Meloz and 89
Guest
Posts: n/a
Thumbs up
Sorry but I'm still a bit lost here.
If the zillion bucks lost by 1989/90's (and onwards) management decisions and galactic pay rises for returnees wasn't responsible for Ansett's demise then surely it couldn't have helped very much. I know I slept through a lot of accounting lectures at uni but not that many.
Secondly, Qantas wasn't involved in the 1989 dispute (theirs is the death of as thousand cuts that's slowly gathering speed) so they wouldn't have been shaky but Australian Airlines was and it was sold, bankrupt, to QF effectively for nothing.
So maybe there is a common thread in the impact of the costs of the refusal to negotiate with the authorized collective bargaining unit of Australia's domestic pilots and the subsequent demise of the 4 airlines who just couldn't bring themselves to pick up the phone.
As for wanting to see a contract. Again I'm a bit lost here. I voted in a secret ballot NOT to go back to work on an individual contract. So why would it's contents have been of any interest to me at all?
As for the amazing efficiencies you experienced when back at work.....you did well. Others have sought redemption for personal failings through hard work and I hope it got you back on the straight and narrow.
Sorry but I'm still a bit lost here.
If the zillion bucks lost by 1989/90's (and onwards) management decisions and galactic pay rises for returnees wasn't responsible for Ansett's demise then surely it couldn't have helped very much. I know I slept through a lot of accounting lectures at uni but not that many.
Secondly, Qantas wasn't involved in the 1989 dispute (theirs is the death of as thousand cuts that's slowly gathering speed) so they wouldn't have been shaky but Australian Airlines was and it was sold, bankrupt, to QF effectively for nothing.
So maybe there is a common thread in the impact of the costs of the refusal to negotiate with the authorized collective bargaining unit of Australia's domestic pilots and the subsequent demise of the 4 airlines who just couldn't bring themselves to pick up the phone.
As for wanting to see a contract. Again I'm a bit lost here. I voted in a secret ballot NOT to go back to work on an individual contract. So why would it's contents have been of any interest to me at all?
As for the amazing efficiencies you experienced when back at work.....you did well. Others have sought redemption for personal failings through hard work and I hope it got you back on the straight and narrow.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: china
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Although a long time lurker this is a first venture into print. PPRuNe provides a window with a view. From it comes an insight and opportunity to follow, analyse and too often discard what is seen and felt by a wide cross section of people representing many facets of flying in different environments and circumstances. Also it provides a degree of insight into the personalities and qualities of those who keep this web-site interesting and informative –and others. It is the “them and us” tone of the subject that is responsible for this posting.
Much has been said about the events of ’89, and so deep are the hurts and feelings of those who were, and are still being affected, it will not be allowed to die. Many have been able to put it behind them due quite often to circumstances and luck. Others have not been so fortunate.
This may come as a surprise to many who were closely involved. Although far removed from the trauma of that time it is a personal experience which offers yet another, and darker side to the tragedy of ‘89. It would not be surprising if there were similar private agendas or taking advantage of opportunities with potentially damaging impact on the careers of others. To what extent one may only guess. What follows was executed in secret under the noses of those whose interests were, supposedly, being protected.
Just over a year after the ’89 action, when a certain degree of stability was evidenced by the operations of the domestic carriers involved, my company wrote to the pilot’s union advising of positions available on wide-body jet aircraft. This was not out of sympathy for any person or group, but purely commercial. We needed first world experience from a sound aviation jurisdiction and there was no doubt that Australia was where experience at a high standard was available, and in quantity. The events of ’89 offered a potential win-win situation for an airline and for unemployed, experienced technical aircrew.
Our letter requested a list, if one was obtainable, of member pilots who had not been able to find flying jobs but were interested and available for overseas aircrew employment. At the time a large displaced workforce of qualified and experienced professional aircrew were still unemployed and available. There were those who had not accepted offers or applied to return to work. Others could not find work overseas.
