Meloz and 89
Guest
Posts: n/a
Thanks Woomera for your patience.
FSU.
Only 24%, YOU WERE ROBBED, because there were better scores, unlikely to admit the amount though, you know how modest some people can be about such things.
As to not seeing the other side of the arguments that XX puts up, WE DID SEE THEM, THAT’S WHY WE NEVER WENT BACK, you dill!!
Lets have a look at who did go back.
About a dozen NEVER resigned. OK.
About a dozen said within 24/36 hours, NOT FOR ME, and pulled the resignation, possibly risking the wrath of the writs, who will ever know the answer to that.
We sat under the tree for a while to catch our thoughts and had the family mansion, carriage and fortune well and truly protected by the resignations.
Then over a period of time some wimped off under the duress of it all, you know, the school fees, new car, wife bitching about the things you wouldn't buy, sick of having you around the house, the new dining room suite, all the usual stuff.
Then Behold and Lo, we were all allowed to "go back".
But we were the "pre-loved", now "umloved", and not admitted.
You weren’t game to be a real sc%b, took the "Silver Card" option and went back sideways so to speak. Save the Companies and all that. The 89ers had "lost" and it was open to all.
Not so,
Only to the likes of you and your sc%bby mates, not real people.
You were protected by that "Unsafe Cockpit" document, all was well in your little world.
Did we hear from you under your current disguise during those years, I think not.
Now the wheels have come off, without much warning, you are out on your ar$e and NOW YOU KNOW HOW IT WAS.
NO FUN AT ALL.
The trick is to endure, have some moral backbone and to be true to your beliefs however tuff it gets, not whinge about how things were lost, never won, losers etc
We didn't lose XX, we won by a 1300/347 majority, which most Powers That Be only dream of.
As to your comments about how you will treat SQ, if you don't think this site is not required reading by them you are really on a different planet.
If they can identify you they will, BUT if not, they may lump all of the similar time frame together and bin the lot as the one thing you don't even think is what you might like in Asia, even if you are a lifetime local, let alone an Expat Hopeful.
If that should occur, I hope your mates are an understanding lot.
FSU.
Only 24%, YOU WERE ROBBED, because there were better scores, unlikely to admit the amount though, you know how modest some people can be about such things.
As to not seeing the other side of the arguments that XX puts up, WE DID SEE THEM, THAT’S WHY WE NEVER WENT BACK, you dill!!
Lets have a look at who did go back.
About a dozen NEVER resigned. OK.
About a dozen said within 24/36 hours, NOT FOR ME, and pulled the resignation, possibly risking the wrath of the writs, who will ever know the answer to that.
We sat under the tree for a while to catch our thoughts and had the family mansion, carriage and fortune well and truly protected by the resignations.
Then over a period of time some wimped off under the duress of it all, you know, the school fees, new car, wife bitching about the things you wouldn't buy, sick of having you around the house, the new dining room suite, all the usual stuff.
Then Behold and Lo, we were all allowed to "go back".
But we were the "pre-loved", now "umloved", and not admitted.
You weren’t game to be a real sc%b, took the "Silver Card" option and went back sideways so to speak. Save the Companies and all that. The 89ers had "lost" and it was open to all.
Not so,
Only to the likes of you and your sc%bby mates, not real people.
You were protected by that "Unsafe Cockpit" document, all was well in your little world.
Did we hear from you under your current disguise during those years, I think not.
Now the wheels have come off, without much warning, you are out on your ar$e and NOW YOU KNOW HOW IT WAS.
NO FUN AT ALL.
The trick is to endure, have some moral backbone and to be true to your beliefs however tuff it gets, not whinge about how things were lost, never won, losers etc
We didn't lose XX, we won by a 1300/347 majority, which most Powers That Be only dream of.
As to your comments about how you will treat SQ, if you don't think this site is not required reading by them you are really on a different planet.
If they can identify you they will, BUT if not, they may lump all of the similar time frame together and bin the lot as the one thing you don't even think is what you might like in Asia, even if you are a lifetime local, let alone an Expat Hopeful.
If that should occur, I hope your mates are an understanding lot.
short flights long nights
Keep it going Woomera, it has remained fairly civil, and is still interesting
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Sydney
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a unionist, I was very interested in the tactics adopted by the Federation. My union and other unions supported the AFAP's right to negotiate fair pay and work conditions. The outcomes would obviously benefit us in future enterprise bargaining claims and negotiations.
I recall how we were left scratching our heads a little when the resignations were presented. But we believed that there was always a well thought out "Plan B" waiting to be switched on.
I'm interested in people's thoughts on what could have occurred if a Liberal Government was in place at that time.
Would it have taken the same course I wonder?
I recall how we were left scratching our heads a little when the resignations were presented. But we believed that there was always a well thought out "Plan B" waiting to be switched on.
