Meloz and 89
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Recollections
Recollections are interesting because we all have different selective memories on what went on. So for what it is worth here is mine from a spouses perspective on the night of the resignations.
Phone call. "We all have to meet at the union office within the next 2 hours" No reason given. Why because if the pilots had been told many would not have turned up.
Meetings were held at the same time nationwide so that no-one had the opportunity to telephone a colleague interstate.
No wives allowed. Husband comes home later that night explaining that he had just signed a resignation. Natural response, " You did WHAT?". " Oh dont worry they are not going to be used!"
That may sound very naive on my husbands behalf but he honestly believed what he was told and had me convinced not to worry.
Someone not involved in the dispute may argue what business was it to have a wife involved in the union meeting. Ordinarily I would agree. However when a resignation is being flippantly signed to be used only as a bluff and then submitted without his consult it started to be very much my business.
Interesting that wives were not privy to the signing of those resignations and I know that if they had, many would not have been signed. Also from that point on wives were included in the meetings and the rallies and the reason why!! The AFAP knew that the wives had to be fed the same propaganda and lies to keep their pilots on side
Phone call. "We all have to meet at the union office within the next 2 hours" No reason given. Why because if the pilots had been told many would not have turned up.
Meetings were held at the same time nationwide so that no-one had the opportunity to telephone a colleague interstate.
No wives allowed. Husband comes home later that night explaining that he had just signed a resignation. Natural response, " You did WHAT?". " Oh dont worry they are not going to be used!"
That may sound very naive on my husbands behalf but he honestly believed what he was told and had me convinced not to worry.
Someone not involved in the dispute may argue what business was it to have a wife involved in the union meeting. Ordinarily I would agree. However when a resignation is being flippantly signed to be used only as a bluff and then submitted without his consult it started to be very much my business.
Interesting that wives were not privy to the signing of those resignations and I know that if they had, many would not have been signed. Also from that point on wives were included in the meetings and the rallies and the reason why!! The AFAP knew that the wives had to be fed the same propaganda and lies to keep their pilots on side
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: SE Asia
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Down the back,
I agree. If the girls had been included that night, there would have been far fewer, if any, resignations.
TTT,
I make no assertions that the behaviour of Hawke & Abeles was not a disgrace. Perhaps it was the worst chapter in Australian industrial relations history, but then there was the shearers' strike, and the docks fiasco of a couple of years ago, so maybe not.
What you need to accept though, is that's the way things happen in life. Take the US - Iraqi chest beating currently. Have the US yet said 'This is all about oil.' I don't believe so, yet it is. People in conflict rarely tell the truth because it doesn't suit their purposes to do so. Before you leap in here, I'm not in conflict with you, so therefore have no reason to misrepresent my position.
This comes under the category of 'That's Life.' If you don't like it, there is an alternative, but not a palatable one for most.
'That's Life' is described a little differently in what could probably be called the Australian adage - Life is a $hit sandwich; the more bread you have, the less $hit you have to eat!
Life, and particularly life working for an employer, is about someone imposing their will on you. You guys won't want to hear that, but that's what it is. Just as you impose your will on your crew, employing good CRM principles of course, but imposing your will nevertheless.
Incidentally, I am not, nor have been, nor ever will be, on the defensive for returning to work in early 1990. It's a decision I'm proud to have made, There is something for which I will be eternally ashamed, however, and that is that it took me so damned long to do it. I blindly followed our leaders up a dry creek bed. Fortunately I hadn't run out of water when I decided to turn back.
Even one of the sheep farming brothers from Tasmania (can't think of their names) told me that he'd put his future 'in the hands of people who weren't up to the job.' Isn't that a condemnation when one considerers how pro movement they were? I clearly remember one saying in AFAP HQ 'I can't tell you what we're going to do, but it'll F... them.' Well resigning certainly did that, but the 'them' wasn't the companies, it was the members !!!
I said earlier that I bear no animosity toward any who chose otherwise. It's such a shame that they didn't have the capacity to rationalize that once they had resigned, then the fight was all over. Nor do I feel sorry for them. They made a choice, and I made a choice - different choices, but I'm happy with mine, and from what you, Amos, KapM, etc., say, you're happy with yours, so why are you so angry? Do you see yourselves as losers?
Incidentally, I agree with somebody who posted elsewhere on this subject recently. If I could find a reason, any reason, to disagree with Hawke, I'd do it, but his statement that there was no industrial dispute because everybody had resigned was indeed impeccable logic.
I know you'll contend otherwise, and probably have done a thousand times in these forums, but those who did return were not scabs. They took no jobs belonging to workers on strike. There were no jobs of workers on strike available. Yes, I know your interpretation will be that 'there was an industrial dispute etc., etc.' but that does not fit the Oxford's specification. Sorry. As above, the dispute ended with the resignations. So sad.
I'm still proud of my actions, always will be, and looking forward to an Australian base with SQ. No Australian base though, and I won't bother. It's nice to have choices.
Back into the trench; I hear heavy bombers, one a 767 originating from Japan, and it's not Rice Balls at the pole.
I agree. If the girls had been included that night, there would have been far fewer, if any, resignations.
TTT,
I make no assertions that the behaviour of Hawke & Abeles was not a disgrace. Perhaps it was the worst chapter in Australian industrial relations history, but then there was the shearers' strike, and the docks fiasco of a couple of years ago, so maybe not.
What you need to accept though, is that's the way things happen in life. Take the US - Iraqi chest beating currently. Have the US yet said 'This is all about oil.' I don't believe so, yet it is. People in conflict rarely tell the truth because it doesn't suit their purposes to do so. Before you leap in here, I'm not in conflict with you, so therefore have no reason to misrepresent my position.
This comes under the category of 'That's Life.' If you don't like it, there is an alternative, but not a palatable one for most.
'That's Life' is described a little differently in what could probably be called the Australian adage - Life is a $hit sandwich; the more bread you have, the less $hit you have to eat!
Life, and particularly life working for an employer, is about someone imposing their will on you. You guys won't want to hear that, but that's what it is. Just as you impose your will on your crew, employing good CRM principles of course, but imposing your will nevertheless.
Incidentally, I am not, nor have been, nor ever will be, on the defensive for returning to work in early 1990. It's a decision I'm proud to have made, There is something for which I will be eternally ashamed, however, and that is that it took me so damned long to do it. I blindly followed our leaders up a dry creek bed. Fortunately I hadn't run out of water when I decided to turn back.
Even one of the sheep farming brothers from Tasmania (can't think of their names) told me that he'd put his future 'in the hands of people who weren't up to the job.' Isn't that a condemnation when one considerers how pro movement they were? I clearly remember one saying in AFAP HQ 'I can't tell you what we're going to do, but it'll F... them.' Well resigning certainly did that, but the 'them' wasn't the companies, it was the members !!!
I said earlier that I bear no animosity toward any who chose otherwise. It's such a shame that they didn't have the capacity to rationalize that once they had resigned, then the fight was all over. Nor do I feel sorry for them. They made a choice, and I made a choice - different choices, but I'm happy with mine, and from what you, Amos, KapM, etc., say, you're happy with yours, so why are you so angry? Do you see yourselves as losers?
Incidentally, I agree with somebody who posted elsewhere on this subject recently. If I could find a reason, any reason, to disagree with Hawke, I'd do it, but his statement that there was no industrial dispute because everybody had resigned was indeed impeccable logic.
I know you'll contend otherwise, and probably have done a thousand times in these forums, but those who did return were not scabs. They took no jobs belonging to workers on strike. There were no jobs of workers on strike available. Yes, I know your interpretation will be that 'there was an industrial dispute etc., etc.' but that does not fit the Oxford's specification. Sorry. As above, the dispute ended with the resignations. So sad.