The initial reply was quick and curt. It asked for full details of the company and a banker’s statement attesting our financial position. In addition the writer claimed that all Australian pilots looking for positions were represented solely by the union, would have to be based wherever they resided in Australia and positioned and returned by first class full fare tickets for their duty flights wherever those flights might originate and terminate. They would be available in turn and in accordance with a seniority list made up by the union. Other minimum conditions were listed for items such as salaries, seniority, vacations, pensions and per diems.
In reply we advised our conditions of service were confidential and only divulged following interest by prospective employees during interview. Employment was being offered to a wide range of people, not only displaced Australians. All employment would to be on standard and identical terms. Applications from Australians still available following the dispute and looking for airline flying would be considered. If they were offered employment the choice of accepting or declining OUR contract terms would be theirs and theirs alone. Applicants attending interviews would be provided with transportation, accommodation and per diems.
A document was returned within 24 hours. It listed four names. Those names which included the writer with three others were union representatives manning the office of the union. There is no evidence that our offer was ever brought to the attention of any members other than those four who were at that time involved in union administrative tasks and “looking after the well-being of the membership”.
No displaced Australians were interviewed. And yes, the correspondence has been retained.
Much has been said about the events of ’89, and so deep are the hurts and feelings of those who were, and are still being affected, it will not be allowed to die. Many have been able to put it behind them due quite often to circumstances and luck. Others have not been so fortunate.
This may come as a surprise to many who were closely involved. Although far removed from the trauma of that time it is a personal experience which offers yet another, and darker side to the tragedy of ‘89. It would not be surprising if there were similar private agendas or taking advantage of opportunities with potentially damaging impact on the careers of others. To what extent one may only guess. What follows was executed in secret under the noses of those whose interests were, supposedly, being protected.
Just over a year after the ’89 action, when a certain degree of stability was evidenced by the operations of the domestic carriers involved, my company wrote to the pilot’s union advising of positions available on wide-body jet aircraft. This was not out of sympathy for any person or group, but purely commercial. We needed first world experience from a sound aviation jurisdiction and there was no doubt that Australia was where experience at a high standard was available, and in quantity. The events of ’89 offered a potential win-win situation for an airline and for unemployed, experienced technical aircrew.
Our letter requested a list, if one was obtainable, of member pilots who had not been able to find flying jobs but were interested and available for overseas aircrew employment. At the time a large displaced workforce of qualified and experienced professional aircrew were still unemployed and available. There were those who had not accepted offers or applied to return to work. Others could not find work overseas.
The initial reply was quick and curt. It asked for full details of the company and a banker’s statement attesting our financial position. In addition the writer claimed that all Australian pilots looking for positions were represented solely by the union, would have to be based wherever they resided in Australia and positioned and returned by first class full fare tickets for their duty flights wherever those flights might originate and terminate. They would be available in turn and in accordance with a seniority list made up by the union. Other minimum conditions were listed for items such as salaries, seniority, vacations, pensions and per diems.
In reply we advised our conditions of service were confidential and only divulged following interest by prospective employees during interview. Employment was being offered to a wide range of people, not only displaced Australians. All employment would to be on standard and identical terms. Applications from Australians still available following the dispute and looking for airline flying would be considered. If they were offered employment the choice of accepting or declining OUR contract terms would be theirs and theirs alone. Applicants attending interviews would be provided with transportation, accommodation and per diems.
A document was returned within 24 hours. It listed four names. Those names which included the writer with three others were union representatives manning the office of the union. There is no evidence that our offer was ever brought to the attention of any members other than those four who were at that time involved in union administrative tasks and “looking after the well-being of the membership”.
No displaced Australians were interviewed. And yes, the correspondence has been retained.
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
During the dispute, with all 4 airlines' aircraft grounded, James Strong, then Managing Director of Australian Airlines, was interviewed on "Sixty Minutes" (from memory), and was asked by the interviewer if he would be willing to consider engaging enough pilots - through a second party - to get his company back in the air.
Naturally Mr Strong warmed to the idea, but then asked whether the pilots were suitably qualified...Yes....held an Australian licence...Yes...and would meet the CAA's standards..Yes.
