Zero Tolerance On '89. Period.
Join Date: Feb 1998
Location: Formerly of Nam
Posts: 1,595
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the poll it looks like Im soon on the way out of D&G anyway so Ill have my last burst here.
THE point about the 89 War was that NOTHING, I repeat NOTHING was learned by the general Oz masses as to
(a) the true corruptive practices of the politicians involved and the potential of further corruption in any future government
(b) how big business and big government together can hide essential truths in any conflict. The masses STILL dont know nor believe how Murdochs media and the Hawke Government had pre-planned a cover story to directley blame the AFAP if Lot Polish hadve gone in while flying MEL-PER-MEL route.
(c) finding out the FACTS by delving further than what the popular media would have you believe. It CAN be done. One just needs to look
(d) how the Oz Constitution means absolutley nothing to big government so long as the citizens are kept ignorant as to its transgressions. And Hawke wasnt the first. There have been 18 prior transgressions in the 20th century alone
(e) how the popular media are selective in order to twist the story the way it wants it presented (thats why McCarthy was never seen clearley to define what exactley was the Feds position in the early weeks. It was simpley edited out
(f) why the industrial situation in many areas of employment is the way it is 13 years later.
Push-it-real-good's line The workers tried to screw the airline and in turn the public... being the perfect example of a, b, c, e.
THAT is the tragedy of 89. In any conflict that wrecks lives, the whole event would have some benefit if valuable lessons were learned and true facts searched-for and uncovered. Sadley in this case, NOTHING was learned. Even more tragic, NO ONE CARES which is why the Oz industrial front in general continues its downward spiral and will continue to do so. These are reasons why Ive never made comment in earlyer threads about Kendells, ANZ, etc. The outcome of these conflicts were totaly predictable. And they are why Ive always maintained its a total waste of breath talking about 89 to the general masses. So its not arragance (like some of the Unwashed accuse me of) but of practicality.
The 'scabs vs good guys' is more an in-house fight than a public war. The general non-aviation masses have no business getting involved takin sides. They dont have enough informed knowledge to do so either way. This is why Ive attacked scabs with the full ferocity they deserve in D&G but have been less verbose with everyone else who sides either way.
So, do I think talk of 89 should be banned in D&G? You bet I do!
THE point about the 89 War was that NOTHING, I repeat NOTHING was learned by the general Oz masses as to
(a) the true corruptive practices of the politicians involved and the potential of further corruption in any future government
(b) how big business and big government together can hide essential truths in any conflict. The masses STILL dont know nor believe how Murdochs media and the Hawke Government had pre-planned a cover story to directley blame the AFAP if Lot Polish hadve gone in while flying MEL-PER-MEL route.
(c) finding out the FACTS by delving further than what the popular media would have you believe. It CAN be done. One just needs to look
(d) how the Oz Constitution means absolutley nothing to big government so long as the citizens are kept ignorant as to its transgressions. And Hawke wasnt the first. There have been 18 prior transgressions in the 20th century alone
(e) how the popular media are selective in order to twist the story the way it wants it presented (thats why McCarthy was never seen clearley to define what exactley was the Feds position in the early weeks. It was simpley edited out
(f) why the industrial situation in many areas of employment is the way it is 13 years later.
Push-it-real-good's line The workers tried to screw the airline and in turn the public... being the perfect example of a, b, c, e.
THAT is the tragedy of 89. In any conflict that wrecks lives, the whole event would have some benefit if valuable lessons were learned and true facts searched-for and uncovered. Sadley in this case, NOTHING was learned. Even more tragic, NO ONE CARES which is why the Oz industrial front in general continues its downward spiral and will continue to do so. These are reasons why Ive never made comment in earlyer threads about Kendells, ANZ, etc. The outcome of these conflicts were totaly predictable. And they are why Ive always maintained its a total waste of breath talking about 89 to the general masses. So its not arragance (like some of the Unwashed accuse me of) but of practicality.
The 'scabs vs good guys' is more an in-house fight than a public war. The general non-aviation masses have no business getting involved takin sides. They dont have enough informed knowledge to do so either way. This is why Ive attacked scabs with the full ferocity they deserve in D&G but have been less verbose with everyone else who sides either way.