I'm still proud of my actions, always will be, and looking forward to an Australian base with SQ. No Australian base though, and I won't bother. It's nice to have choices.
Back into the trench; I hear heavy bombers, one a 767 originating from Japan, and it's not Rice Balls at the pole.
Last edited by CitizenXX; 22nd Sep 2002 at 05:08.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Dear Citizen XX,
First of all, the dictionary, any dictionary is compiled after intensive study of common usage. But what appears in the dictionary is only a summary otherwise it would be an encyclopaedia. It’s like looking at the Oxford definition of “Food” and seeing what it says in a couple of lines trying to describe the means of sustenance for plant and animal life over 20 million years. (And in any case Bob Hawke went to Oxford so there’s a bit of a question mark over that dictionary anyway.) If you want to learn more about the difference between thae narrowness of a dictionary and the practical realities of life, I will gladly kick in my share to a fund to send you to your choice of coal mining towns anywhere in the world so that you can defend your narrow definition in public.
So don’t limit yourself to a few narrow words when you know the real truth. By the way, while at the keyboard I came up with this definition from somewhere out there on the ‘net…..I’m sure most readers of your post would agree that at least one of these definitions applies to what you did. (And I didn’t have to buy a dictionary!).
scab
n.
1. A crust discharged from and covering a healing wound.
2. Scabies or mange in domestic animals or livestock, especially sheep.
3.
a. Any of various plant diseases caused by fungi or bacteria and resulting in crustlike spots on fruit, leaves, or roots.
b. The spots caused by such a disease.
4. Slang. A person regarded as contemptible.
5.
a. A worker who refuses membership in a labor union.
b. An employee who works while others are on strike; a strikebreaker.
c. A person hired to replace a striking worker.
Second, and this is the real point, just truthfully answer a simple question please.
Given (and this is not really contestable is it?) that aviation is, in its various forms, largely reliant on teamwork. You might call it comradeship. Others use terms like CRM, others plain politeness or whatever. But the central theme is not necessarily looking after yourself first, or if you do find yourself at the top of some particular heap, help a few mates who’ve found themselves not so well off. If you get into the lifeboat first after a ditching, wait for the others before casting off. If you pop a few rivets in the aero club Chipmunk, tell someone so the next guy doesn’t get an unfortunate surprise during a loop. Etc, etc, etc.
So… at any time after you made your personal decision (i.e. 1990 to 2001)did you actively campaign for AN to recruit any (other than the “Dozen”) from the other side of the line, or did you by your inaction, support totally Dick Marman’s view that there would be a safety problem if ‘cultures” were mixed?
Simple question. You looked after yourself…did you then look after others?
And finally, lest anyone think you are a touch arrogant, don't ever, ever again boast in public about your good fortune in picking and choosing SQ bases and jobs when there are still lots of unemployed or underemployed pilots out there who have no such choice. Good men and women who have a right to respect and pride even without 4 gold bars and a shiny jet.
First of all, the dictionary, any dictionary is compiled after intensive study of common usage. But what appears in the dictionary is only a summary otherwise it would be an encyclopaedia. It’s like looking at the Oxford definition of “Food” and seeing what it says in a couple of lines trying to describe the means of sustenance for plant and animal life over 20 million years. (And in any case Bob Hawke went to Oxford so there’s a bit of a question mark over that dictionary anyway.) If you want to learn more about the difference between thae narrowness of a dictionary and the practical realities of life, I will gladly kick in my share to a fund to send you to your choice of coal mining towns anywhere in the world so that you can defend your narrow definition in public.
So don’t limit yourself to a few narrow words when you know the real truth. By the way, while at the keyboard I came up with this definition from somewhere out there on the ‘net…..I’m sure most readers of your post would agree that at least one of these definitions applies to what you did. (And I didn’t have to buy a dictionary!).
scab
n.
1. A crust discharged from and covering a healing wound.
2. Scabies or mange in domestic animals or livestock, especially sheep.
3.
a. Any of various plant diseases caused by fungi or bacteria and resulting in crustlike spots on fruit, leaves, or roots.
b. The spots caused by such a disease.
4. Slang. A person regarded as contemptible.
5.
a. A worker who refuses membership in a labor union.
b. An employee who works while others are on strike; a strikebreaker.
c. A person hired to replace a striking worker.
Second, and this is the real point, just truthfully answer a simple question please.
Given (and this is not really contestable is it?) that aviation is, in its various forms, largely reliant on teamwork. You might call it comradeship. Others use terms like CRM, others plain politeness or whatever. But the central theme is not necessarily looking after yourself first, or if you do find yourself at the top of some particular heap, help a few mates who’ve found themselves not so well off. If you get into the lifeboat first after a ditching, wait for the others before casting off. If you pop a few rivets in the aero club Chipmunk, tell someone so the next guy doesn’t get an unfortunate surprise during a loop. Etc, etc, etc.
So… at any time after you made your personal decision (i.e. 1990 to 2001)did you actively campaign for AN to recruit any (other than the “Dozen”) from the other side of the line, or did you by your inaction, support totally Dick Marman’s view that there would be a safety problem if ‘cultures” were mixed?
Simple question. You looked after yourself…did you then look after others?
And finally, lest anyone think you are a touch arrogant, don't ever, ever again boast in public about your good fortune in picking and choosing SQ bases and jobs when there are still lots of unemployed or underemployed pilots out there who have no such choice. Good men and women who have a right to respect and pride even without 4 gold bars and a shiny jet.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: SE ASIA
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Porno Citizen,
Your arrogance speaks volumes of the type of individual who could have turned his back on his colleagues so long ago.
You are happy with your decision - of course you are - you advanced your position in your airline and made yourself rich. I'm alright Jack!
Many of your newer colleagues are now in dire straits after the collapse of Ansett. You are happy with your position - which 777 / 747 position will I take? I'm alright Jack!
Thanks for the insight into how you people think.
Your arrogance speaks volumes of the type of individual who could have turned his back on his colleagues so long ago.
You are happy with your decision - of course you are - you advanced your position in your airline and made yourself rich. I'm alright Jack!
Many of your newer colleagues are now in dire straits after the collapse of Ansett. You are happy with your position - which 777 / 747 position will I take? I'm alright Jack!
Thanks for the insight into how you people think.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: SE Asia
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Elektra,
Thanks for your prompt response to my post. I knew I wouldn't have to wait long.
Now, down to business. Which definition is me, or is it all? I may see you as a 'contemptible person' also. Did that occur to you? Probably not.
In answer to your question, I did oppose Dick Marman's position, but to no avail. I don't suppose you'll accept that, so there was no point in saying it.
Now, I am looking forward to my 777 position very much, and if it's not in Australia, then I won't accept. What are you going to do? Jump through my monitor and punch me? What a joke you are. I can't believe someone would make such a dumb threat. What would you have me do, give it up, and hope that they'll give it to someone who isn't qualified, or hasn't applied? Even dumber. Good men and women see it as my good fortune, and if I knock back a Singapore basing, then it opens up a spot for someone else, doesn't it? I'm sure there are a number hoping that I don't accept for that very reason. They don't dislike or disrespect me, nor me them, but they are realists. If they apply, are successful, and then choose not to be based in a location other than Australia, then that is their prerogative. End of story.
Stable Approach,
An unstable post from you. Have you been reading my mail? I thought the porno thing was my secret. Please read and digest the above para regarding basings, and how my possible refusal will open up a job for someone else - not for someone who is not qualified or hasn't applied however - just for one who has applied and has been successful.
