "policy", go back and have a look at what I actually said there. In this day and age, can you imagine still having only "steam driven" instruments, because of the AFAP "ban" on "glass', because it was going to make us all epileptics because of something called flicker.
The OSB certainly did object to our funds being spent on anti-technological progress fights that were directly contrary to our interests, like demanding Flight Engineers on B767. (or three pilot B737).
Not to spending funds on GA matters, GA got short shrift from Ansett/TAA.
As I said in the same post, I supported a US ALPA like structure, not a split, but no way the domestics were going to have that, the "two airline" cost plus technically regressive mentality was all pervading.
Fundamentally, I don't see that the AFAP has changed, deep down, despite any apparent structural changes, the underlying Australian aviation Galapagos mindset is still very evident.
P.S. you can only be had up for libel if what you are stating is incorrect, so aren't you so sure now??
Tootle pip!!
Revisionists take note. AIPA didn’t exist pre 1981. To those boasting about how good the Qantas agreement is, understand that your agreement finds its foundations from the AFAP agreements pre 1981. AIPA built on the strong foundations that can be found in the agreements pre-split. The young Qantas pilots deriding the AFAP may want to acknowledge that much of the contract they currently work under has its roots in the very union they are decrying. Understand your history; AIPA was created from a splinter faction of a much larger and stronger pilots union.
Let's put a few things straight.
Firstly, it was the Overseas Branch of AFAP that put together the first and subsequent North American style Qantas contracts, not AFAP head office in Melbourne.
Be quite clear, these were the same pilots and employed staff that became AIPA, because we could not live with the regressive "policies" of the (largely) Melbourne based domestics.
Any "strong foundations" and they were, were the work of the OSB pilots, not anybody else, often with the active and very negative attempts at intervention by domestics and Melbourne based staff.
There were very big divergences between the domestic AN/TN contracts of the day, to cater for the very different flying Qantas did, there were no 8/10/16/18 day single trips for AN/TN.
So, the AIPA only "walked away" with their own efforts, including the necessary appearances before Aircrew Officers Industrial Tribunal.
There never was any love lost between the AN/TN group and pilots employed by Qantas, it always was quite nasty, and in my view, coming in as an outsider in 1965, largely fomented by the AN/TN group in Melbourne, not by any particular sins of commission or omission by members of the OSB. That last opinion based on my original membership of the NSW branch of AFAP, my moving to the OSB only came two years later.
In too many of the posts on this thread I still see the aggressively and mindlessly anti- Qantas pilots (which now includes much of TN) attitude that was so evident all those years ago.
If AFAP were serious about reforming a single pilot union in this era, they are going about it exactly the wrong way.
Tootle pip!!
PS: In those days (60s/70s) the highest paid pilots in Australia were a small and select group of Ansett pilot, NOT Qantas. I make that statement based on the fact that, back in the day, as OSB Treasurer, I had access to all detailed AFAP financial information. It was a real rip-off of junior pilots and the company.
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Hyperspace
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lead sled, great to hear the history (I mean that, no sarcasm intended).
What I also heard was a lot about AN/TN self interest. At the end of the day, was it not self interest that lead GW, TJ et al together with QF Management at the time to form AIPA?
At that time, Qantas was the only international airline headquartered in Australia, hence Australian International Pilots Association.
AIPA at that time represented a very small percentage of Australian Airline pilots. Today it is very different, AIPA represents pilots whose airline brand controls nearly two thirds of the Australian domestic market, the very market its founders were determined to walk away from.
I think (happy to stand corrected) you have also expressed the opinion that many ex TN AIPA members would prefer to return to AFAP? If so, why should they be denied that choice? Why should AIPA not be forced to compete for its membership dollars, as it has forced AFAP to do in many other airlines ie JQ, NWA, EAA, SSA and even Virgin (come on, lets be honest, AIPA was knee deep in the formation of VIPA)?
I don’t believe competition is a bad thing, even in unions. I am more worried about a scenario where one union, whose structure and rules facilitates one dominant pilot group controlling the agenda as against all union members receiving equal representation.
At the end of the day, AUSALPA can still be the umbrella for issues which suit the common cause.