So, do I think talk of 89 should be banned in D&G? You bet I do!
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There might be some here who've read George Orwell's landmark classic '1984", where the hero in the book is employed by 'Big Brother' (the government of the day) to constantly re-write history to suit Big Brother's current policies and alliances.
From what Woomera has come up with here with his zero tolerance policy, there might be some here who might think that Orwell was five years early in his choice of titles for his book.
Slasher has pretty well said it all - it'll never go away as long as two of the remaining protagonists are drawing beath. There are quite a few ex-AN pilots who have recently moved overseas who have discovered this uncomfortable truth after 12 years (for many of them, it would seem) of believing otherwise.
To those who weren't involved and who are 'bored' by 1989 or don't understand how deep the passions run, pray to God you never do understand, for the only way you ever will is to be dragged through something similar yourselves.
From what Woomera has come up with here with his zero tolerance policy, there might be some here who might think that Orwell was five years early in his choice of titles for his book.
Slasher has pretty well said it all - it'll never go away as long as two of the remaining protagonists are drawing beath. There are quite a few ex-AN pilots who have recently moved overseas who have discovered this uncomfortable truth after 12 years (for many of them, it would seem) of believing otherwise.
To those who weren't involved and who are 'bored' by 1989 or don't understand how deep the passions run, pray to God you never do understand, for the only way you ever will is to be dragged through something similar yourselves.
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
As Wiley said,
"to be dragged through something similar" means to have the very roots of what you were taught by your parents, church, and a free, democratic society, challenged.
If - as an Australian..or Brit, or American - you had had instilled in your psyche to "do the right thing", "love your neighbour", "do unto others (as you would have them do unto YOU"), "be honest", and believe "that good triumphs over evil", then 1989 under Hawke. Abeles, Kelty, Murdoch and their cronies - using the strength of their POSITIONS, the POWER of the MEDIA, and the LURE of GREED - challenged OUR basal, fundamental beliefs.
THAT was the REAL reason so many (approx. 80%) pilots resisted, in unison, for so long!
I doubt that that BASIC BELIEF is any less relevant today, than it was 13 - or 130 years - ago!
To those who weren't involved and who are 'bored' by 1989 or don't understand how deep the passions run, pray to God you never do understand, for the only way you ever will is to be dragged through something similar yourselves
If - as an Australian..or Brit, or American - you had had instilled in your psyche to "do the right thing", "love your neighbour", "do unto others (as you would have them do unto YOU"), "be honest", and believe "that good triumphs over evil", then 1989 under Hawke. Abeles, Kelty, Murdoch and their cronies - using the strength of their POSITIONS, the POWER of the MEDIA, and the LURE of GREED - challenged OUR basal, fundamental beliefs.
THAT was the REAL reason so many (approx. 80%) pilots resisted, in unison, for so long!
I doubt that that BASIC BELIEF is any less relevant today, than it was 13 - or 130 years - ago!
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Wybacrik
Posts: 1,190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmm!...Interesting , this censorship thing isn't it?
Over the years when a Japanese delegation, of some sort or another, has visited our shores and indicated a wish to lay a wreath at one of our war memorials, or show some other sign of reconcilliation re the conflict of 39' to 45',the RSL has usually indicated that this just aint on!
And we all knew why!...and we all agreed!...except that is for the tree huggers and bleeding hearts that will always blight our society with the nonsence they go on about.
I would have thought that the people who frequent these pages could handle themselves and their emotions a little better than the tree huggers and bleeding hearts mentioned above and not insist on anything that "upsets" them being banned, and, I gather from Woomera's comments, besieging him with their requests for him to take some action!
I mean, are we talking about men or mice here?
If you don't like what is written then say so...like a man!
Don't winge...like a wimp!
...and don't hide behind censorship!!
Over the years when a Japanese delegation, of some sort or another, has visited our shores and indicated a wish to lay a wreath at one of our war memorials, or show some other sign of reconcilliation re the conflict of 39' to 45',the RSL has usually indicated that this just aint on!
And we all knew why!...and we all agreed!...except that is for the tree huggers and bleeding hearts that will always blight our society with the nonsence they go on about.