I've never flown a chipmunk, nor do I wish to, but I did pop a few dozen rivets in an A320 in an encounter with severe turbulence once. I wrote it up.
Collectively, what you losers fail to accept is that the airlines were operating - Foreign pilots were thick on the ground despite the AFAP's assertion that none were here. About 30 in AN didn't resign, and that made a total of 80 available out of an estimated 300 required - better than 25%. Regardless of whether you are prepared to acknowledge it or otherwise, there will always be people who didn't vote for or support the cause. Would you expect them to sit on the sidelines and watch their jobs be consumed by someone else, probably a foreigner.
Another small point I draw to your attention is this: Many who hurl abuse in these forums are now working overseas, sucking the guts out of their economies, on super salaries, as KM acknowledges, taking commands in front of local FOs and you have the nerve to criticize! Is it any wonder you totally lack credibility?
This was covered elsewhere recently when these same pilots, particularly KM, criticized SQ for suggesting they may fly domestically here. It was pointed out to him that in a micro manner he was doing exactly the same, i.e., sucking a living out of a foreign country, and taking the profits home. Oh, of course, that's different. How silly of me.
Downtheback,
How disappointing that you didn't respond so promptly and tip a bucket on me. Two out of three ain't bad though !!!
Let me say it again fellas, just in case you didn't understand - Life's a $hit sandwich; the more bread you have, the less $hit you have to eat. Understand??
I'm shutting down now before Elektra flings himself at me through my monitor.
Thanks for your prompt response to my post. I knew I wouldn't have to wait long.
Now, down to business. Which definition is me, or is it all? I may see you as a 'contemptible person' also. Did that occur to you? Probably not.
In answer to your question, I did oppose Dick Marman's position, but to no avail. I don't suppose you'll accept that, so there was no point in saying it.
Now, I am looking forward to my 777 position very much, and if it's not in Australia, then I won't accept. What are you going to do? Jump through my monitor and punch me? What a joke you are. I can't believe someone would make such a dumb threat. What would you have me do, give it up, and hope that they'll give it to someone who isn't qualified, or hasn't applied? Even dumber. Good men and women see it as my good fortune, and if I knock back a Singapore basing, then it opens up a spot for someone else, doesn't it? I'm sure there are a number hoping that I don't accept for that very reason. They don't dislike or disrespect me, nor me them, but they are realists. If they apply, are successful, and then choose not to be based in a location other than Australia, then that is their prerogative. End of story.
Stable Approach,
An unstable post from you. Have you been reading my mail? I thought the porno thing was my secret. Please read and digest the above para regarding basings, and how my possible refusal will open up a job for someone else - not for someone who is not qualified or hasn't applied however - just for one who has applied and has been successful.
I've never flown a chipmunk, nor do I wish to, but I did pop a few dozen rivets in an A320 in an encounter with severe turbulence once. I wrote it up.
Collectively, what you losers fail to accept is that the airlines were operating - Foreign pilots were thick on the ground despite the AFAP's assertion that none were here. About 30 in AN didn't resign, and that made a total of 80 available out of an estimated 300 required - better than 25%. Regardless of whether you are prepared to acknowledge it or otherwise, there will always be people who didn't vote for or support the cause. Would you expect them to sit on the sidelines and watch their jobs be consumed by someone else, probably a foreigner.
Another small point I draw to your attention is this: Many who hurl abuse in these forums are now working overseas, sucking the guts out of their economies, on super salaries, as KM acknowledges, taking commands in front of local FOs and you have the nerve to criticize! Is it any wonder you totally lack credibility?
This was covered elsewhere recently when these same pilots, particularly KM, criticized SQ for suggesting they may fly domestically here. It was pointed out to him that in a micro manner he was doing exactly the same, i.e., sucking a living out of a foreign country, and taking the profits home. Oh, of course, that's different. How silly of me.
Downtheback,
How disappointing that you didn't respond so promptly and tip a bucket on me. Two out of three ain't bad though !!!
Let me say it again fellas, just in case you didn't understand - Life's a $hit sandwich; the more bread you have, the less $hit you have to eat. Understand??
I'm shutting down now before Elektra flings himself at me through my monitor.
Last edited by CitizenXX; 22nd Sep 2002 at 05:11.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: From a suitcase
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CitizenXX, I may be way off base here, but I can’t help but suspect that you’re just a tiny bit out of touch with the rest of the world. I’m not commenting only on your self-serving interpretation of your actions in 1990, but more on your repeated comments about how you’ll only accept an Australian basing ‘when’ SQ begs you take a job with them in November.
Now I don’t work for SQ and never have, so I can’t comment on whether your expectations regarding your employment prospects are correct. I have to admit you sound a trifle smug, and (I suspect) just a little out of touch with reality, for I understand that SQ aren’t exactly famous for rolling over and acquiescing to demands from prospective employees.
However, I understand entirely your desire to take up only an Australian basing. The reduced after tax pay shouldn’t be of any concern given the money you should have been able to squirrel away over the last twelve years… and, could I be right in thinking that there might just be a tiiiiiny touch of apprehension at the thought of leaving your safe ‘little pond’ to live in that big bad one where even you might suspect that the fantasy you’ve been able to weave about what a hero (no pun intended) you were in taking the ‘courageous’ course of action you did in early 1990 might not be seen in the same light by the vast majority of the colleagues you’ll be forced to live among in Singapore? (I’ve heard the early arrivals have been more than a little surprised at the (non)reception they’ve received on the expat Singapore social scene.)
You and your heroic (pun intended this time) mates were left ‘in possession of the battlefield’ after 1989 and with no one on the spot to gainsay you, have convinced yourselves through constant repetition of the Big Lie that what you did was somehow honourable(!). Maaaaate, if you think you can sell that line to people who know what really happened in 89-90 as opposed to young FO’s locked into your cockpit in an post 89 AN aircraft, give up Aviation and make yourself some real money - Tony Blair has a job for you among his spin doctors.
You say in your last post: ”What you need to accept though, is that's the way things happen in life.” “That’s the way things happen in life?” – what’s that, that the Bosses always win? They win only because lily-livered or self-serving people (who have been labelled ‘scabs’ for over 150 years now) don’t stand the ground they initially promise to stand.
It’s also gives me a lump in the throat (I tug my forelock and grovel “arrr, thank yee, surrr”) to see that you ”…bear no animosity toward any who chose otherwise.” But just in case we forget you’re way up there on the very apex of your high moral pinnacle, you quickly go on to say ”It's such a shame that they didn't have the capacity to rationalize… They made a choice, and I made a choice - different choices, but I'm happy with mine,”
It always draws howls of outrage from some when you use a war analogy to illustrate a point regarding the (thank you Wiley) capital ‘D’ Dispute. But Bob Hawke called 89 a war, so here goes anyway. Using your logic, CitizenXX, the ‘smart’ pilots of the RAF in September 1940 would have painted black crosses on their Hurricanes and ‘got with the winning side’, because their leaders had made some truly stupid decisions leaving their country in a desperate situation, alone with no allies against an all-conquering and implacable enemy. Anyone could see (and many said it, including the US Ambassador to the UK), that England’s cause was lost and nothing could stop the Germans. A ‘smart’ Brit would have looked after Number One and not followed that war mongering Churchill ”up a dry creek bed”.
Similarly, our soldiers in New Guinea would have done exactly the same thing in 1942, for no one had defeated the ‘unstoppable’ Japanese juggernaut until then, and the Australian military leadership under Blamey was riven with dissention and had made, and continued to make, enormous mistakes that cost the troops on the front line dearly. Surely a ‘smart’ Digger would have seen the fight was ‘lost’ and looked after himself?