I'm interested in people's thoughts on what could have occurred if a Liberal Government was in place at that time.
Would it have taken the same course I wonder?
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Australia
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Greybeard,
You certainly read a lot more into my post than what was there. Sorry to disappoint you but if you read and understood my post you would have seen that "I have long since departed AN."
The real facts don't suit you fellows no matter what. Kap M says too much, you say not enough and you also say it wasn't about money. You seem to have missed the fact that by flying more STICK hours it was possible to earn up to 50% more. In answer to a question Mc Carthy said at a meeting that 29.47% was to be obtained on the existing work rules. That is no PRODUCTIVITY increase which was well and truly overdue.
No matter how much vituperation and personal abuse you choose to employ it is the unfortunate, inescapable fact that once the resignations were submitted the game was over. You may rave as much as you like but it won't change the fact that you had no legal or industrial claim on your now non employer.
I did not agree with the unsafe cockpit theory but it is not hard to see that a plausible case could be made for it judging by the posts of some 89ers on this forum.
You certainly read a lot more into my post than what was there. Sorry to disappoint you but if you read and understood my post you would have seen that "I have long since departed AN."
The real facts don't suit you fellows no matter what. Kap M says too much, you say not enough and you also say it wasn't about money. You seem to have missed the fact that by flying more STICK hours it was possible to earn up to 50% more. In answer to a question Mc Carthy said at a meeting that 29.47% was to be obtained on the existing work rules. That is no PRODUCTIVITY increase which was well and truly overdue.
No matter how much vituperation and personal abuse you choose to employ it is the unfortunate, inescapable fact that once the resignations were submitted the game was over. You may rave as much as you like but it won't change the fact that you had no legal or industrial claim on your now non employer.
I did not agree with the unsafe cockpit theory but it is not hard to see that a plausible case could be made for it judging by the posts of some 89ers on this forum.
Last edited by Flat Side Up; 26th Sep 2002 at 23:20.
Guest
Posts: n/a
FSU
Stubbornness can be an asset or a liability in a pilot and also in management. Stubbornness that helps a pilot stand up in the face of a Chief Pilot wanting him to ¡°push the limits¡± on payload, flight time or serviceability is admirable. It is what our safety record rests on.
But you are making an awfully good case for yourself as an accomplice after the fact to the other sort of stubbornness that saw the management of 4 airlines destroy their business and thousands of jobs by their complete refusal (and they signalled this BEFORE August 24, 1989) to negotiate with the AFAP. It cost them and the country zillions to continue with the stubborn falsehood that you perpetuate. If indeed there were no employees then the airlines should have simply started up operations the next week with replacements. They couldn¡¯t¡¦..because most of the potential ¡°replacements¡± had already determined (by secret ballot) that their conditions of future employment could ONLY be negotiated by the AFAP if and when they returned to work. Yet the stubbornness continued and with your direct support, 4 airlines were eventually destroyed. Yet the AFAP survives.
DO YOU GET THE MESSAGE¡¦¡¦.?
Good CRM rests on addressing real issues with common sense, not relying on narrow legal niceties. If you are still flying, or hope to, please remember that your passengers pay for their captain to be stubborn only in defence of their safety. To resolve a problem you use all available resources. To resolve the 1989/90 problem you and your management accomplices refused to use the most important resource available¡¦hundreds of loyal, capable, experienced and pilots who were available just by picking up the phone and calling their authorized representatives, the AFAP. You paid the price. Please don¡¯t keep taking those attitudes into the cockpit.
Stubbornness can be an asset or a liability in a pilot and also in management. Stubbornness that helps a pilot stand up in the face of a Chief Pilot wanting him to ¡°push the limits¡± on payload, flight time or serviceability is admirable. It is what our safety record rests on.
But you are making an awfully good case for yourself as an accomplice after the fact to the other sort of stubbornness that saw the management of 4 airlines destroy their business and thousands of jobs by their complete refusal (and they signalled this BEFORE August 24, 1989) to negotiate with the AFAP. It cost them and the country zillions to continue with the stubborn falsehood that you perpetuate. If indeed there were no employees then the airlines should have simply started up operations the next week with replacements. They couldn¡¯t¡¦..because most of the potential ¡°replacements¡± had already determined (by secret ballot) that their conditions of future employment could ONLY be negotiated by the AFAP if and when they returned to work. Yet the stubbornness continued and with your direct support, 4 airlines were eventually destroyed. Yet the AFAP survives.
DO YOU GET THE MESSAGE¡¦¡¦.?