I would have thought that the people who frequent these pages could handle themselves and their emotions a little better than the tree huggers and bleeding hearts mentioned above and not insist on anything that "upsets" them being banned, and, I gather from Woomera's comments, besieging him with their requests for him to take some action!
I mean, are we talking about men or mice here?
If you don't like what is written then say so...like a man!
Don't winge...like a wimp!
...and don't hide behind censorship!!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Good grief, the tree huggers are getting to all walks of life.
This is an AVIATION FORUM, we talk mostly about AVIATION.
If '89 isn't about AVIATION, I must be on a different rock from the Sun
There have been some who like CXXX who pushed the edges a bit for his own amusement, or is his last bit a smokescreen to hide his arrival in foreign parts?
There are those who scream about a list, which list?
The first one stopped me and many others from being employed in Aust after March 1990, and was backed up by "the Letter" which said we were unsafe to be in the same cockpit. The so called second one identifies those who produced it by direct association or consent.
If you dont believe the ramifications of '89 are still being felt in ALL walks of life you are really under a cabbage leaf.
The only people who can gain from this "ban" are those who wish to hide past sins and omissions in their miserable lives from decent people who had and still hold principles and integrity above the short term gain.
Woomera, I am dissapointed in the process, ban the rude, racist and others who step over the line but don't do an Orwall and try to rearrange history by suppressing the facts.
C YA.
This is an AVIATION FORUM, we talk mostly about AVIATION.
If '89 isn't about AVIATION, I must be on a different rock from the Sun
There have been some who like CXXX who pushed the edges a bit for his own amusement, or is his last bit a smokescreen to hide his arrival in foreign parts?
There are those who scream about a list, which list?
The first one stopped me and many others from being employed in Aust after March 1990, and was backed up by "the Letter" which said we were unsafe to be in the same cockpit. The so called second one identifies those who produced it by direct association or consent.
If you dont believe the ramifications of '89 are still being felt in ALL walks of life you are really under a cabbage leaf.
The only people who can gain from this "ban" are those who wish to hide past sins and omissions in their miserable lives from decent people who had and still hold principles and integrity above the short term gain.
Woomera, I am dissapointed in the process, ban the rude, racist and others who step over the line but don't do an Orwall and try to rearrange history by suppressing the facts.
C YA.
PPRuNe Handmaiden
There is no ban on discussing 1989 per se. Personally, I do find it interesting to see the "back room" politics. What I don't really want to read is the "tit for tat" name calling that goes on. That is tiresome to me.
More discussion of the political machinations and skullduggery and less "name calling" and I'd be happy.
More discussion of the political machinations and skullduggery and less "name calling" and I'd be happy.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Dunnunda & Godzone
Age: 74
Posts: 4,275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK I'll try just one more time.
READ MY POST.
I'll even deconstruct it for you,
"in other than strict historical terms" = stick to the subject and events, not the man.
"or from either side aimed at the other or even by oblique reference" = no names, personal vituperation, thread hijacking, threats of violence, death wishes and any other form of behaviour that goes beyond the pale.
That does NOT say '89 is banned, or censored.
It never was or will be, save for libelous, slanderous, illegal or patently uncivilised or unprofessional behaviour.
I will continue to "censor", personal vituperation, thread hijacking, threats of violence death wishes and any other form of behaviour that goes beyond the pale = regardless of the literary quality of the post or the validity of the information contained therein, any slagging off in the post, will cause the whole post to be deleted.
So think carefully when you post, I know how much time it takes to prepare a quality post, don't waste all that time to have it deleted.
My moderating time is precious enough, without spending it editing posts for PPRuNers who simply cant be bothered thinking them through, who just shoot from the hip, or are being just plain mischievous
Oh and FYI the Thread and Post validation mode on this forum is turned OFF, for your convenience.
What does that mean for you the PPRuNer?
It means that this Forum unlike many others inc. AOPA, operates in real time, that is, you post a topic thread and it appears as soon as you hit "enter". = for your convenience and ease of use, without the DELAY of "validation" by a Moderator, when he is available.
It's because we trust you to be as balanced and professional in your conduct here as you are in your work and life.
What does that mean for me the Moderator?