What I also heard was a lot about AN/TN self interest. At the end of the day, was it not self interest that lead GW, TJ et al together with QF Management at the time to form AIPA?
At that time, Qantas was the only international airline headquartered in Australia, hence Australian International Pilots Association.
AIPA at that time represented a very small percentage of Australian Airline pilots. Today it is very different, AIPA represents pilots whose airline brand controls nearly two thirds of the Australian domestic market, the very market its founders were determined to walk away from.
I think (happy to stand corrected) you have also expressed the opinion that many ex TN AIPA members would prefer to return to AFAP? If so, why should they be denied that choice? Why should AIPA not be forced to compete for its membership dollars, as it has forced AFAP to do in many other airlines ie JQ, NWA, EAA, SSA and even Virgin (come on, lets be honest, AIPA was knee deep in the formation of VIPA)?
I don’t believe competition is a bad thing, even in unions. I am more worried about a scenario where one union, whose structure and rules facilitates one dominant pilot group controlling the agenda as against all union members receiving equal representation.
At the end of the day, AUSALPA can still be the umbrella for issues which suit the common cause.
Arthur D,
I don't really know enough about the current situation to make a useful comment on your points, but even the US ALPA has not been universal, with quite a variety of representation models in US developing over the years.
Do the "TN" pilots want out of AIPA and back to AFAP, given AFAP recent performance, why?? To have two unions fighting each other in one airline is a gift to the airline's industrial mob.
Aviation is too small in Australia already, but AFAP attitudes are hardly helpful, they are more likely exacerbate division than heal.
AFAP's contribution on the consultative bodies, in which I have been involved over many years has generally been negative.
The few Virgin pilots I recently worked with on technical issues seem to be happy with their current arrangement, but are they representative of feelings within VIPA, I can't tell from such a small sample.
What I do know is the visceral sectoral hatreds that seem to bedevil aviation (not just airlines) in Australia do the sector no good at all, it is almost like religious doctrinal differences.
Such stark separation simply does not exist anywhere else that I have personal experience, which is UK, CA and US.
Tootle pip!!
PS:
Re. formation of AIPA, re-read what I said about AFAP technical "policies" and how disastrous they would have been for Qantas, these were major issues for our jobs and futures.. As for the personalities, the AFAP President at the time did a great job of throwing fuel on the fire, and he was not short of barrackers in Melbourne. As for "Qantas" supporting the split, if you mean the corporation broadly, I don't think they cared too much, if you mean Flight Operations, the formation of AIPA was well supported from top to bottom, I only recall one management dissenter, and he was anti unions period.
I don't really know enough about the current situation to make a useful comment on your points, but even the US ALPA has not been universal, with quite a variety of representation models in US developing over the years.
Do the "TN" pilots want out of AIPA and back to AFAP, given AFAP recent performance, why?? To have two unions fighting each other in one airline is a gift to the airline's industrial mob.
Aviation is too small in Australia already, but AFAP attitudes are hardly helpful, they are more likely exacerbate division than heal.
AFAP's contribution on the consultative bodies, in which I have been involved over many years has generally been negative.
The few Virgin pilots I recently worked with on technical issues seem to be happy with their current arrangement, but are they representative of feelings within VIPA, I can't tell from such a small sample.
What I do know is the visceral sectoral hatreds that seem to bedevil aviation (not just airlines) in Australia do the sector no good at all, it is almost like religious doctrinal differences.
Such stark separation simply does not exist anywhere else that I have personal experience, which is UK, CA and US.
Tootle pip!!
PS:
Re. formation of AIPA, re-read what I said about AFAP technical "policies" and how disastrous they would have been for Qantas, these were major issues for our jobs and futures.. As for the personalities, the AFAP President at the time did a great job of throwing fuel on the fire, and he was not short of barrackers in Melbourne. As for "Qantas" supporting the split, if you mean the corporation broadly, I don't think they cared too much, if you mean Flight Operations, the formation of AIPA was well supported from top to bottom, I only recall one management dissenter, and he was anti unions period.
Last edited by LeadSled; 11th Apr 2018 at 15:01.