The pilots were IMMEDIATELY available, and AA could have their services back in the air almost immediately as well. Strong could see he was on a winner with this one.
The bait had been swallowed, and the hook was in.
And so who was the agency that was going to supply these pilots??
When the interviewer told him it was "The AFAP, supplying your OWN pilots", the facial expression said it all.
And so kwika, as good as the story YOU have told SOUNDS good.
WHO ARE YOU? AND WHO WAS THE COMPANY YOU REPRESENTED?
My guess tells me that if you received such a fast response,
my guess is the Feds had you sussed fairly quickly.
I await your reply.
Naturally Mr Strong warmed to the idea, but then asked whether the pilots were suitably qualified...Yes....held an Australian licence...Yes...and would meet the CAA's standards..Yes.
The pilots were IMMEDIATELY available, and AA could have their services back in the air almost immediately as well. Strong could see he was on a winner with this one.
The bait had been swallowed, and the hook was in.
And so who was the agency that was going to supply these pilots??
When the interviewer told him it was "The AFAP, supplying your OWN pilots", the facial expression said it all.
And so kwika, as good as the story YOU have told SOUNDS good.
WHO ARE YOU? AND WHO WAS THE COMPANY YOU REPRESENTED?
My guess tells me that if you received such a fast response,
The initial reply was quick and curt.
I await your reply.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: china
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear Kaptin M.
Read my post again. See the timing. Afraid it was well after things had settled down in Oz and the domestics were long since back in business. My company had/has nothing to do with partners/people/investors or airlines in Oz.
I believe you may be in Singapore. If so look around and see which successful airlines in your area commenced operations about a year or so after the '89 fiasco. For what that may achieve, it could provide a clue to my identity. Yes, you know me or at least know of me, and would recognize that I was not in any way involved with any Australian airline – domestic, international or regional.
The facts stand as stated. There are still some shameful skeletons hiden in cupboards. And some of those cupboards are in surprising places.
Read my post again. See the timing. Afraid it was well after things had settled down in Oz and the domestics were long since back in business. My company had/has nothing to do with partners/people/investors or airlines in Oz.
I believe you may be in Singapore. If so look around and see which successful airlines in your area commenced operations about a year or so after the '89 fiasco. For what that may achieve, it could provide a clue to my identity. Yes, you know me or at least know of me, and would recognize that I was not in any way involved with any Australian airline – domestic, international or regional.
The facts stand as stated. There are still some shameful skeletons hiden in cupboards. And some of those cupboards are in surprising places.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Kwika,
I think Kaptin M said it all, but in case he's a little off the target let me try.
This concept (being straight up) might seem strange to some from the other side of the picket line but here goes....
IF...and its a big if, but IF the things you say happened actually happened and there was no spin on it...then it was WRONG.
But that doesn't make us all wrong, an implication dripping from most of your post. See, we, the 1300 ish of us who didn't go back, don't believe you have to damn everyone just because a rumour, letter or other "fact" seems to cast someone or even a small group in a bad light. Its the same way with the odd bit of harrassment. Just because some 89'er gave a s#cab a hard time...doesn't mean that every last vestige of our cause and beliefs was wrong.
In any case, have your people call my people to arrange (at my cost) the delivery to me of notarized copies of all correspondence and I will make a generous sum available to the charity of your choice (except the Collingwood Football Club).
I think Kaptin M said it all, but in case he's a little off the target let me try.
This concept (being straight up) might seem strange to some from the other side of the picket line but here goes....
IF...and its a big if, but IF the things you say happened actually happened and there was no spin on it...then it was WRONG.
But that doesn't make us all wrong, an implication dripping from most of your post. See, we, the 1300 ish of us who didn't go back, don't believe you have to damn everyone just because a rumour, letter or other "fact" seems to cast someone or even a small group in a bad light. Its the same way with the odd bit of harrassment. Just because some 89'er gave a s#cab a hard time...doesn't mean that every last vestige of our cause and beliefs was wrong.