Good CRM rests on addressing real issues with common sense, not relying on narrow legal niceties. If you are still flying, or hope to, please remember that your passengers pay for their captain to be stubborn only in defence of their safety. To resolve a problem you use all available resources. To resolve the 1989/90 problem you and your management accomplices refused to use the most important resource available¡¦hundreds of loyal, capable, experienced and pilots who were available just by picking up the phone and calling their authorized representatives, the AFAP. You paid the price. Please don¡¯t keep taking those attitudes into the cockpit.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: honkers
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
greybeard..........mmaaaateeee
then there was the 500+ that went overseas. what was different between the contracts SQ, CX, GF, SV, MH, Thai International, Lauda, Swiss Air, Sud Flug, KLM City Hopper, Vietnam Airlines, Lufthansa, that the 500 signed up for and that of the 347 that stayed behind ? your creative accounting style doesn't fool anyone here - the real figure was 1300/847 majority and when you work out the number of pilots who retired early and those who were too inexperienced to get jobs overseas (my brother) the remaining balance of 400+ would have rounded out the total and given that "majority" of yours more authenticity!
poor greybeard waiting with bated breath for the messiah to give the all clear. very sad, a lot of pilots took hold of their own destiny when it appeared the AFAP had lost the plot - that simple.
no argument with you there. the pilots that went overseas did endure and bit the bullet. as with the guys that returned to their rightful jobs back in Oz. and SO DID the pilots who never got back into the industry - please never forget those chaps - they are deserved of the greatest accolades - they were the sacrificial lambs in that whole sordid affair.
last for you 'lekie
get down to MB one of these days and ask the GA pilots how much industrial clout they feel the AFAP has. then have a think about the definition of "survival"!
We didn't lose XX, we won by a 1300/347 majority, which most Powers That Be only dream of.
Then Behold and Lo, we were all allowed to "go back".
The trick is to endure, have some moral backbone and to be true to your beliefs however tuff it gets, not whinge about how things were lost, never won, losers etc
last for you 'lekie
. Yet the AFAP survives.
Last edited by Truth Seekers Int'nl; 27th Sep 2002 at 00:48.
There has been mention of 30 or so pilots who disagreed with industrial action or what ever and who didn't resign/and or go on strike. They stayed flying during and after the dispute. Are they considered scabs. If you are in a union and you disagree with their actions, do you have to do what you're told by the union.
Was talking to an ex an driver, in that very position who was told in no uncertain terms that his career, indeed life would not be worth living if he dared to go against the unions directives. I thought we lived in a democratic society where we have freedome of choice, obvously not when it comes to unions.
I was in the FCL and later ASU for a number of years. Unions are not interested in their members welfare, only the power thay can weild and the beer and prawn nights for the union officials....a fat lot of good they did when 6 of us were retrenced from a section of QF, the union wouldn't even return our calls. Through our own actions we were placed elsewhere in the company.
2 years later QF gave us the option of withdrawing fro the union which I did, only to be sent rememinders that my dues are still to be paid. I',m still getting them and I've been out of QF 4 years now, I owe $4,000 in dues and a recent letter said they may consider legal action to recover the fees.
Was talking to an ex an driver, in that very position who was told in no uncertain terms that his career, indeed life would not be worth living if he dared to go against the unions directives. I thought we lived in a democratic society where we have freedome of choice, obvously not when it comes to unions.
I was in the FCL and later ASU for a number of years. Unions are not interested in their members welfare, only the power thay can weild and the beer and prawn nights for the union officials....a fat lot of good they did when 6 of us were retrenced from a section of QF, the union wouldn't even return our calls. Through our own actions we were placed elsewhere in the company.
2 years later QF gave us the option of withdrawing fro the union which I did, only to be sent rememinders that my dues are still to be paid. I',m still getting them and I've been out of QF 4 years now, I owe $4,000 in dues and a recent letter said they may consider legal action to recover the fees.
Last edited by Guptar; 27th Sep 2002 at 00:55.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: honkers
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1. No , they are not considered scabs.
2. Yes, as a union member, you elect an executive and must abide by it's decisions. If you disagree with a union executive decision, you may rally support amongst other members in the union and call for an extaordinary meeting to change policy or if this is not possible, you must resign from the union.
2. Yes, as a union member, you elect an executive and must abide by it's decisions. If you disagree with a union executive decision, you may rally support amongst other members in the union and call for an extaordinary meeting to change policy or if this is not possible, you must resign from the union.
Guest
Posts: n/a
When I was but a lad, the great minds ar RVAC fired the first 2 instructors brave enough to join the AFAP. Thanks to men and women of fortitude things have got better and now there's superannuation in GA, more and more decent awards and representation if things go wrong. Not yet perfect but at least aiming in the right direction.
Tell you what, I'll come down there with you and discuss my concept of AFAP membership (including my record as an active member) and you do the same. I'll have a car out front with the engine running so you can get out ahaed of the angry mob. They're a lot smarter than you think.
You know as well as I do that the AFAP has been one of the few organizations that has a long track record of supporting GA.