I think (happy to stand corrected) you have also expressed the opinion that many ex TN AIPA members would prefer to return to AFAP?
I think (happy to stand corrected) you have also expressed the opinion that many ex TN AIPA members would prefer to return to AFAP?
Going through the process of enabling AFAP to represent those pilots, and the others who may wish to join them, would be inefficient and probably counter-productive when compared to those pilots lobbying their closest* AIPA CoM member to negotiate for the same outcome.
* By closest, I mean any of those of the same rank, on the same fleet, same seniority, same background, same base preference, same age and family demographic…….
Without wishing to sound disparaging, most Pilot association CoM members, AFAP or AIPA, are usually there for somewhat selfish reasons - looked at the right way, that's a good thing. Some are more selfish than others!! The point is though, that these days, you can nearly always find a CoM member to represent your interests as it will often serve their's too.
Hey Lead, you assert that Q pilots contributed 60% of the money right?? Revenue from subscriptions as shown on the audited accounts shows a drop of only 9% the year after your departure, please explain.
DD,
Are you seriously suggesting that, immediately before the split, OSB pilots dues were only 9% of the dues paid by AFAP members??
To make an informed comment, I would have to see the figures over several years, but the above seems highly unlikely.
Regardless, it is hardly relevant to the current discussion, what AFAP are trying to pull on, and why anybody would think that AFAP could (based on their track record) do a better job for QF pilots than AIPA.
Tootle pip!!
Are you seriously suggesting that, immediately before the split, OSB pilots dues were only 9% of the dues paid by AFAP members??
To make an informed comment, I would have to see the figures over several years, but the above seems highly unlikely.
Regardless, it is hardly relevant to the current discussion, what AFAP are trying to pull on, and why anybody would think that AFAP could (based on their track record) do a better job for QF pilots than AIPA.
Tootle pip!!
Hey Lead, what needs to be explained?? The audited accounts for the year after you blokes left shows a 9% reduction in subscription revenue!! You can remember what year you left so there you go, just explain the 60% you claim you blokes contributed to get 20% of the vote. While I am here could you take to where exactly in this thread I have been critical of AIPA??
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: australia
Age: 74
Posts: 907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting figures there Don,
What did the audited accounts show for 1979 and , 1983, that should give a better account of what the OSB contribution was pre/post split , taking out any transitional subscription anomalies should it not ?
What did the audited accounts show for 1979 and , 1983, that should give a better account of what the OSB contribution was pre/post split , taking out any transitional subscription anomalies should it not ?
DD,
Regardless of whatever spin you want to put on it, the "domestics" blocked any reforms that we could live with at Convention, that made the split inevitable.
Neither you, nor any of the other AFAP critics of the split want to address the sundry technical bans that AFAP maintained, which were a complete disaster for Qantas fleet plans ---- how about you find an excuse for that issue --- I have mentioned most of the major items.
This kind of nonsense technical objection to change by "domestics" is not new.
It reminds me of when I first returned to Australia in mid-1960's, the "domestics" were waging a furious battle against the adoption of VOR --- the "technical objections" were quite hilarious for an outsider --- or any members of the Qantas rosters.
VOR was going to cause all sorts of problems, generally the "end of aviation as we know it". No way were they going to permit the doing away with the trusty VAR.
Tootle pip!!
Regardless of whatever spin you want to put on it, the "domestics" blocked any reforms that we could live with at Convention, that made the split inevitable.
Neither you, nor any of the other AFAP critics of the split want to address the sundry technical bans that AFAP maintained, which were a complete disaster for Qantas fleet plans ---- how about you find an excuse for that issue --- I have mentioned most of the major items.
This kind of nonsense technical objection to change by "domestics" is not new.
It reminds me of when I first returned to Australia in mid-1960's, the "domestics" were waging a furious battle against the adoption of VOR --- the "technical objections" were quite hilarious for an outsider --- or any members of the Qantas rosters.
VOR was going to cause all sorts of problems, generally the "end of aviation as we know it". No way were they going to permit the doing away with the trusty VAR.
Tootle pip!!