In any case, have your people call my people to arrange (at my cost) the delivery to me of notarized copies of all correspondence and I will make a generous sum available to the charity of your choice (except the Collingwood Football Club).
Yeah but kwika, the obvious problem is that you imply the (Stands and places hand on heart) AFAP (Wipes tears from eyes!) could EVER have done ANYTHING which wasn't of the HIGHEST ethical standards and to the benifit of MAN KIND ITSELF!!
As you have you must be a SCAB!! Only SCABS don't know that the (Stands, etc.) AFAP never did ANYTHING that wasn't in it's members BEST INTERESTS!!
Why, after getting everyone to resign (A BRILLIANT tactic that would have WORKED except for the SCABS!!! ( Oh and the ILLEGALLY (I know my accountant told me!) elected PM, Qantas, the airforce, the australian public and that guy behind the grassy knole)) it REGULARLY held meetings at which it gave us BEER!!
So don't you EVER sugest the (DEEP SIGH!!) AFAP did anything wrong, or I'll have you rung in the night AND put on a list of people we won't EVER send a christmas card too!!
(Where's that bloody prozac???)
As you have you must be a SCAB!! Only SCABS don't know that the (Stands, etc.) AFAP never did ANYTHING that wasn't in it's members BEST INTERESTS!!
Why, after getting everyone to resign (A BRILLIANT tactic that would have WORKED except for the SCABS!!! ( Oh and the ILLEGALLY (I know my accountant told me!) elected PM, Qantas, the airforce, the australian public and that guy behind the grassy knole)) it REGULARLY held meetings at which it gave us BEER!!
So don't you EVER sugest the (DEEP SIGH!!) AFAP did anything wrong, or I'll have you rung in the night AND put on a list of people we won't EVER send a christmas card too!!
(Where's that bloody prozac???)
Last edited by Wizofoz; 16th Sep 2002 at 13:23.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Wiz
A well run, democratic union IS its members and there's probably never been a more inclusive member-driven union in Australia than the AFAP. Nor one that added more value to its industry in safety and technical areas both within Australia and overseas
It is NOT a prerequisite of being a well run, democratic union that it be flawless, faultless, without heated debate and never ever exhibiting the slightest sign of foolishness, arrogance or naivity. The Salvos couldn't pass the test of flawlessness you set up for the AFAP, neither could Mother Terasa or anyone else.
But as a long term member I can say first hand that warts and all, it was of and for its members
A well run, democratic union IS its members and there's probably never been a more inclusive member-driven union in Australia than the AFAP. Nor one that added more value to its industry in safety and technical areas both within Australia and overseas
It is NOT a prerequisite of being a well run, democratic union that it be flawless, faultless, without heated debate and never ever exhibiting the slightest sign of foolishness, arrogance or naivity. The Salvos couldn't pass the test of flawlessness you set up for the AFAP, neither could Mother Terasa or anyone else.
But as a long term member I can say first hand that warts and all, it was of and for its members
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: ex Hong Kong
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I might be way off the mark here - but here goes anyway.
Kwika posts from China. Mentions an airline starting up in Asian region about 1 year after 89. I am thinking of an airline in Taiwan which goes by a 3 letter name.
I did an interview with said airline in early 1990's. Got told in no uncertain terms that said airline's owners would rather shut shop and put invested millions of dollars on deposit with bank than deal with a Union. My CV which indicated resignation from an Australian airline in August 1989 was deemed proof positive that I was a unionist in eyes of said airline interviewers. Said interviewers were adamant (as if they had been there...) that we went on strike and got sacked. Thus my 'ploy' of feigning a resignation was unveiled...!!
Interview terminated without even a seemly follow through.
If I am correct and this is the same airline as Kwika speaks of - then I would bet my bum they didn't sincerely contact any union in order to try and source pilots. Such would be anathema to their stated stance at the time.
It is interesting to note that said airline eventually set up operations using the skill and expertise of the scabs from Eastern Airlines in the USA.