"Me First" attitudes like yours would tear down all that has been built. You and your friends destroyed one lot of aviationbusinesses...please keep your prehistoric attitudes away from Moorabbin and let the remainder have a go.
Tell you what, I'll come down there with you and discuss my concept of AFAP membership (including my record as an active member) and you do the same. I'll have a car out front with the engine running so you can get out ahaed of the angry mob. They're a lot smarter than you think.
You know as well as I do that the AFAP has been one of the few organizations that has a long track record of supporting GA.
"Me First" attitudes like yours would tear down all that has been built. You and your friends destroyed one lot of aviationbusinesses...please keep your prehistoric attitudes away from Moorabbin and let the remainder have a go.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: honkers
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yes, the AFAP does have an impeccable record when it comes to supporting GA. it's (AFAP) work today is as valuable as it was when I joined the organisation in 1983. i had the honour to serve on two sub - branches during my GA days. i was not directly involved in the '89 dispute but my brother was and as a family, all shared his pain.
my comment to you re: survival of the AFAP, is because that is all the AFAP has done since that terrible dispute. they are nowhere near the powerful union they were in the heady days of the '80s and if you check the membership now, you see it is indeed GA that the AFAP truly represents. However, these days, the union is limited in it's powers to enforce Awards on Operators, to monitor unsafe work rules, to prevent discrimination in the workplace and the list goes on.
i believe the AFAP DOES still have it's rightful place helping GA and it is a good union but please don't imply that because it has "survived" it is the power house it used to be. IMHO it copped the same punishment as the other 4 airlines you mentioned but as a union and not a business, it is still in business.
my comment to you re: survival of the AFAP, is because that is all the AFAP has done since that terrible dispute. they are nowhere near the powerful union they were in the heady days of the '80s and if you check the membership now, you see it is indeed GA that the AFAP truly represents. However, these days, the union is limited in it's powers to enforce Awards on Operators, to monitor unsafe work rules, to prevent discrimination in the workplace and the list goes on.
i believe the AFAP DOES still have it's rightful place helping GA and it is a good union but please don't imply that because it has "survived" it is the power house it used to be. IMHO it copped the same punishment as the other 4 airlines you mentioned but as a union and not a business, it is still in business.
Last edited by Truth Seekers Int'nl; 27th Sep 2002 at 01:28.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Qld Aust
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My My Elektra,
You really have the walk on water mentality with your statement "But you are making an awfully good case for yourself as an accomplice after the fact to the other sort of stubbornness that saw the management of 4 airlines destroy their business and thousands of jobs by their complete refusal (and they signalled this BEFORE August 24, 1989) to negotiate with the AFAP. "
Do you really think TN was destroyed by "failure to negiotate with the AFAP? Do you really think AN was destroyed for the same reason? If you do I think you had better rethink.
AN was able to survive as long as it did due to the fact it was able to shed itself of most of the outdated restrictive workrules of "The Contract" You (if you flew the L188) should know better than most of the absolute joke the rosters were on the L188 and it was in fact one of your BNE based Capts who proudly announced on the hours flown in a 12 month period he was by far the highest paid person (per Hour flown ) in Australia. He was able with his seniority to bid the block he wanted (usually a training block) be displaced for the month and do a leg every 35 days to remain valid. This all on full blocked pay for the month. What a joke. Now the usual answer will be "But the company signed the contract" This we all know but of course the 89ers don't like to mention is when most of the contract was negiotated Sir Reg was in charge and he had made the statement "if he were frounded for more than a week the airline would close " so the AFAP used its shotgun methods to get its way.
I dont expect you to agree to any of this as 89ers have a different version of reality the everyone else in the industry but these are just some of the facts.
You really have the walk on water mentality with your statement "But you are making an awfully good case for yourself as an accomplice after the fact to the other sort of stubbornness that saw the management of 4 airlines destroy their business and thousands of jobs by their complete refusal (and they signalled this BEFORE August 24, 1989) to negotiate with the AFAP. "
Do you really think TN was destroyed by "failure to negiotate with the AFAP? Do you really think AN was destroyed for the same reason? If you do I think you had better rethink.
AN was able to survive as long as it did due to the fact it was able to shed itself of most of the outdated restrictive workrules of "The Contract" You (if you flew the L188) should know better than most of the absolute joke the rosters were on the L188 and it was in fact one of your BNE based Capts who proudly announced on the hours flown in a 12 month period he was by far the highest paid person (per Hour flown ) in Australia. He was able with his seniority to bid the block he wanted (usually a training block) be displaced for the month and do a leg every 35 days to remain valid. This all on full blocked pay for the month. What a joke. Now the usual answer will be "But the company signed the contract" This we all know but of course the 89ers don't like to mention is when most of the contract was negiotated Sir Reg was in charge and he had made the statement "if he were frounded for more than a week the airline would close " so the AFAP used its shotgun methods to get its way.