Some – a small number - I’m sure, did – and I’m sure the vast majority of the soldiers who hung in there and continued to do what they said they’d do when the going didn’t look quite so rough despised them exactly the way the vast majority despise the likes of you, CitizenXX. I don’t doubt you’ll get your job with SQ, probably even your Australian basing, but don’t think for one moment that it makes you anything other than what you are.
Now I don’t work for SQ and never have, so I can’t comment on whether your expectations regarding your employment prospects are correct. I have to admit you sound a trifle smug, and (I suspect) just a little out of touch with reality, for I understand that SQ aren’t exactly famous for rolling over and acquiescing to demands from prospective employees.
However, I understand entirely your desire to take up only an Australian basing. The reduced after tax pay shouldn’t be of any concern given the money you should have been able to squirrel away over the last twelve years… and, could I be right in thinking that there might just be a tiiiiiny touch of apprehension at the thought of leaving your safe ‘little pond’ to live in that big bad one where even you might suspect that the fantasy you’ve been able to weave about what a hero (no pun intended) you were in taking the ‘courageous’ course of action you did in early 1990 might not be seen in the same light by the vast majority of the colleagues you’ll be forced to live among in Singapore? (I’ve heard the early arrivals have been more than a little surprised at the (non)reception they’ve received on the expat Singapore social scene.)
You and your heroic (pun intended this time) mates were left ‘in possession of the battlefield’ after 1989 and with no one on the spot to gainsay you, have convinced yourselves through constant repetition of the Big Lie that what you did was somehow honourable(!). Maaaaate, if you think you can sell that line to people who know what really happened in 89-90 as opposed to young FO’s locked into your cockpit in an post 89 AN aircraft, give up Aviation and make yourself some real money - Tony Blair has a job for you among his spin doctors.
You say in your last post: ”What you need to accept though, is that's the way things happen in life.” “That’s the way things happen in life?” – what’s that, that the Bosses always win? They win only because lily-livered or self-serving people (who have been labelled ‘scabs’ for over 150 years now) don’t stand the ground they initially promise to stand.
It’s also gives me a lump in the throat (I tug my forelock and grovel “arrr, thank yee, surrr”) to see that you ”…bear no animosity toward any who chose otherwise.” But just in case we forget you’re way up there on the very apex of your high moral pinnacle, you quickly go on to say ”It's such a shame that they didn't have the capacity to rationalize… They made a choice, and I made a choice - different choices, but I'm happy with mine,”
It always draws howls of outrage from some when you use a war analogy to illustrate a point regarding the (thank you Wiley) capital ‘D’ Dispute. But Bob Hawke called 89 a war, so here goes anyway. Using your logic, CitizenXX, the ‘smart’ pilots of the RAF in September 1940 would have painted black crosses on their Hurricanes and ‘got with the winning side’, because their leaders had made some truly stupid decisions leaving their country in a desperate situation, alone with no allies against an all-conquering and implacable enemy. Anyone could see (and many said it, including the US Ambassador to the UK), that England’s cause was lost and nothing could stop the Germans. A ‘smart’ Brit would have looked after Number One and not followed that war mongering Churchill ”up a dry creek bed”.
Similarly, our soldiers in New Guinea would have done exactly the same thing in 1942, for no one had defeated the ‘unstoppable’ Japanese juggernaut until then, and the Australian military leadership under Blamey was riven with dissention and had made, and continued to make, enormous mistakes that cost the troops on the front line dearly. Surely a ‘smart’ Digger would have seen the fight was ‘lost’ and looked after himself?
Some – a small number - I’m sure, did – and I’m sure the vast majority of the soldiers who hung in there and continued to do what they said they’d do when the going didn’t look quite so rough despised them exactly the way the vast majority despise the likes of you, CitizenXX. I don’t doubt you’ll get your job with SQ, probably even your Australian basing, but don’t think for one moment that it makes you anything other than what you are.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Now cool down XX
Essential part of CRM is the ability to take advice, not jump at every word as though it were a threat. You know better and you’re just trying to upset me. But I have teenagers, I can cope. I think that in every corner of Australia I’ve ever walked its been common practice to belt up about good fortune when in the presence (or cyber-presence) of others. Just a friendly tip to help that might help you cope in Asia.
I wish you no ill and have never jumped through anything to hit or otherwise damage anyone. Nor wanted to (although the umpire who reported Terry Daniher in 1990 at the Grand Final and got him 13 weeks certainly did try my patience).
As another friendly aside, totally between us…if you constantly find yourself thinking that others on Prune or elsewhere are about to “get you’…drag out that Oxford of yours and look up “Paranoia”. Just a thought. You seem relatively OK otherwise.
And while the dictionary is out….look up “Situational Ethics”. When I voted to stay with my friends in 1989 there was no caveat such as “unless it gets difficult”. That’s the whole bloody point about solidarity!
And as for "you losers"....well to tell the truth, no-one I know ever judges success or failure in life by the size of the big jet attached to their backside. or whether there's one at all. There are, should you take the time to smell the flowers, far, far more important things.
Essential part of CRM is the ability to take advice, not jump at every word as though it were a threat. You know better and you’re just trying to upset me. But I have teenagers, I can cope. I think that in every corner of Australia I’ve ever walked its been common practice to belt up about good fortune when in the presence (or cyber-presence) of others. Just a friendly tip to help that might help you cope in Asia.
I wish you no ill and have never jumped through anything to hit or otherwise damage anyone. Nor wanted to (although the umpire who reported Terry Daniher in 1990 at the Grand Final and got him 13 weeks certainly did try my patience).
As another friendly aside, totally between us…if you constantly find yourself thinking that others on Prune or elsewhere are about to “get you’…drag out that Oxford of yours and look up “Paranoia”. Just a thought. You seem relatively OK otherwise.
And while the dictionary is out….look up “Situational Ethics”. When I voted to stay with my friends in 1989 there was no caveat such as “unless it gets difficult”. That’s the whole bloody point about solidarity!
And as for "you losers"....well to tell the truth, no-one I know ever judges success or failure in life by the size of the big jet attached to their backside. or whether there's one at all. There are, should you take the time to smell the flowers, far, far more important things.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Brisbane,Qld,Australia
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Citizen XX boasts about how rich he is. This adds a certain weight to some of Kaptin M's arguments (whilst he appears to have done OK himself). CitizenXX also thinks I am envious because I made the wrong decision. A simple comparison of what the three returnees from my intake, as compared to the rest of us, are doing now makes this point look silly.
He has applied for a position with SIA, but the 'can go anywhere/look anyone in the eye/take no prisoners CitizenXX will only take the offer if he doesn't have to live in Singapore. "Gutsy move".
If it doesn't go his way SIA may not appreciate his selfish motives and when some of his former colleagues, such as Wisofoz and Gnadenburg's, turn comes round may not be so accommodating.
The 30% pay claim cannot be discussed without mentioning Abeles and Hawkes similar pay rises. Any attempt to do so is just as hypocritical as these people's actions.
I have always thought of FSU's contributions as a side issue. There was a big picture and it wasn't unfathomable percentages and comparisons, Kaptin M's response and counter claims, loaded guns & king hits or hoards of septics clambering across the Pacific in some kind of feeding frenzy centred around the right seat of the 737 I used to occupy.
This went to the heart of our Australian way of life and how we conduct our society. These thirty cent light bulb issues may have had their place but not whilst the aircraft descended towards the everglades.
The Prime Minister wrote to us all. The letter informed us that not only could we not negotiate with our employers but could not be represented by those of our choice. This totalitarian action may have been normal in a former east european regime but not in our free and democratic Australia.
Was this important or not!