I've only briefly scanned the posts on this thread, but (correct me if I'm wrong) the general gist seems to be a fairly substantial pissing contest about who did what to whom and when, sometime in the distant past.
To add my two cents worth, history is important insofar as we should learn from it, but we should not let it dictate our path to the future. I find it terribly discouraging that there is so much venom and vitriol thrown around, when (at its core) the thread really is about building a better future for Australian pilots.
I have some experience from within one of the Australian unions, and that experience has led me to the conclusion that what happened in the past was absolutely necessary (split of OSB from AFAP, as well as the subsequent creation of VIPA and defection of 50% plus of AFAP Virgin pilots). The reason for the Vipa/AFAP split was undoubtedly due to the AFAP executive (of the day) taking their eye off the ball with regard to Virgin pilots. You can argue all you like about the merits of forming a new union, but you can’t argue with the fact that the Virgin pilot group was seriously disenchanted with the service provided by the AFAP. If you consider more than half the existing pilots actually joined the new union and of those that remained, many did so only to protect their MBF contributions. It can be concluded that whatever the AFAP where doing for Virgin pilots, they were not doing it well.
To the credit of the current AFAP executive, this point has been recognised and they have improved their game immeasurably. As a result it can be easily argued that the formation of VIPA has positively impacted the majority of Australian pilots, if you consider that VIPA and the AFAP cover the majority of non-Qantas pilots, and I believe that the AFAP also has coverage of a significant number of Qantas group pilots through Jetstar and other affiliates.
I have no knowledge of the circumstance of the split of the OSB, but the gist seems to be similar lack of regard by AFAP exec of the day toward an important sector of their membership.
I have had many people (AFAP members) say to me over time that it is far better to deal with an issue from inside the tent than to throw the toys from the cot and start a new union. I agree that, in an ideal world, that would be true and would be the preferred path. History seems to suggest the Feds have shown that it is too difficult to achieve.
That’s the short form history.
My other experience has been that it appears obvious to me that all Australian pilots, having benefitted from the splits of the past, would now benefit from a single union. That is born from the observation that industrial muscle comes through the weight of numbers alone. No other aspect of a union has as much influence. Solid financial muscle to fight legal battles is the next most important. Unions are terribly expensive to run and by having three major aviation unions, along with a couple of minor ones, precious finances are being wasted through replication of many costs.
There is no doubt that AIPA has by far the greatest corporate knowledge of the Qantas group, and no other body could hope to understand their issues as well as they do. VIPA probably doesn't have the same grip on Virgin issues, but as a single airline union it could be argued they have a pretty clear focus. The AFAP, while having excellent industrial staff, are across just about every EBA and company in the country, and as such are probably more about just getting through each EBA rather than being really invested in any particular pilot or company. Regardless of that they have substantial membership and resources. So any move toward a single union would absolutely need to incorporate all those valuable resources and corporate knowledge contained in each entity.
We are now in the early stages of a massive global shortage of pilots. The industry cannot train its way out of this in the short term due to the long lead times to recruit and train pilots along with the declining interest in the industry by job seekers. Australian airlines have long sat in the comfort zone of knowing that Australia produces good pilots through the GA and Military sectors which, combined with our high standard of living, has provided a solid pipeline of future pilots. It is obvious that this has changed significantly over the last few decades where we now see the country’s premier airline having to do roadshows to Kununurra and Alice to try and attract candidates. With the pipeline drying up and global airlines having to increase packages substantially to attract experienced pilots, the environment has never been better for Australian pilots to start clawing back many of the conditions lost over the preceding decades.
It has to be acknowledged that Australian airlines operate in a global marketplace, therefore if their cost base gets too far out of balance it will make it difficult for them to compete internationally. That same issue does not apply to domestic businesses. At present we often see domestic airfares so cheap that the cheapest part of the journey is the air ticket, with parking or transport to the airport being more expensive than the flight itself. It is ludicrous that Australian domestic pilots are working their arses off just to provide cheaper and cheaper tickets to the public.