I dont expect you to agree to any of this as 89ers have a different version of reality the everyone else in the industry but these are just some of the facts.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Brisbane Australia
Posts: 525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guptar, I was once in a similar position as you are with the TWU. With the threat of legal action against them, they backed down as according to the solicitor if it was to go to court, any judge would see it as standover tactics. I had resigned from the union previously but they still sent me membership bills.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: SE Asia
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pole Vaulter,
I, and others, have said it all before. They do have different versions of the events. Sometimes those versions are right; sometimes they're wrong, but mostly they're misguided, bitter and vindictive.
Guptar,
Those who questioned the tactics were indeed threatened with career ending action if they broke ranks. Fortunately there were those who had the guts to do so.
Jupiter,
We all believed there was a Plan B, but there wasn't. They fired the big gun first, not in accordance with the undertakings, i.e., they would only be tendered IF writs were issued, and they hadn't been at that stage. There wasn't of course, any other plan. Violation of SOPs of industrial action.
If the Libs had been in government, the accord probably wouldn't have existed, and the course of events would, no doubt, have been very different. The pilots probably wouldn't have been in the same situation, i.e., accepting 'flat' pay rises (or having them thrust upon them) instead of percentages as is the norm.
Greybeard,
I see a win/win here. You say that you won, and I say I won. I'm not about to tell you you're a loser, even though you may behave like one, but I'm definitely not a loser. So who do we need to convince?
FSU,
They're not listening when you give them details of pays etc. The fact is, the cost per hour, and the overall cost of pilots to the company was much less than pre 89. The figures were published by someone who was infinitely more interested in stats than I, but I noted them at the time, and re published them here recently. Two and a half times the flying being done by two thirds of the previous number of pilots. Simple maths from there.
Truth Seeker,
Correct on the low, despicable tactics. I didn't agree either, but that's life. See elsewhere; Life's a $hit sandwich, etc. an just part of being an employee. Some things you just can't change, so the sooner one recognizes that, then the sooner one is off to a happier life.
Elektra,
Now, my son, let's get onto psychologists. The AFAP employed a psychologist, Tim Watson-somebody (a double barrelled name). He came along to the rallies, and put forward what diabolical strife they companies would be in, and what ABeles would be thinking right now, and he would be $hitting himself. Yeah, I'm sure he was with the bodgie on his side, the use of VIP aircraft and transports, the pre-arranged charter aircraft that had been sitting around Europe and the US doing nothing, and the also pre-arranged pilots who were all but on their ways by late August.
Now, our Tim was a man of principles; wouldn't have put up a case just at the instigation of the AFAP leaders, would he. He really believed what he was saying; was based on sound psychological practice, and wasn't just doing it for money, was he??
Interesting to note is that Tim was in the slammer for some time, and may still be, for cocaine use and trafficing. He was an addict, and took on the trafficing to fund his habit as so many do.
He was also a buddy of the crooked Melbourne solicitor, Andrew Fraser who is also in the slammer (8 years) for everything from snorting cocaine to threatening witnesses and perverting the course of justice.
So much for psychologists giving those who went back the 'be positive' line. The judge said that he was one of the worst liars he had come across. Yes, he was the AFAP's psychologist!! hired to rev us up with tales of finishing up in pilots' purgatory, never having a friend again, never being employable anywhere in the world except Australia, and even then only in those airlines existing post 89. Purgatory indeed!!!
I remind you that QF is taking scabs by the bucket load. Perhaps they consider it their obligation since they flew over domestic routes during the Clayton's dispute (it did end with the resignations) contrary to an undertaking given to the AFAP, or was that a lie too?
Amos,
You said on 25th Sept that you hope FSU 'will get on with his life and not dwell in the past'. Are you kidding? He is getting on with life, and it is you who is dwelling in the past. You go over the same old ground; Abeles was a criminal; the cost of pilots was more post 89 than pre 89; you are a scab; Hawke was a criminal; you are a scab again/still; you're all f.... criminals; the cost is still more etc; you're still a bunch of bloody scabs. I think it is obvious to all who is living in the past.
Kaptin M,
Me old mate Kap M. No, I didn't, don't, and never will have any difficulty with my decision. I've said elsewhere that I am happy with it, in fact more than happy with it, but my regret is that I didn't do it before I did - long before. Just think where I could have been financially if I'd gone back five or six months earlier on those super salaries.