Kwika posts from China. Mentions an airline starting up in Asian region about 1 year after 89. I am thinking of an airline in Taiwan which goes by a 3 letter name.
I did an interview with said airline in early 1990's. Got told in no uncertain terms that said airline's owners would rather shut shop and put invested millions of dollars on deposit with bank than deal with a Union. My CV which indicated resignation from an Australian airline in August 1989 was deemed proof positive that I was a unionist in eyes of said airline interviewers. Said interviewers were adamant (as if they had been there...) that we went on strike and got sacked. Thus my 'ploy' of feigning a resignation was unveiled...!!
Interview terminated without even a seemly follow through.
If I am correct and this is the same airline as Kwika speaks of - then I would bet my bum they didn't sincerely contact any union in order to try and source pilots. Such would be anathema to their stated stance at the time.
It is interesting to note that said airline eventually set up operations using the skill and expertise of the scabs from Eastern Airlines in the USA.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Metung RSL or Collingwood Social Club on weekends!
Posts: 645
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HIALS - I believe you are spot on, I shared the same theory when reading Kwika's post.
To go further, the B747 fleet Captain with this airline is an ex ANSW hero.
To go further, the B747 fleet Captain with this airline is an ex ANSW hero.
Guest
Posts: n/a
sightboard run,
not spiteful, just a remote observation that an "attitude" can be observed even after all these years.
I SAY AGAIN, SHE DID NOT KNOW ANY OF THE GROUP AT ALL, and I only knew 3 of the 6/7 pilots involved at that place at that time.
We have not, are not, and will not "do" anything to abuse accuse or any other thing to disturb these people who as I have previously said my airline has chosen to employ.
We still eat at the same places, they are the ones who have decided to move as they have done before, see previous posts.
I don't give a tuppenny damn, where they go, who they ignore or if they stay or go.
The world is a free place, BUT if you stick out like dogs nuts to a stranger who hasn't seen a sort of person for years, who am I or YOU to say it's spite.
IT'S A FACT THEY WERE DIFFERENT, ARE DIFFERENT AND WILL ALWAYS BE DIFFERENT and be easily recognised.
not spiteful, just a remote observation that an "attitude" can be observed even after all these years.
I SAY AGAIN, SHE DID NOT KNOW ANY OF THE GROUP AT ALL, and I only knew 3 of the 6/7 pilots involved at that place at that time.
We have not, are not, and will not "do" anything to abuse accuse or any other thing to disturb these people who as I have previously said my airline has chosen to employ.
We still eat at the same places, they are the ones who have decided to move as they have done before, see previous posts.
I don't give a tuppenny damn, where they go, who they ignore or if they stay or go.
The world is a free place, BUT if you stick out like dogs nuts to a stranger who hasn't seen a sort of person for years, who am I or YOU to say it's spite.
IT'S A FACT THEY WERE DIFFERENT, ARE DIFFERENT AND WILL ALWAYS BE DIFFERENT and be easily recognised.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sightboard run
I operate at a pretty high level, in another industry, which to operate succesfully, requires very fast and accurate "assessment" of type and personal characteristics in real time and a fairly short frame at that.
Believe me it is possible and with much life experience you learn to trust your instincts, in fact, you ignore them at your financial peril.
This does not mean that you classify people as "good or bad" and deal with them in "black and white terms" accordingly, but simply move onto another plane of awareness in your dealings with them, unto the point at which you get to a polite, thanks but no thanks for the association, for any amount of money.
Any "deal" or "action" in life that disadvantages, causes or results in a "loss" to another party, is not a "deal" at all.
It is plain and simple robbery.
Lifes too short to have to live with that.
There is a bit of angst about the Arab world around at the moment, but in more civilised times an Arab business friend of mine taught me a very important lesson in life and that was "to always leave something in "it" (whatever) for the other person" that way you could always come back, anytime, anywhere and be greeted cheerfully and with respect.
Ask "Chainsaw Al Dunlap" how he feels about that as a life philosphy now?
The London "City" works pretty much the same way and you don't get into that "club" any other way.