My view is that the only way to address this is for Australian pilots to fight in unison for better conditions across the spectrum. From GA to QF Long Haul, and everything in between. It is difficult for Virgin pilots to argue for increases when their managers point to the bottom line and say they can’t afford it because Qantas are kicking their arses commercially. It is not the fault of the pilots that the management can’t compete. Virgin pilots do the same job as Qantas pilots and Jetstar pilots and Tiger pilots and all other pilots, and that is getting their passengers and cargo safely from A to B. If Australian pilot conditions were consistent across the spectrum, it would simply be a cost of business that has to be passed on to consumers, and if the consumers don’t like it then they don’t have to buy a ticket. We’re all aware that it costs less to fly now than ever before, and part of that has come through the degradation of our conditions. It will only stop when we stop fighting amongst ourselves.
Much of the previous argument in this thread is based on the merits of having representation that is focused on specific airline issues. i.e AIPA looks after QF issues, VIPA after Virgin etc. and having a single union would necessarily mean that internal politics would influence the allocation of resources inevitably resulting in one group being disadvantaged to the benefit of another. History suggests that is what bought about the current situation and I agree that is a concern.
That said, if we look at how the AFAP have dealt with VIPA it seems to provide a template on how we could proceed. The AFAP formed a Virgin specific group. I think it’s the Virgin Pilot Council, but don’t quote me on that. By doing that they ensured that they had a tool to compete with VIPA’s 100% Virgin focus, guaranteeing AFAP’s Virgin members that they were getting the Company specific support they were looking for.
Given that AUSALPA already exists, albeit seemingly irrelevant to the industry, why couldn’t we all form up under that umbrella with individual groups formed to look after specific interests. It could be started from a blank canvas or incorporate existing norms. For example we could set it up on an airline group basis such as QF, Virgin, Rex etc, with a GA section for the smaller operators. Or it could be done on a domestic, international, GA type structure, who knows. My point being that if we were all in the same tent, demanding the same conditions for all pilots across each sector, we would stand a much better chance of improving conditions for everyone. Companies would have to deal with it and pass costs on to the public. There is no rule that says Australians are entitled to ever decreasing airfares so why are we letting ourselves bear the brunt of CEO’s trying to further their own self-interest. It’s pretty obvious that CEO’s have used favourable conditions in the past to erode our conditions, and when the opportunity arose they did so mercilessly if we consider the J* and Tiger experience. The wheel has turned and we need to exploit it in the same manner as the Corporate world did when they had the advantage.
I’m not suggesting this would be easy. This thread clearly shows there is a lot of bad blood and ego involved, but in order to improve our conditions in the manner we would all like, we have to look past that and work towards a better future together rather than as a splintered force. There is no doubt management are laughing their arses off at us as we dilute our industrial strength across multiple unions. A clear and present danger to all of us are 457 visas. If we spoke as one voice and engaged the best industrial lawyers and lobbyists in the country to represent us, we would stand a much better chance of controlling that argument than where we currently stand, being dictated to by the government. There is no doubt Joyce and Borghetti have government lobbyists, and they are getting their way. If we don’t hit back with force, we’ll find ourselves under threat from any pilot with a licence looking for a free ticket to live in Australia and weakening our position along the way. We are probably going to need foreign pilots in the future, but let’s get them here on our terms, not theirs.
For me, a single high level representative body that incorporates separate entities to look after specific sectors of our industry would be a significant improvement on our current situation and I would definitely support it. Funding could be allocated in line with member contributions, but importantly the higher paid airline pilots should be prepared to assist the grassroots GA pilots. Anything of substance needs a good foundation. Good GA conditions are necessary to underpin good airline conditions. Not every pilot wants the tedium of airline flying, but most aspire to it simply for the money. If GA and third tier RPT conditions were improved it would put pressure on airlines to improve in order to attract the quantity of pilots they need.
Make no mistake, the current environment won’t last forever. Pilotless aircraft are coming, but not soon enough to fix the problem in the foreseeable future. It is in all our interest to put differences aside and act now.
To add my two cents worth, history is important insofar as we should learn from it, but we should not let it dictate our path to the future. I find it terribly discouraging that there is so much venom and vitriol thrown around, when (at its core) the thread really is about building a better future for Australian pilots.