Now my location. Yes, I had retired, but still under 50 I'm too young. My details were filed during the time I was relaxing. I have a small place in Malaysia, Kota Baru (sometimes spelt Bahru, and meaning 'new town') to be specific. If you're not familiar with it, it's about as far as you can go to the north east of Malaysia, and only a stones throw from the Thai border. Delightful place, right on a lagoon, and I regularly tumble from my bed into the water prior to the house girl bringing me my fresh fruit salad for brekky. So there is no mistake or intentionally misleading the readership. However, I am now out of retirement, and waiting the news from SQ. Incidentally, you could do a lot worse during your holidays than a trip by train, bus, or if you're really adventurous, by motorcycle up the east coast of Malaysia. I'll buy you dinner if I'm in residence. Just ask the locals - they always know when I'm in town.
I also have a smaller place in the mountains to the west of KB. It's a very pleasant place, and I retire there when I'm painting watercolours. For those of you who paint, you would know that heat and watercolourists don't get along too well. It's much better to have a cooler climate, and higher humidity is also desirable so that the paper doesn't dry too quickly. Oils and acrylics are OK on the coast.
It's a very pleasant way to earn a living, but I find that I can't do it full time. I need something more, and flying may just provide that again, but it may not if it's to be a Singapore basing. In that case I'll hang out for the SQ operation here..
I, and others, have said it all before. They do have different versions of the events. Sometimes those versions are right; sometimes they're wrong, but mostly they're misguided, bitter and vindictive.
Guptar,
Those who questioned the tactics were indeed threatened with career ending action if they broke ranks. Fortunately there were those who had the guts to do so.
Jupiter,
We all believed there was a Plan B, but there wasn't. They fired the big gun first, not in accordance with the undertakings, i.e., they would only be tendered IF writs were issued, and they hadn't been at that stage. There wasn't of course, any other plan. Violation of SOPs of industrial action.
If the Libs had been in government, the accord probably wouldn't have existed, and the course of events would, no doubt, have been very different. The pilots probably wouldn't have been in the same situation, i.e., accepting 'flat' pay rises (or having them thrust upon them) instead of percentages as is the norm.
Greybeard,
I see a win/win here. You say that you won, and I say I won. I'm not about to tell you you're a loser, even though you may behave like one, but I'm definitely not a loser. So who do we need to convince?
FSU,
They're not listening when you give them details of pays etc. The fact is, the cost per hour, and the overall cost of pilots to the company was much less than pre 89. The figures were published by someone who was infinitely more interested in stats than I, but I noted them at the time, and re published them here recently. Two and a half times the flying being done by two thirds of the previous number of pilots. Simple maths from there.
Truth Seeker,
Correct on the low, despicable tactics. I didn't agree either, but that's life. See elsewhere; Life's a $hit sandwich, etc. an just part of being an employee. Some things you just can't change, so the sooner one recognizes that, then the sooner one is off to a happier life.
Elektra,
Now, my son, let's get onto psychologists. The AFAP employed a psychologist, Tim Watson-somebody (a double barrelled name). He came along to the rallies, and put forward what diabolical strife they companies would be in, and what ABeles would be thinking right now, and he would be $hitting himself. Yeah, I'm sure he was with the bodgie on his side, the use of VIP aircraft and transports, the pre-arranged charter aircraft that had been sitting around Europe and the US doing nothing, and the also pre-arranged pilots who were all but on their ways by late August.
Now, our Tim was a man of principles; wouldn't have put up a case just at the instigation of the AFAP leaders, would he. He really believed what he was saying; was based on sound psychological practice, and wasn't just doing it for money, was he??
Interesting to note is that Tim was in the slammer for some time, and may still be, for cocaine use and trafficing. He was an addict, and took on the trafficing to fund his habit as so many do.
He was also a buddy of the crooked Melbourne solicitor, Andrew Fraser who is also in the slammer (8 years) for everything from snorting cocaine to threatening witnesses and perverting the course of justice.
So much for psychologists giving those who went back the 'be positive' line. The judge said that he was one of the worst liars he had come across. Yes, he was the AFAP's psychologist!! hired to rev us up with tales of finishing up in pilots' purgatory, never having a friend again, never being employable anywhere in the world except Australia, and even then only in those airlines existing post 89. Purgatory indeed!!!
I remind you that QF is taking scabs by the bucket load. Perhaps they consider it their obligation since they flew over domestic routes during the Clayton's dispute (it did end with the resignations) contrary to an undertaking given to the AFAP, or was that a lie too?
Amos,
You said on 25th Sept that you hope FSU 'will get on with his life and not dwell in the past'. Are you kidding? He is getting on with life, and it is you who is dwelling in the past. You go over the same old ground; Abeles was a criminal; the cost of pilots was more post 89 than pre 89; you are a scab; Hawke was a criminal; you are a scab again/still; you're all f.... criminals; the cost is still more etc; you're still a bunch of bloody scabs. I think it is obvious to all who is living in the past.