Brian McCarthy said/did not say...wah...wah...wah...
The Federation did/did not do...wah...wah...wah...
For goodness sakes!!!
There is only one question each of us involved needs to ask.
Did I stand up for my country's constitutional and democratic institutions along side those I promised I would, or did I not?
He has applied for a position with SIA, but the 'can go anywhere/look anyone in the eye/take no prisoners CitizenXX will only take the offer if he doesn't have to live in Singapore. "Gutsy move".
If it doesn't go his way SIA may not appreciate his selfish motives and when some of his former colleagues, such as Wisofoz and Gnadenburg's, turn comes round may not be so accommodating.
The 30% pay claim cannot be discussed without mentioning Abeles and Hawkes similar pay rises. Any attempt to do so is just as hypocritical as these people's actions.
I have always thought of FSU's contributions as a side issue. There was a big picture and it wasn't unfathomable percentages and comparisons, Kaptin M's response and counter claims, loaded guns & king hits or hoards of septics clambering across the Pacific in some kind of feeding frenzy centred around the right seat of the 737 I used to occupy.
This went to the heart of our Australian way of life and how we conduct our society. These thirty cent light bulb issues may have had their place but not whilst the aircraft descended towards the everglades.
The Prime Minister wrote to us all. The letter informed us that not only could we not negotiate with our employers but could not be represented by those of our choice. This totalitarian action may have been normal in a former east european regime but not in our free and democratic Australia.
Was this important or not!
Brian McCarthy said/did not say...wah...wah...wah...
The Federation did/did not do...wah...wah...wah...
For goodness sakes!!!
There is only one question each of us involved needs to ask.
Did I stand up for my country's constitutional and democratic institutions along side those I promised I would, or did I not?
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You guys just dont get it. Once you had resigned you lost all right to negotiate with your employer. Your rights were gone... zip. Whether this was morally right or industrially right in the employers right or the courts right you had no rights . Now whether this was stupidity on the AFAPS behalf or just bad luck on their decision making one had to decide for themselves. It certainly got out of the hands of the AFAP to resolve it.
Brisboy,
One final point then I'm outta here (It's gotten VERY boring!!)
"Represented by those of our choice"
What choice? AN and TN were AFAP closed shops. If you wanted to work for either you HAD to join. There was no choice. I know of guys who HAD to join, voted AGAINST the campain at the outset, and then either DIDN'T resign or withdrew their resignations immediatley they knew the AFAP had exercised them against their will and in opposition to it's promise not to use them without further consultation.
These people are labled scabs and are on the list.
Where was their democratic right?
The AFAP only got into the "Democratic right" for representation after it lost the "Automatic Monopoly" option.
One final point then I'm outta here (It's gotten VERY boring!!)
"Represented by those of our choice"
What choice? AN and TN were AFAP closed shops. If you wanted to work for either you HAD to join. There was no choice. I know of guys who HAD to join, voted AGAINST the campain at the outset, and then either DIDN'T resign or withdrew their resignations immediatley they knew the AFAP had exercised them against their will and in opposition to it's promise not to use them without further consultation.
These people are labled scabs and are on the list.
Where was their democratic right?
The AFAP only got into the "Democratic right" for representation after it lost the "Automatic Monopoly" option.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Asia
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And you don't get it 'downtheback',
Having lost the rights you speak of by resigning, the only option open then was for the pilots as a group to stick together, which makes the actions of the early returners all the more distasteful. You speak as though the resignations were a voluntary event, not a situation forced on the pilots through legal pressure.
You're simply ignoring facets of the dispute which don't suit your version of the 'truth'.
Having lost the rights you speak of by resigning, the only option open then was for the pilots as a group to stick together, which makes the actions of the early returners all the more distasteful. You speak as though the resignations were a voluntary event, not a situation forced on the pilots through legal pressure.
You're simply ignoring facets of the dispute which don't suit your version of the 'truth'.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KM, TTT, etc..
Speaking of resignations:
How do you guys feel about yours being handed in without your knowledge, consent (strictly speaking),etc?
Does it not bother you at all or did it leave you feeling as though you'd been played for a fool, or anything?
I wasn't involved but when I hear all the talk I often wonder how much loyalty the AFAP would inspire with a move like that?
How do you guys feel about yours being handed in without your knowledge, consent (strictly speaking),etc?
Does it not bother you at all or did it leave you feeling as though you'd been played for a fool, or anything?
I wasn't involved but when I hear all the talk I often wonder how much loyalty the AFAP would inspire with a move like that?
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“downtheback’s” comments reinforce very clearly something I always felt very strongly about from very early in the Dispute – that the wives played a - no, the- pivotal role in how every (married) pilot handled himself.
They were, without a shadow of a doubt, the strongest or the weakest link in the individual pilot’s personal armour. If he had unswerving support from his partner, even if she disagreed with some of the decisions made (like the resignation, as mine did), he was probably going to see out the distance. If she was in his face about where the next pay packet was coming from, no matter how strong he might have started out, he was lost.
Myself, I thank God daily for the woman who stood by me and didn’t once suggest that going back might be an option.
I wonder if, late at night, any of the long term (and recently ex)AN wives today allow the insidious thought to creep into their minds as they consider if their present situation might have been different if they’d stood by their man back in 89 and backed him up rather than insisting he go back? No, I suppose they can’t afford that thought in even now.
Without the constant trickle of ‘go backs’, (and particularly the Christmas flood), the airlines would have been forced to deal with the Union. Politically, I don’t believe even Hawke and Abeles could have got away with having almost every captain imported from overseas. It simply wouldn’t have worked, and in their heart of hearts, I think every one of those who went back knows that.
They were, without a shadow of a doubt, the strongest or the weakest link in the individual pilot’s personal armour. If he had unswerving support from his partner, even if she disagreed with some of the decisions made (like the resignation, as mine did), he was probably going to see out the distance. If she was in his face about where the next pay packet was coming from, no matter how strong he might have started out, he was lost.
Myself, I thank God daily for the woman who stood by me and didn’t once suggest that going back might be an option.
I wonder if, late at night, any of the long term (and recently ex)AN wives today allow the insidious thought to creep into their minds as they consider if their present situation might have been different if they’d stood by their man back in 89 and backed him up rather than insisting he go back? No, I suppose they can’t afford that thought in even now.
Without the constant trickle of ‘go backs’, (and particularly the Christmas flood), the airlines would have been forced to deal with the Union. Politically, I don’t believe even Hawke and Abeles could have got away with having almost every captain imported from overseas. It simply wouldn’t have worked, and in their heart of hearts, I think every one of those who went back knows that.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Sydney
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apart from what the '89 dispute did to ANY pilot in Australia, did ANY of you have ANY idea of what it did to everyone else working in an airline or tourist industry or their families for that matter?
You are such a selfish singular minded bunch of juvenile bitches, still ranting about a cancer of a year that will probably haunt you all til the day you die!
There seems to be only three things that have ever really been important to all you humble lot.....and that's just "Me... Me... Me"......
For God's sake, just climb on top of each other and get it over with !!
You are such a selfish singular minded bunch of juvenile bitches, still ranting about a cancer of a year that will probably haunt you all til the day you die!
There seems to be only three things that have ever really been important to all you humble lot.....and that's just "Me... Me... Me"......
For God's sake, just climb on top of each other and get it over with !!
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: SE Asia
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jupiter 2,
What a valid point you make. You would know from my posts above that I went back, and am not ashamed for a moment of my actions; the only shame I carry is that I was so stupid to think that it could have been won by the pilots.