Not a bad way to live a life eh.
I operate at a pretty high level, in another industry, which to operate succesfully, requires very fast and accurate "assessment" of type and personal characteristics in real time and a fairly short frame at that.
Believe me it is possible and with much life experience you learn to trust your instincts, in fact, you ignore them at your financial peril.
This does not mean that you classify people as "good or bad" and deal with them in "black and white terms" accordingly, but simply move onto another plane of awareness in your dealings with them, unto the point at which you get to a polite, thanks but no thanks for the association, for any amount of money.
Any "deal" or "action" in life that disadvantages, causes or results in a "loss" to another party, is not a "deal" at all.
It is plain and simple robbery.
Lifes too short to have to live with that.
There is a bit of angst about the Arab world around at the moment, but in more civilised times an Arab business friend of mine taught me a very important lesson in life and that was "to always leave something in "it" (whatever) for the other person" that way you could always come back, anytime, anywhere and be greeted cheerfully and with respect.
Ask "Chainsaw Al Dunlap" how he feels about that as a life philosphy now?
The London "City" works pretty much the same way and you don't get into that "club" any other way.
Not a bad way to live a life eh.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Sightboard,
I think Gaunty said it well.
I'm not bitter or spiteful about the possibility of losing an engine at V1 or 3 hours out from an ETOPS alternate. I just know that history has taught me to be prepared because these things happned once and can happen again. Don't confuse legitimate wariness and remembrance with spite. SPITE is what the companies used on the AFAP.
I think Gaunty said it well.
I'm not bitter or spiteful about the possibility of losing an engine at V1 or 3 hours out from an ETOPS alternate. I just know that history has taught me to be prepared because these things happned once and can happen again. Don't confuse legitimate wariness and remembrance with spite. SPITE is what the companies used on the AFAP.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: SE Asia
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Elektra,
Economics student or not, if you believe for a second that the pay rises post 89 contributed even slightly to Ansett's demise, you are indeed delusional.
It's been posted here many times by infinitely more astute people that I, those who were there, that the ACTUAL hourly rate for an Airbus/B737 Capt prior to 89 was in excess of $300, and post 89 only about $220. They earned the bulk $$$s by dramatically increasing productivity, but the hourly rate actually went down as a consequence.
Bleat otherwise, listen to the 89ers, but the fact is that the hourly rate went DOWN, and the cost to Ansett per pilot was much, much less than pre 89.
This argument rears its head ocasionally, but is fallacious.
Economics student or not, if you believe for a second that the pay rises post 89 contributed even slightly to Ansett's demise, you are indeed delusional.
It's been posted here many times by infinitely more astute people that I, those who were there, that the ACTUAL hourly rate for an Airbus/B737 Capt prior to 89 was in excess of $300, and post 89 only about $220. They earned the bulk $$$s by dramatically increasing productivity, but the hourly rate actually went down as a consequence.
Bleat otherwise, listen to the 89ers, but the fact is that the hourly rate went DOWN, and the cost to Ansett per pilot was much, much less than pre 89.
This argument rears its head ocasionally, but is fallacious.
Interestingly, though, if one reads from at least two annual reports in the early post-89 period, Ansett reported that crew costs amounted to something in the order of 10 percent (of DOC as I recall). This was, I suggest, somewhat higher than best practice and, I suspect, higher than what was the case before the dispute upheavals.
I have no idea why Ansett's crew costs would be so high.
I have no idea why Ansett's crew costs would be so high.
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
"the cost to Ansett per pilot was much, much less than pre 89."
Completely untrue, Mr XX.
Pilots post `89 were paid FAR more than those pre`89. That is an acknowledged FACT by all parties, including the ACTU.
Pre `89, overtime rates did not cut in until after 65 hours. Post `89 they cut in after 55 hours.
Going by the numbers of pilots Ansett employed immediately prior tp their demise, it would appear that the number of crews per aircraft was almost the same as up to 1989.