I have some experience from within one of the Australian unions, and that experience has led me to the conclusion that what happened in the past was absolutely necessary (split of OSB from AFAP, as well as the subsequent creation of VIPA and defection of 50% plus of AFAP Virgin pilots). The reason for the Vipa/AFAP split was undoubtedly due to the AFAP executive (of the day) taking their eye off the ball with regard to Virgin pilots. You can argue all you like about the merits of forming a new union, but you can’t argue with the fact that the Virgin pilot group was seriously disenchanted with the service provided by the AFAP. If you consider more than half the existing pilots actually joined the new union and of those that remained, many did so only to protect their MBF contributions. It can be concluded that whatever the AFAP where doing for Virgin pilots, they were not doing it well.
To the credit of the current AFAP executive, this point has been recognised and they have improved their game immeasurably. As a result it can be easily argued that the formation of VIPA has positively impacted the majority of Australian pilots, if you consider that VIPA and the AFAP cover the majority of non-Qantas pilots, and I believe that the AFAP also has coverage of a significant number of Qantas group pilots through Jetstar and other affiliates.
I have no knowledge of the circumstance of the split of the OSB, but the gist seems to be similar lack of regard by AFAP exec of the day toward an important sector of their membership.
I have had many people (AFAP members) say to me over time that it is far better to deal with an issue from inside the tent than to throw the toys from the cot and start a new union. I agree that, in an ideal world, that would be true and would be the preferred path. History seems to suggest the Feds have shown that it is too difficult to achieve.
That’s the short form history.
My other experience has been that it appears obvious to me that all Australian pilots, having benefitted from the splits of the past, would now benefit from a single union. That is born from the observation that industrial muscle comes through the weight of numbers alone. No other aspect of a union has as much influence. Solid financial muscle to fight legal battles is the next most important. Unions are terribly expensive to run and by having three major aviation unions, along with a couple of minor ones, precious finances are being wasted through replication of many costs.
There is no doubt that AIPA has by far the greatest corporate knowledge of the Qantas group, and no other body could hope to understand their issues as well as they do. VIPA probably doesn't have the same grip on Virgin issues, but as a single airline union it could be argued they have a pretty clear focus. The AFAP, while having excellent industrial staff, are across just about every EBA and company in the country, and as such are probably more about just getting through each EBA rather than being really invested in any particular pilot or company. Regardless of that they have substantial membership and resources. So any move toward a single union would absolutely need to incorporate all those valuable resources and corporate knowledge contained in each entity.
We are now in the early stages of a massive global shortage of pilots. The industry cannot train its way out of this in the short term due to the long lead times to recruit and train pilots along with the declining interest in the industry by job seekers. Australian airlines have long sat in the comfort zone of knowing that Australia produces good pilots through the GA and Military sectors which, combined with our high standard of living, has provided a solid pipeline of future pilots. It is obvious that this has changed significantly over the last few decades where we now see the country’s premier airline having to do roadshows to Kununurra and Alice to try and attract candidates. With the pipeline drying up and global airlines having to increase packages substantially to attract experienced pilots, the environment has never been better for Australian pilots to start clawing back many of the conditions lost over the preceding decades.
It has to be acknowledged that Australian airlines operate in a global marketplace, therefore if their cost base gets too far out of balance it will make it difficult for them to compete internationally. That same issue does not apply to domestic businesses. At present we often see domestic airfares so cheap that the cheapest part of the journey is the air ticket, with parking or transport to the airport being more expensive than the flight itself. It is ludicrous that Australian domestic pilots are working their arses off just to provide cheaper and cheaper tickets to the public.
My view is that the only way to address this is for Australian pilots to fight in unison for better conditions across the spectrum. From GA to QF Long Haul, and everything in between. It is difficult for Virgin pilots to argue for increases when their managers point to the bottom line and say they can’t afford it because Qantas are kicking their arses commercially. It is not the fault of the pilots that the management can’t compete. Virgin pilots do the same job as Qantas pilots and Jetstar pilots and Tiger pilots and all other pilots, and that is getting their passengers and cargo safely from A to B. If Australian pilot conditions were consistent across the spectrum, it would simply be a cost of business that has to be passed on to consumers, and if the consumers don’t like it then they don’t have to buy a ticket. We’re all aware that it costs less to fly now than ever before, and part of that has come through the degradation of our conditions. It will only stop when we stop fighting amongst ourselves.