Kaptin M,
Me old mate Kap M. No, I didn't, don't, and never will have any difficulty with my decision. I've said elsewhere that I am happy with it, in fact more than happy with it, but my regret is that I didn't do it before I did - long before. Just think where I could have been financially if I'd gone back five or six months earlier on those super salaries.
Now my location. Yes, I had retired, but still under 50 I'm too young. My details were filed during the time I was relaxing. I have a small place in Malaysia, Kota Baru (sometimes spelt Bahru, and meaning 'new town') to be specific. If you're not familiar with it, it's about as far as you can go to the north east of Malaysia, and only a stones throw from the Thai border. Delightful place, right on a lagoon, and I regularly tumble from my bed into the water prior to the house girl bringing me my fresh fruit salad for brekky. So there is no mistake or intentionally misleading the readership. However, I am now out of retirement, and waiting the news from SQ. Incidentally, you could do a lot worse during your holidays than a trip by train, bus, or if you're really adventurous, by motorcycle up the east coast of Malaysia. I'll buy you dinner if I'm in residence. Just ask the locals - they always know when I'm in town.
I also have a smaller place in the mountains to the west of KB. It's a very pleasant place, and I retire there when I'm painting watercolours. For those of you who paint, you would know that heat and watercolourists don't get along too well. It's much better to have a cooler climate, and higher humidity is also desirable so that the paper doesn't dry too quickly. Oils and acrylics are OK on the coast.
It's a very pleasant way to earn a living, but I find that I can't do it full time. I need something more, and flying may just provide that again, but it may not if it's to be a Singapore basing. In that case I'll hang out for the SQ operation here..
Last edited by CitizenXX; 28th Sep 2002 at 03:55.
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Australia
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Citizen XX,
Thanks for the story about the AFAP shrink. But then again with the Irish Generals running the show what would you expect.
ROFLMAO!!!
I have a list also of all the airlines and ex AN pilots employed which runs counter to the alleged influence the 89ers claim on recruiting in various airlines. Must be really frustrating for them!
The usual garbage and vituperation wil follow once more. I will be gone awhile and know I won't be missed. I return occasionally to keep the facts in front of any newcomers.
Away for several months, plenty of other things to do. Bet this will still be raging in the New Year. Speaking of the festive season I can't recall if the 89ers had their reunion this year..........perhaps I missed it.
Anyhow enjoy the fruits of your labours.
Bye.
Thanks for the story about the AFAP shrink. But then again with the Irish Generals running the show what would you expect.
ROFLMAO!!!
I have a list also of all the airlines and ex AN pilots employed which runs counter to the alleged influence the 89ers claim on recruiting in various airlines. Must be really frustrating for them!
The usual garbage and vituperation wil follow once more. I will be gone awhile and know I won't be missed. I return occasionally to keep the facts in front of any newcomers.
Away for several months, plenty of other things to do. Bet this will still be raging in the New Year. Speaking of the festive season I can't recall if the 89ers had their reunion this year..........perhaps I missed it.
Anyhow enjoy the fruits of your labours.
Bye.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My very first remark when I heard of the mass resignation was to the effect that the very very significant unfunded superannuation liability that was triggered when the pilots resigned would be causing some real terror and seriously lose bowels in the Government halls of power.
It had been and was still one of the main stalling points for any potential purchaser for the intended sale of the airline.
Super, accrued leave and retirement benefits had been provided out of cash flow as and when required in the normal course of events.
I suspect the Budgie was happy to back Abeles whilst it wasn't doing any harm to the Govt and didn't require any real risk to himself, but I dont think he ever dreamed that the unfunded liablility would come home to roost in one fell swoop, with the mass resignation.
Each in their own inimitable way was using the other for their separate agendas.
One political the other financial.
It changed irrevocably from the usual industrial issue that they were used to then, to somehing quite unexpectedly different and they would have had to dig really deep and increase the usually bloated Labour deficit to meet an unfunded liability incurred as a result of them backing a private companies agenda/vendetta.
It was one thing to grandstand for Abeles on the accord and labour propaganda, it was another entirely to cop the financial results of Abeles obsession.
The Bodgie then had no alternative but to crash through or crash.
They became inextricably bound together in a fight for their individual survival. The winners were not hard to pick when you suborn the Military, the Parliament and the Constitution to your personal ends.
IMHO it was one of the main drivers for the various crooks to resort to the desperately illegal measures they ultimately took as a result.
It had been and was still one of the main stalling points for any potential purchaser for the intended sale of the airline.
Super, accrued leave and retirement benefits had been provided out of cash flow as and when required in the normal course of events.
I suspect the Budgie was happy to back Abeles whilst it wasn't doing any harm to the Govt and didn't require any real risk to himself, but I dont think he ever dreamed that the unfunded liablility would come home to roost in one fell swoop, with the mass resignation.
Each in their own inimitable way was using the other for their separate agendas.