What I am really ashamed of however, is the way some of our number unashamedly rode roughshod over GA pilots, taking their jobs from day 1, often on less than award conditions, just to secure an income. There were plenty who treated their GA colleagues like $hit, considering it their right, as airline pilots, to do so. Who were the greedy, self serving ones then?? Those who chose to go back to work? I don't think so.
Then there were those who went overseas and took commands in front of local FO's and felt it was their right to do so. Also, they announced to all who would listen, and some who would not, that they were there only until the AFAP secured a win, and they could go back to their previous positions. What a disgrace they were.
I knew a guy (then an FO) who came from the middle east post dispute, and told the story of an AN 737 Capt sitting on his verandah (invited by a friend), drinking his beer, and telling him (FO) that he (Capt) was going to come to his airline and take a command. Imagine how that went over. Chris didn't go to the middle east, and is now a CX Capt.
Jupiter, these guys are never going to get over it for a simple reason. They know they made the wrong decision, detest what they are doing and where, and wish like hell that they had stayed.
Of course, if they had, Ansett would never have collapsed because there would have been pilots of great principles steering it towards greater success. Yeah, right!
7 X 7,
Likewise, I'm elated that my wife stood by me in my decision. They are different decisions, but if we're both happy about that, then it can't be a bad thing. Mine never insisted that I go back, but when I made the decision, she was right behind me. So our wives have something in common, and what an admirable quality supporting your man is. Loyalty I think it's called.
As for insidious thoughts creeping into minds late at night; how could/would it have been different. Airlines around the world collapse almost monthly. People get by; some change their career paths, others get jobs locally, and some overseas.
Interestingly, a year down the track, 50% of those in the market for a flying job, have that job. There were a few over 800 pilots, out of which 70 were over 60 years of age. About 80, late fifties, have just retired, and almost 20 of the young guys have gone to university, or just given it away in disillusionment. About 340 had jobs on last count, and I daresay that a year after August ?? 1989 that nowhere near 50% of those previously employed would have had jobs. So it's not all bad, is it??
Knackered,
The resignations weren't forced by legal action. See my post above where one of the sheep farmers was spruiking weeks before the event that 'I can't tell you what we're going to do, but it'll sure F... them.' Well it did F... them. Them being the pilots. So it was planned well before the writs issue, and we were told that they would never be used, just waved in front of the management, and that would cause them to capitulate. Well, we all saw the result of that threat. See below re the mgt being in possession of the tactic long before the event.
Wizofoz,
Good points, again.
Downtheback,
You're right on the button, my dear. No rights when you resigned. Would you have a right to any input on issues at the local bowling club if you'd resigned your membership??
Wasn't this the classic case of using the big gun without having a back door exit? Once the resignations were handed over, it was all over. They couldn't then say, that they didn't intend to resign because the unior heirarchy would look foolish/more foolish.
My understanding was that even the senior industrial officer of the AFAP wasn't in favour of the resignation tactic. Isn't that in Brad Norrington's book? Maybe I'm mistaken.
Brisboy & Others,
I don't suggest that I'm dictating the terms to SQ on my basing. If they offer Singapore, then I won't be going. I have indicated a preference for an Australian basing, and I would have considered it stupid to have done any more. I'll take an Australian basing if it's offered, but not Singapore if it's offered. Simple as that. And to whoever suggested it's the November intake, do you know something I don't? I'm waiting on both a date and base.
It's not that I can't cut it in the big bad world of international aviation, Brisboy. Rather it's a simple case of choosing to live and work in/from my current domicile. I'm a creature of habit; like my home, like feeding wallabies on the back porch, like the Australian bush, and like running my couple of quite small but successful businesses, which incidentaly, I've made more money from than flying. And also incidentally, businesses which you may have used over the years. Simple as that. I think those who read here would know that I am more than capable of verbal jousting with the best, so there's no fear there.
As for being a social leper in the Singapore expat community, I don't see it. On a recent visit, I socialized with a banker, businessman, broker, and an aid worker, and not once was I asked if I was a $cab from Australia. Interesting. And if I was a social leper, then I have a multitude of Singaporean friends from many, many years ago, prior to flying, when I lived there. We've kept in touch, visit each other from time to time, and they have no interest in an industrial event in the third world 13 years ago.
Spad,
No war, no painting black crosses on aircraft, no Kokoda Track , no capitulation. What are you talking about?? and what are you smoking??
The only comments I have on your 'unusual' post is that I NEVER promised to stand the ground, and you are in a similar position in that you have no one to gainsay your version of the events, events which I believe your young FOs are sick to death of being regaled with over many years.
Elektra,
You got me. I was just winding you up. Your teenagers have equipped you well, and you do make a good point or two.
Now to all, the issue of solidarity. There were two groups demonstrating solidarity. Those who didn't resign, voted against the action as ill conceived, and subsequently withdrew their resignations also demonstrated solidarity. Those who didn't hold the (absurd) line showed solidarity with each other as well. I know, I know, there'll be howls from TTT, KM, Spad, Amos, etc., who will contend that they were money driven, glory driven, management stooges, and a thousand other things, but if the AFAP had decreed that we should all slit our wrists, I'm sure there would have been a number who would have slavishly followed their ridiculous request/demand.
The AFAP was never my choice of industrial representation. It was a bloody closed shop, and I had no choice. And why would I want it to be with a Parramatta Road car salesman in his guady checked suit calling everybody 'pal' in nominal control. Then there was the midget who had a nasty habit of putting his feet on Abeles' desk. These people saw it as their role to educate the Australian masses in the finesse of industrial relations. Never lost one, and no doubt they were buoyed by that, but when you back yourself into a corner, there is an inevitable result. A tiger snake on my porch discovered that an hour ago, just as we were no match for a shovel that went by the name of Hawke.
203,
Yes, I felt like a real idiot for even considering their demand. I should have walked out, gone sick or some alternative course of action. Can you imagine being summoned by the union at about 9pm to be at HQ at 10pm. For Perth pilots it was 8pm so that nobody could leak the ridiculous request. Can't tell you what it's about was the message. The resignations would not be 'active', but merely used to 'frighten' the management. The management was already in possession of the tactic. A management pilot told me (I'll save you writing it fellas; he was probably lying) after the event that he was rung (management pilots could be members of the union) but told them he wasn't resigning even before being asked to come in at 10 pm. Hope that answers your question. It's been suggested there was an AFAP mole, on the payroll of the company post resignations, who had shuffled from management to the AFAP a couple of times over the years. He is now with VB in a senior position.
General comment - There's something I've learnt over the years when dealing with the union and management. There are usually three agendas. There's the management agenda, the pilots' agenda, and the union agenda. It follows that generally the union and management agendas aren't/won't be the same, but what many don't realize is that often, more often than most realize, the agendas of the pilots and union are not the same either, although one would imagine that they should be so. You see, when somebody becomes an office bearer in the union, other issues come into play, the principal one being power. They need to create and preserve a power base, and if that means not precisely representing the wishes of the pilot group, whom they purport to represent, then that's an unfortunate casualty of the way life works. See elsewhere; Life's a $hit sandwich, etc.
How do you guys feel working in countries where the terms are dictated to you; no union representation, no input. Just do the job, shut up, and if you don't like it, pi$$ off?? It must be galling. The reason I ask is that I may well be doing that shortly. I think my views are more moderate in that area though. It's part of being an employee - Life's a $**** etc. I'd stil be interested in your comments though.
I'm terribly sorry about the long post, but it was necessary to answer previous posts.
What a valid point you make. You would know from my posts above that I went back, and am not ashamed for a moment of my actions; the only shame I carry is that I was so stupid to think that it could have been won by the pilots.