It also needs to be remembered that for the 5 or 6 years leading up to 1989, Ansett was in a transitionary period of introducing new types - the B737-300 (to replace the 737 -200 "advanced"), the B767, and the A320 - meaning surplus pilots were needed.
Completely untrue, Mr XX.
Pilots post `89 were paid FAR more than those pre`89. That is an acknowledged FACT by all parties, including the ACTU.
Pre `89, overtime rates did not cut in until after 65 hours. Post `89 they cut in after 55 hours.
Going by the numbers of pilots Ansett employed immediately prior tp their demise, it would appear that the number of crews per aircraft was almost the same as up to 1989.
It also needs to be remembered that for the 5 or 6 years leading up to 1989, Ansett was in a transitionary period of introducing new types - the B737-300 (to replace the 737 -200 "advanced"), the B767, and the A320 - meaning surplus pilots were needed.
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Australia
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You need to make a distinction between Technical Crew costs and overall Crew costs which would include Flight Attendants. As has been pointed out Tech Crew costs were much less because of greater productivity. Pay was based on STICK HOURS and not CREDITED HOURS!!! And there was n need for reserve pilots.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Brisbane,Qld,Australia
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you Wiley and 7x7 for the mention. I have been home in Australia for days off and did not venture near a computer.
I read this new thread in one sitting and then started to write a post. This turned out to be quite lengthy but then again the dispute was a complex affair. When I read it through I found that whilst I had discussed various points from different angles using different words and related my arguments to current events, all that had really been produced was a "word" document that was nothing more than a re - hash of all that had gone before.
Anyone genuinely wishing to know what really went on in The Airline Dispute of 1989/90 can find it in what has already been written. It would require some filtering and research. It would also require some knowledge of our democratic procedures and institutions and rights afforded us under our constitution. A feel for, if not complete understanding of, our tradition of "mateship" would also be necessary as would a keen sense of balance.
Harassing a young family from their country for the crime of not foregoing their principles and standing up for what they believe in does not justify the poor behavior, and result, of combining a motor vehicle and dog poo in a single parking space. Neither of these actions can be condoned but which is the greater offence?
One would have to wonder what goes on when the boss gets 30%+ and the employee gets a writ. Or when a Prime Minister sees fit to almost destroy the economy so that the economy will not almost be destroyed. He then completely blows his argument out of the water by taking the very pay rise (wot accord) that was supposed to result in economic destruction of near nuclear proportions.
Those of us from the old Ansett had two (joint) managing directors. The second not as visible as the first but never the less active. One of his smutty publications in the UK printed and sensationalised a diary of a teenage girl. This caused such distress to the young boy mentioned in it that he slipped to the depths of despair and ended his life. The diary was subsequently proved to be fantasy and when confronted with the image of a fourteen year old boy hanging from the family's cloths line this fine upstanding example's only comment was along the lines of, oh well we all make mistakes.
This person's Australian publications were used in the main to keep the general population "informed" during the dispute. Even someone of slight intelligence would be expected to draw some kind of Dracula/Blood Bank analogy from this.
This whole affair was of great importance and significance, not only for the participants, but all Australians. Even if it had not I still don't think I would have liked my name listed to be on the same team as that of Abeles, Hawke, Kelty and Murdoch.
What a low point in our history this was when the corridors of power were occupied by filth and vermon and our parliament reduced to a seething cesspit of self interested scum.
I read this new thread in one sitting and then started to write a post. This turned out to be quite lengthy but then again the dispute was a complex affair. When I read it through I found that whilst I had discussed various points from different angles using different words and related my arguments to current events, all that had really been produced was a "word" document that was nothing more than a re - hash of all that had gone before.
Anyone genuinely wishing to know what really went on in The Airline Dispute of 1989/90 can find it in what has already been written. It would require some filtering and research. It would also require some knowledge of our democratic procedures and institutions and rights afforded us under our constitution. A feel for, if not complete understanding of, our tradition of "mateship" would also be necessary as would a keen sense of balance.