Much of the previous argument in this thread is based on the merits of having representation that is focused on specific airline issues. i.e AIPA looks after QF issues, VIPA after Virgin etc. and having a single union would necessarily mean that internal politics would influence the allocation of resources inevitably resulting in one group being disadvantaged to the benefit of another. History suggests that is what bought about the current situation and I agree that is a concern.
That said, if we look at how the AFAP have dealt with VIPA it seems to provide a template on how we could proceed. The AFAP formed a Virgin specific group. I think it’s the Virgin Pilot Council, but don’t quote me on that. By doing that they ensured that they had a tool to compete with VIPA’s 100% Virgin focus, guaranteeing AFAP’s Virgin members that they were getting the Company specific support they were looking for.
Given that AUSALPA already exists, albeit seemingly irrelevant to the industry, why couldn’t we all form up under that umbrella with individual groups formed to look after specific interests. It could be started from a blank canvas or incorporate existing norms. For example we could set it up on an airline group basis such as QF, Virgin, Rex etc, with a GA section for the smaller operators. Or it could be done on a domestic, international, GA type structure, who knows. My point being that if we were all in the same tent, demanding the same conditions for all pilots across each sector, we would stand a much better chance of improving conditions for everyone. Companies would have to deal with it and pass costs on to the public. There is no rule that says Australians are entitled to ever decreasing airfares so why are we letting ourselves bear the brunt of CEO’s trying to further their own self-interest. It’s pretty obvious that CEO’s have used favourable conditions in the past to erode our conditions, and when the opportunity arose they did so mercilessly if we consider the J* and Tiger experience. The wheel has turned and we need to exploit it in the same manner as the Corporate world did when they had the advantage.
I’m not suggesting this would be easy. This thread clearly shows there is a lot of bad blood and ego involved, but in order to improve our conditions in the manner we would all like, we have to look past that and work towards a better future together rather than as a splintered force. There is no doubt management are laughing their arses off at us as we dilute our industrial strength across multiple unions. A clear and present danger to all of us are 457 visas. If we spoke as one voice and engaged the best industrial lawyers and lobbyists in the country to represent us, we would stand a much better chance of controlling that argument than where we currently stand, being dictated to by the government. There is no doubt Joyce and Borghetti have government lobbyists, and they are getting their way. If we don’t hit back with force, we’ll find ourselves under threat from any pilot with a licence looking for a free ticket to live in Australia and weakening our position along the way. We are probably going to need foreign pilots in the future, but let’s get them here on our terms, not theirs.
For me, a single high level representative body that incorporates separate entities to look after specific sectors of our industry would be a significant improvement on our current situation and I would definitely support it. Funding could be allocated in line with member contributions, but importantly the higher paid airline pilots should be prepared to assist the grassroots GA pilots. Anything of substance needs a good foundation. Good GA conditions are necessary to underpin good airline conditions. Not every pilot wants the tedium of airline flying, but most aspire to it simply for the money. If GA and third tier RPT conditions were improved it would put pressure on airlines to improve in order to attract the quantity of pilots they need.
Make no mistake, the current environment won’t last forever. Pilotless aircraft are coming, but not soon enough to fix the problem in the foreseeable future. It is in all our interest to put differences aside and act now.
Virginexcess,
Great post.
Fundamentally, what you are proposing is the US ALPA style of organisation, which AFAP domestic pilots refused to consider before the AFAP OSB became AIPA.
Given the "attitudes", I would think that AIPA members would take a lot of convincing that AFAP (members and industrial staff) have really turned over a new leaf.
Entrenched cultures are very hard to reform.
Tootle pip!!
Great post.
Fundamentally, what you are proposing is the US ALPA style of organisation, which AFAP domestic pilots refused to consider before the AFAP OSB became AIPA.
Given the "attitudes", I would think that AIPA members would take a lot of convincing that AFAP (members and industrial staff) have really turned over a new leaf.