What I am really ashamed of however, is the way some of our number unashamedly rode roughshod over GA pilots, taking their jobs from day 1, often on less than award conditions, just to secure an income. There were plenty who treated their GA colleagues like $hit, considering it their right, as airline pilots, to do so. Who were the greedy, self serving ones then?? Those who chose to go back to work? I don't think so.
Then there were those who went overseas and took commands in front of local FO's and felt it was their right to do so. Also, they announced to all who would listen, and some who would not, that they were there only until the AFAP secured a win, and they could go back to their previous positions. What a disgrace they were.
I knew a guy (then an FO) who came from the middle east post dispute, and told the story of an AN 737 Capt sitting on his verandah (invited by a friend), drinking his beer, and telling him (FO) that he (Capt) was going to come to his airline and take a command. Imagine how that went over. Chris didn't go to the middle east, and is now a CX Capt.
Jupiter, these guys are never going to get over it for a simple reason. They know they made the wrong decision, detest what they are doing and where, and wish like hell that they had stayed.
Of course, if they had, Ansett would never have collapsed because there would have been pilots of great principles steering it towards greater success. Yeah, right!
7 X 7,
Likewise, I'm elated that my wife stood by me in my decision. They are different decisions, but if we're both happy about that, then it can't be a bad thing. Mine never insisted that I go back, but when I made the decision, she was right behind me. So our wives have something in common, and what an admirable quality supporting your man is. Loyalty I think it's called.
As for insidious thoughts creeping into minds late at night; how could/would it have been different. Airlines around the world collapse almost monthly. People get by; some change their career paths, others get jobs locally, and some overseas.
Interestingly, a year down the track, 50% of those in the market for a flying job, have that job. There were a few over 800 pilots, out of which 70 were over 60 years of age. About 80, late fifties, have just retired, and almost 20 of the young guys have gone to university, or just given it away in disillusionment. About 340 had jobs on last count, and I daresay that a year after August ?? 1989 that nowhere near 50% of those previously employed would have had jobs. So it's not all bad, is it??
Knackered,
The resignations weren't forced by legal action. See my post above where one of the sheep farmers was spruiking weeks before the event that 'I can't tell you what we're going to do, but it'll sure F... them.' Well it did F... them. Them being the pilots. So it was planned well before the writs issue, and we were told that they would never be used, just waved in front of the management, and that would cause them to capitulate. Well, we all saw the result of that threat. See below re the mgt being in possession of the tactic long before the event.
Wizofoz,
Good points, again.
Downtheback,
You're right on the button, my dear. No rights when you resigned. Would you have a right to any input on issues at the local bowling club if you'd resigned your membership??
Wasn't this the classic case of using the big gun without having a back door exit? Once the resignations were handed over, it was all over. They couldn't then say, that they didn't intend to resign because the unior heirarchy would look foolish/more foolish.
My understanding was that even the senior industrial officer of the AFAP wasn't in favour of the resignation tactic. Isn't that in Brad Norrington's book? Maybe I'm mistaken.
Brisboy & Others,
I don't suggest that I'm dictating the terms to SQ on my basing. If they offer Singapore, then I won't be going. I have indicated a preference for an Australian basing, and I would have considered it stupid to have done any more. I'll take an Australian basing if it's offered, but not Singapore if it's offered. Simple as that. And to whoever suggested it's the November intake, do you know something I don't? I'm waiting on both a date and base.
It's not that I can't cut it in the big bad world of international aviation, Brisboy. Rather it's a simple case of choosing to live and work in/from my current domicile. I'm a creature of habit; like my home, like feeding wallabies on the back porch, like the Australian bush, and like running my couple of quite small but successful businesses, which incidentaly, I've made more money from than flying. And also incidentally, businesses which you may have used over the years. Simple as that. I think those who read here would know that I am more than capable of verbal jousting with the best, so there's no fear there.
As for being a social leper in the Singapore expat community, I don't see it. On a recent visit, I socialized with a banker, businessman, broker, and an aid worker, and not once was I asked if I was a $cab from Australia. Interesting. And if I was a social leper, then I have a multitude of Singaporean friends from many, many years ago, prior to flying, when I lived there. We've kept in touch, visit each other from time to time, and they have no interest in an industrial event in the third world 13 years ago.
Spad,
No war, no painting black crosses on aircraft, no Kokoda Track , no capitulation. What are you talking about?? and what are you smoking??
The only comments I have on your 'unusual' post is that I NEVER promised to stand the ground, and you are in a similar position in that you have no one to gainsay your version of the events, events which I believe your young FOs are sick to death of being regaled with over many years.
Elektra,
You got me. I was just winding you up. Your teenagers have equipped you well, and you do make a good point or two.
Now to all, the issue of solidarity. There were two groups demonstrating solidarity. Those who didn't resign, voted against the action as ill conceived, and subsequently withdrew their resignations also demonstrated solidarity. Those who didn't hold the (absurd) line showed solidarity with each other as well. I know, I know, there'll be howls from TTT, KM, Spad, Amos, etc., who will contend that they were money driven, glory driven, management stooges, and a thousand other things, but if the AFAP had decreed that we should all slit our wrists, I'm sure there would have been a number who would have slavishly followed their ridiculous request/demand.
The AFAP was never my choice of industrial representation. It was a bloody closed shop, and I had no choice. And why would I want it to be with a Parramatta Road car salesman in his guady checked suit calling everybody 'pal' in nominal control. Then there was the midget who had a nasty habit of putting his feet on Abeles' desk. These people saw it as their role to educate the Australian masses in the finesse of industrial relations. Never lost one, and no doubt they were buoyed by that, but when you back yourself into a corner, there is an inevitable result. A tiger snake on my porch discovered that an hour ago, just as we were no match for a shovel that went by the name of Hawke.
203,
Yes, I felt like a real idiot for even considering their demand. I should have walked out, gone sick or some alternative course of action. Can you imagine being summoned by the union at about 9pm to be at HQ at 10pm. For Perth pilots it was 8pm so that nobody could leak the ridiculous request. Can't tell you what it's about was the message. The resignations would not be 'active', but merely used to 'frighten' the management. The management was already in possession of the tactic. A management pilot told me (I'll save you writing it fellas; he was probably lying) after the event that he was rung (management pilots could be members of the union) but told them he wasn't resigning even before being asked to come in at 10 pm. Hope that answers your question. It's been suggested there was an AFAP mole, on the payroll of the company post resignations, who had shuffled from management to the AFAP a couple of times over the years. He is now with VB in a senior position.
General comment - There's something I've learnt over the years when dealing with the union and management. There are usually three agendas. There's the management agenda, the pilots' agenda, and the union agenda. It follows that generally the union and management agendas aren't/won't be the same, but what many don't realize is that often, more often than most realize, the agendas of the pilots and union are not the same either, although one would imagine that they should be so. You see, when somebody becomes an office bearer in the union, other issues come into play, the principal one being power. They need to create and preserve a power base, and if that means not precisely representing the wishes of the pilot group, whom they purport to represent, then that's an unfortunate casualty of the way life works. See elsewhere; Life's a $hit sandwich, etc.
How do you guys feel working in countries where the terms are dictated to you; no union representation, no input. Just do the job, shut up, and if you don't like it, pi$$ off?? It must be galling. The reason I ask is that I may well be doing that shortly. I think my views are more moderate in that area though. It's part of being an employee - Life's a $**** etc. I'd stil be interested in your comments though.
I'm terribly sorry about the long post, but it was necessary to answer previous posts.
Last edited by CitizenXX; 23rd Sep 2002 at 01:27.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CitizenXX...you are spot on....I could not agree with you more, you know very well, that you can never reason with ignorant people, the leadership of the AFAP were no more than just thugs, with anger and venom...its a free country and every individual has a right to think for himself...how you make your bed...so you shall sleep...............very good post mate...best wishes and good luck in your life.............