One political the other financial.
It changed irrevocably from the usual industrial issue that they were used to then, to somehing quite unexpectedly different and they would have had to dig really deep and increase the usually bloated Labour deficit to meet an unfunded liability incurred as a result of them backing a private companies agenda/vendetta.
It was one thing to grandstand for Abeles on the accord and labour propaganda, it was another entirely to cop the financial results of Abeles obsession.
The Bodgie then had no alternative but to crash through or crash.
They became inextricably bound together in a fight for their individual survival. The winners were not hard to pick when you suborn the Military, the Parliament and the Constitution to your personal ends.
IMHO it was one of the main drivers for the various crooks to resort to the desperately illegal measures they ultimately took as a result.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Gaunty,
How right you are about the Super.
In my Base, the AMP, Ansetts providor, was approached to provide the details of funds so members could forward them to banks etc to keep the wheels turning until Ansett got the payouts organised.
AMP was "unable" to provide any details as ALL trustees had to agree. Ansett as a trustee would not agree.
It was a nice touch, and as I am best aware the majority of our group, who had no other reason to change, withdrew the funds from AMP as soon as could be arranged.
Some 300M total over Aust as I recall, served them right as well.
There was a rumour that the fund was oversubscribed and a figure of 90M was surplus at the washup.
As not all had resigned, the fund could not be wound up.
There was again a rumour that some individuals had suddenly became "noticably rich" and the balance was "creatively" used to buffer the "loss" for the year.
All rumour of course, but in "the fullness of time" will come out I hope.
The truth will be stranger that fiction, so roll over Hawke so we can get on with it as that appears to be a factor.
How right you are about the Super.
In my Base, the AMP, Ansetts providor, was approached to provide the details of funds so members could forward them to banks etc to keep the wheels turning until Ansett got the payouts organised.
AMP was "unable" to provide any details as ALL trustees had to agree. Ansett as a trustee would not agree.
It was a nice touch, and as I am best aware the majority of our group, who had no other reason to change, withdrew the funds from AMP as soon as could be arranged.
Some 300M total over Aust as I recall, served them right as well.
There was a rumour that the fund was oversubscribed and a figure of 90M was surplus at the washup.
As not all had resigned, the fund could not be wound up.
There was again a rumour that some individuals had suddenly became "noticably rich" and the balance was "creatively" used to buffer the "loss" for the year.
All rumour of course, but in "the fullness of time" will come out I hope.
The truth will be stranger that fiction, so roll over Hawke so we can get on with it as that appears to be a factor.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
greybeard
It was a problem for AN but the bigger problem as I recall it for the Govt/Budgie was that TN was "self" funded and not by an institution and around $3-400,000,000 would have had to come out of consolidated revenue or some such. The "normal" liability was met annually, probably out of cash flow in the normal course of retirements and resignations etc.
To have to meet the entire TN pilot force liability in one hit was more than they had bargained for, if indeed in his rush to help his
mate he actually thought of that as a consequence.
I suspect that when the resignations were submitted the reality/stupidity of his actions was forcefully presented to him, I suspect that he had nowhere to go except as I said crash through or crash.
I suspect the AFAP were aware of this as a consequence.
My memory is getting scratchy on the detail but they had been "trying" to find a buyer for TN for some time, but the "unfunded" Super liability was always the sticking point on the price and the Govt had no desire to stump up the funds if indeed they had them to properly fund it. In the context of his accord confidence trick it would have been a pretty hard ask politically, to get the legislation through.
They needed to keep it under tight control so it wasn't just Abeles agenda.
Hence the I suspect writs were just another way of trying to keep the Punch and Judy show going to offsett their financial problem.
Anyone??
It was a problem for AN but the bigger problem as I recall it for the Govt/Budgie was that TN was "self" funded and not by an institution and around $3-400,000,000 would have had to come out of consolidated revenue or some such. The "normal" liability was met annually, probably out of cash flow in the normal course of retirements and resignations etc.
To have to meet the entire TN pilot force liability in one hit was more than they had bargained for, if indeed in his rush to help his
mate he actually thought of that as a consequence.
I suspect that when the resignations were submitted the reality/stupidity of his actions was forcefully presented to him, I suspect that he had nowhere to go except as I said crash through or crash.
I suspect the AFAP were aware of this as a consequence.
My memory is getting scratchy on the detail but they had been "trying" to find a buyer for TN for some time, but the "unfunded" Super liability was always the sticking point on the price and the Govt had no desire to stump up the funds if indeed they had them to properly fund it. In the context of his accord confidence trick it would have been a pretty hard ask politically, to get the legislation through.
They needed to keep it under tight control so it wasn't just Abeles agenda.
Hence the I suspect writs were just another way of trying to keep the Punch and Judy show going to offsett their financial problem.
Anyone??