Entrenched cultures are very hard to reform.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 347
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Excellent ideas virginexcess. Each union could be constitutionally bound but financially seperate. Where required they would advocate under the overall name, AUSALPA, but would be responsible for their ongoing interests, EBAs etc
LeadSled
AIPA was formed in 1981. Malcolm Fraser was Prime minister and I was barely out of high school.
The Liberal Party was thrown out, re-elected, thrown out and again in power in the period since then.
If politics at the highest level can overcome historical biases and grievances, then there is no reason why we can't do it as well. There cannot be many left that were personally involved in the split from AFAP, so if the depth of feeling is still high, it can only be from others carrying the torch for those who legitimately hold grudges.
The leadership of both organisations has changed many times since then, so there should be no genuine animosity toward the incumbent individuals. Consider the relationship between Japan and the USA, or the UK and Germany. Surely there could be no greater hurdle to overcome than having been at war with another nation, yet all those nations have put national pride and genuine grievance aside in the national interest. Or in other words, in the interests of their constituents.
Surely we can do the same. At the end of the day it is leadership that is required. Unions are only people at the end of the day. Sure they have their individual cultures, but people can be convinced to take a better path when good leaders stand up and lead.
I understand Pprune is no longer a particularly useful tool for conveying serious information, yet it is still somewhat representative of actual opinions and perceptions. I find it enormously disappointing that there is such a lack of will among pilots to be conciliatory in the interests of progress, rather than inflammatory in the interests of perpetuating old grudges. These are general comments by the way, not aimed at your good self.
That aside, as you have stated, models already exist for more united workforce. I hear you when you say the AFAP have previously rejected that model, but make no mistake, the Feds only have to look at the fractured landscape which they had a lot of input into creating, to understand their AFAP first approach has not been in their best interests. I'm pretty sure they would now be open to a discussion on the subject.
What is needed is cool heads and, as always, compromise will be required. It is a huge irony that the most important role of all the unions is negotiation, yet we seem incapable of negotiating between ourselves for a better future.
I would consider the biggest barrier to progress is the pilots themselves and their general apathy toward unions. If the pilot wanted it, they would make sure they voted in the right representatives to progress it.
E.K.Gann
There you go, a couple of ideas already that can be built upon
The Liberal Party was thrown out, re-elected, thrown out and again in power in the period since then.
If politics at the highest level can overcome historical biases and grievances, then there is no reason why we can't do it as well. There cannot be many left that were personally involved in the split from AFAP, so if the depth of feeling is still high, it can only be from others carrying the torch for those who legitimately hold grudges.
The leadership of both organisations has changed many times since then, so there should be no genuine animosity toward the incumbent individuals. Consider the relationship between Japan and the USA, or the UK and Germany. Surely there could be no greater hurdle to overcome than having been at war with another nation, yet all those nations have put national pride and genuine grievance aside in the national interest. Or in other words, in the interests of their constituents.
Surely we can do the same. At the end of the day it is leadership that is required. Unions are only people at the end of the day. Sure they have their individual cultures, but people can be convinced to take a better path when good leaders stand up and lead.
I understand Pprune is no longer a particularly useful tool for conveying serious information, yet it is still somewhat representative of actual opinions and perceptions. I find it enormously disappointing that there is such a lack of will among pilots to be conciliatory in the interests of progress, rather than inflammatory in the interests of perpetuating old grudges. These are general comments by the way, not aimed at your good self.
That aside, as you have stated, models already exist for more united workforce. I hear you when you say the AFAP have previously rejected that model, but make no mistake, the Feds only have to look at the fractured landscape which they had a lot of input into creating, to understand their AFAP first approach has not been in their best interests. I'm pretty sure they would now be open to a discussion on the subject.
What is needed is cool heads and, as always, compromise will be required. It is a huge irony that the most important role of all the unions is negotiation, yet we seem incapable of negotiating between ourselves for a better future.
I would consider the biggest barrier to progress is the pilots themselves and their general apathy toward unions. If the pilot wanted it, they would make sure they voted in the right representatives to progress it.
E.K.Gann
There you go, a couple of ideas already that can be built upon