Harassing a young family from their country for the crime of not foregoing their principles and standing up for what they believe in does not justify the poor behavior, and result, of combining a motor vehicle and dog poo in a single parking space. Neither of these actions can be condoned but which is the greater offence?
One would have to wonder what goes on when the boss gets 30%+ and the employee gets a writ. Or when a Prime Minister sees fit to almost destroy the economy so that the economy will not almost be destroyed. He then completely blows his argument out of the water by taking the very pay rise (wot accord) that was supposed to result in economic destruction of near nuclear proportions.
Those of us from the old Ansett had two (joint) managing directors. The second not as visible as the first but never the less active. One of his smutty publications in the UK printed and sensationalised a diary of a teenage girl. This caused such distress to the young boy mentioned in it that he slipped to the depths of despair and ended his life. The diary was subsequently proved to be fantasy and when confronted with the image of a fourteen year old boy hanging from the family's cloths line this fine upstanding example's only comment was along the lines of, oh well we all make mistakes.
This person's Australian publications were used in the main to keep the general population "informed" during the dispute. Even someone of slight intelligence would be expected to draw some kind of Dracula/Blood Bank analogy from this.
This whole affair was of great importance and significance, not only for the participants, but all Australians. Even if it had not I still don't think I would have liked my name listed to be on the same team as that of Abeles, Hawke, Kelty and Murdoch.
What a low point in our history this was when the corridors of power were occupied by filth and vermon and our parliament reduced to a seething cesspit of self interested scum.
Bris boy,
Everything you say about RM (The Tabloid King, not RM AN) may well be true, as may what many others have to say about "Zerr Peeder", but unless you were working for Ansett prior to 1978, YOU were a willing employee of these men. Indeed, if they had calculated that giving you a 29.7% pay increase had been more economical than enduring the dispute, you would have CONTINUED to willingly work for these men.
Are you suggesting that you would have quit in disgust upon hearing of the unfortunate youth in the UK? Or would you have continued to do your professtional best to ensure you worked for a profitable company in spite of the morals of its' owners?
This is the continuing furrfy that the '89ers put up-That because the owners of AN were somehow immoral, this made it wrong to work for them. Yet after March '90, once the Feds retreated, MANY AFAP stalwarts applied to do just that. (I would be VERY interested to know if Kapin M, Tool Time Too, Bris Boy and their ilk re-applied after March. Their cries about what a bad lot RM and PA were would ring a little hollow coming AFTER they had exhausted every avenue to attempt to go back working for them!!)
Kap M derides Bob Hawke, then went to work for Lee Kwan Yue!!
Lets keep things in perspective. People in '89 broke a Union ban. The reasons for that ban are well documented, but it's implementation was ultimatley futile. The fact that individuals realised this before the Union itself should not be reason for their eternal villification.
Everything you say about RM (The Tabloid King, not RM AN) may well be true, as may what many others have to say about "Zerr Peeder", but unless you were working for Ansett prior to 1978, YOU were a willing employee of these men. Indeed, if they had calculated that giving you a 29.7% pay increase had been more economical than enduring the dispute, you would have CONTINUED to willingly work for these men.
Are you suggesting that you would have quit in disgust upon hearing of the unfortunate youth in the UK? Or would you have continued to do your professtional best to ensure you worked for a profitable company in spite of the morals of its' owners?
This is the continuing furrfy that the '89ers put up-That because the owners of AN were somehow immoral, this made it wrong to work for them. Yet after March '90, once the Feds retreated, MANY AFAP stalwarts applied to do just that. (I would be VERY interested to know if Kapin M, Tool Time Too, Bris Boy and their ilk re-applied after March. Their cries about what a bad lot RM and PA were would ring a little hollow coming AFTER they had exhausted every avenue to attempt to go back working for them!!)
Kap M derides Bob Hawke, then went to work for Lee Kwan Yue!!
Lets keep things in perspective. People in '89 broke a Union ban. The reasons for that ban are well documented, but it's implementation was ultimatley futile. The fact that individuals realised this before the Union itself should not be reason for their eternal villification.