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
What an interesting canundrum CX is showing himself to be with each new post.
The "man" who is congratulated by his friends for making a "gutsy decision" to scab writes in his last post,
..what a MAN!
There was no "coercion" as has been suggested by another of our scab contributors - in FACT I did NOT sign my resignation on that night, but waited until August the 24th!
FACT: Gentlemen such as Captain Henry Theunissen and Captain Ron Brennan did not tender THEIR resignations until several weeks into the Dispute, after which time they had evaluated, from the working offices of Ansett in Melbourne and Brisbane, exactly what dirty, underhanded work was being carried out against the pilots.
Likewise there were pilots on overseas basings who returned weeks later and with the exception of 2, ALL submitted their resignations after studying the situation. Beforehand however, they were courted seriously by the company, being promised instant upgrades if they would sign the limousine delivered Individual contract.
But back to CX. Here is a man who willingly takes the accolades for his "gutsy decision", but wishes his wife could have been there when he "should have walked out, gone sick or some alternative."
A "man" who voted against the action from the outset (or so he would have us believe NOW
) but who pretended to be in agreement..."Yes, I felt like a real idiot for even considering their demand......Can you imagine being summoned by the union at about 9pm to be at HQ at 10pm. For Perth pilots it was 8pm so that nobody could leak the ridiculous request.
Gutless from the outset, CX?!
203, you ask "How do you guys feel about yours being handed in without your knowledge, consent (strictly speaking),etc?
Does it not bother you at all or did it leave you feeling as though you'd been played for a fool, or anything?"
The opportunity was available for any pilot who didn`t wish his resignation to be exercised to contact the companies and say so.
However, the BEST LEGAL ADVICE AVAILABLE (by QC`s) was that we had to resign to avoid extreme legal action from the companies (and other, such as that d!ckhead who owned Hamilton Island at the time..Keith something or other).
jupiter2, you ask/state, "Apart from what the '89 dispute did to ANY pilot in Australia, did ANY of you have ANY idea of what it did to everyone else working in an airline or tourist industry or their families for that matter?"
...and I feel truly sad that YOUR misconception of that event continues to thsi day.
IF you were involved, you would recall that it was THE AIRLINES that shut the services down. We were still working the 9-5 schedules, and we offered to return to FULL services early in September - again declined by THE COMPANIES, and of course HAWKE!
Go back and do some research please.
For the time being (I have to deadhead soon ..on a 2:1 pay CREDIT ), my advice to YOU CX is to have your wife write to SQ and tell them that she wouldn`t be too happy about you being Singapore based. Those Asians love to be shown some leadership qualities.
Oh, and btw, your acceptance into SQ isn`t assured until 12 months after CHECKOUT (in case you weren`t aware), dismissal or leaving at ANY time before the 5+ years, for any reason, will see you forfeit that "hard-earned" wealth.
But then that`s (you) assuming that you`re going to be given a start!
The "man" who is congratulated by his friends for making a "gutsy decision" to scab writes in his last post,
Yes, I felt like a real idiot for even considering their demand. I should have walked out, gone sick or some alternative course of action.
There was no "coercion" as has been suggested by another of our scab contributors - in FACT I did NOT sign my resignation on that night, but waited until August the 24th!
FACT: Gentlemen such as Captain Henry Theunissen and Captain Ron Brennan did not tender THEIR resignations until several weeks into the Dispute, after which time they had evaluated, from the working offices of Ansett in Melbourne and Brisbane, exactly what dirty, underhanded work was being carried out against the pilots.
Likewise there were pilots on overseas basings who returned weeks later and with the exception of 2, ALL submitted their resignations after studying the situation. Beforehand however, they were courted seriously by the company, being promised instant upgrades if they would sign the limousine delivered Individual contract.
But back to CX. Here is a man who willingly takes the accolades for his "gutsy decision", but wishes his wife could have been there when he "should have walked out, gone sick or some alternative."
A "man" who voted against the action from the outset (or so he would have us believe NOW
) but who pretended to be in agreement..."Yes, I felt like a real idiot for even considering their demand......Can you imagine being summoned by the union at about 9pm to be at HQ at 10pm. For Perth pilots it was 8pm so that nobody could leak the ridiculous request.Gutless from the outset, CX?!
203, you ask "How do you guys feel about yours being handed in without your knowledge, consent (strictly speaking),etc?
Does it not bother you at all or did it leave you feeling as though you'd been played for a fool, or anything?"
The opportunity was available for any pilot who didn`t wish his resignation to be exercised to contact the companies and say so.
However, the BEST LEGAL ADVICE AVAILABLE (by QC`s) was that we had to resign to avoid extreme legal action from the companies (and other, such as that d!ckhead who owned Hamilton Island at the time..Keith something or other).
jupiter2, you ask/state, "Apart from what the '89 dispute did to ANY pilot in Australia, did ANY of you have ANY idea of what it did to everyone else working in an airline or tourist industry or their families for that matter?"
...and I feel truly sad that YOUR misconception of that event continues to thsi day.
IF you were involved, you would recall that it was THE AIRLINES that shut the services down. We were still working the 9-5 schedules, and we offered to return to FULL services early in September - again declined by THE COMPANIES, and of course HAWKE!
Go back and do some research please.
For the time being (I have to deadhead soon ..on a 2:1 pay CREDIT
), my advice to YOU CX is to have your wife write to SQ and tell them that she wouldn`t be too happy about you being Singapore based. Those Asians love to be shown some leadership qualities.Oh, and btw, your acceptance into SQ isn`t assured until 12 months after CHECKOUT (in case you weren`t aware), dismissal or leaving at ANY time before the 5+ years, for any reason, will see you forfeit that "hard-earned" wealth.
But then that`s (you) assuming that you`re going to be given a start!
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: brisbane, Australia
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CitizenXX
Good post.........
CitizenXX
Good post.........
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't stress about life.............It's not permanent !!!
Good post.........
CitizenXX
Good post.........
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't stress about life.............It's not permanent !!!
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jupiter2, direct your anger at the targets most deserving of your ire – bob hawke, the late, unlamented pytor abeles and not forgetting the man sometimes forgotten in the events of 1989, rarely seen but always ther in the background – Rupert Murdoch. If Hawke had not ILLEGALLY used the military and ILLEGALLY imported foreign pilots and aircraft, the dispute would have been over within weeks.
Paul Keating, as Treasurer, said that Australian had become a ‘Banana Republic’. Anyone with even a passing knowledge of what REALLY went on in 1989, especially the silence of the judiciary and the media TO THIS DAY about the blatant lawbreaking that went on, (and NOT by the pilots), can only say that Keating was making a gross understatement.
Take a look at the currently running “Compass, and the rest” thread to see that these same people went on to ignore the law of the land with impunity to protect Ansett’s position when Compass 1 threatened to topple is rotten foundations in 1991.
Oh, and CitizenXX, the Big Lie doesn’t work on 95% of this audience.
Paul Keating, as Treasurer, said that Australian had become a ‘Banana Republic’. Anyone with even a passing knowledge of what REALLY went on in 1989, especially the silence of the judiciary and the media TO THIS DAY about the blatant lawbreaking that went on, (and NOT by the pilots), can only say that Keating was making a gross understatement.
Take a look at the currently running “Compass, and the rest” thread to see that these same people went on to ignore the law of the land with impunity to protect Ansett’s position when Compass 1 threatened to topple is rotten foundations in 1991.
Oh, and CitizenXX, the Big Lie doesn’t work on 95% of this audience.