It means I gotta play catch up, hard, if one of you decides to take a "walk on the wildside" = It would be much easier for all PPRuNe moderators to "validate" or "approve" EACH individual Thread and Post "before" it hits the Board, thus heading off any potential problems. = as Moderating is a voluntary labour it means when I find the time.
Think about it.
THAT is censorship, and is a mode that we ALL want to avoid, but it is an alternative available should the behaviour here become such that we need to protect the owners who provide you this opportunity GRATIS.
Never ever ever forget, it is GRATIS, even if you choose not to support us.
PPRuNe does not owe you anything other than an opportunity for ALL to compare notes on what is happening in YOUR world.
If that offends you then begone, this is clearly not the Forum for you
professional adj.& n. adj. 1 of or belonginfg to or connected with a profession. 2. a having or showingthe skill of a professional, competent b worthy of a professional (professional conduct)
profession n. 1 a vocation or calling, esp one that involves some branch of advanced learning or science.[
READ MY POST.
Until Further Notice any reference to ’89 by anyone, in other than strict historical terms or from either side aimed at the other or even by oblique reference will be deleted and if the poster continues that behaviour, he will be warned. The penalty for continual transgression will result in total banning.
"in other than strict historical terms" = stick to the subject and events, not the man.
"or from either side aimed at the other or even by oblique reference" = no names, personal vituperation, thread hijacking, threats of violence, death wishes and any other form of behaviour that goes beyond the pale.
That does NOT say '89 is banned, or censored.
It never was or will be, save for libelous, slanderous, illegal or patently uncivilised or unprofessional behaviour.
I will continue to "censor", personal vituperation, thread hijacking, threats of violence death wishes and any other form of behaviour that goes beyond the pale = regardless of the literary quality of the post or the validity of the information contained therein, any slagging off in the post, will cause the whole post to be deleted.
So think carefully when you post, I know how much time it takes to prepare a quality post, don't waste all that time to have it deleted.
My moderating time is precious enough, without spending it editing posts for PPRuNers who simply cant be bothered thinking them through, who just shoot from the hip, or are being just plain mischievous
Oh and FYI the Thread and Post validation mode on this forum is turned OFF, for your convenience.
What does that mean for you the PPRuNer?
It means that this Forum unlike many others inc. AOPA, operates in real time, that is, you post a topic thread and it appears as soon as you hit "enter". = for your convenience and ease of use, without the DELAY of "validation" by a Moderator, when he is available.
It's because we trust you to be as balanced and professional in your conduct here as you are in your work and life.
What does that mean for me the Moderator?
It means I gotta play catch up, hard, if one of you decides to take a "walk on the wildside" = It would be much easier for all PPRuNe moderators to "validate" or "approve" EACH individual Thread and Post "before" it hits the Board, thus heading off any potential problems. = as Moderating is a voluntary labour it means when I find the time.
Think about it.
THAT is censorship, and is a mode that we ALL want to avoid, but it is an alternative available should the behaviour here become such that we need to protect the owners who provide you this opportunity GRATIS.
Never ever ever forget, it is GRATIS, even if you choose not to support us.
PPRuNe does not owe you anything other than an opportunity for ALL to compare notes on what is happening in YOUR world.
If that offends you then begone, this is clearly not the Forum for you
professional adj.& n. adj. 1 of or belonginfg to or connected with a profession. 2. a having or showingthe skill of a professional, competent b worthy of a professional (professional conduct)
profession n. 1 a vocation or calling, esp one that involves some branch of advanced learning or science.[
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: OZ
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So what gives W?
Okay Woomera what’s the story?
You have a big issue with how some people decide to approach the issue of 89. I provide a forum where those discussions can take place unrestricted and you remove the thread that points to it!
The forum that the post points to in non commercial, is set up specifically for a subject that you don't want here, and is not promoted anywhere other than here.
So why did the thread get moved?
I am not in competition to PPRuNe, I was simply trying to solve a long and ongoing problem that I know from observation has haunted the moderators here for years, so do you actually want to solve it?
If so how about you restore the thread, make it sticky, and if people really want to "unload" they will know where to do it.
Keen to hear your reaction
You have a big issue with how some people decide to approach the issue of 89. I provide a forum where those discussions can take place unrestricted and you remove the thread that points to it!
The forum that the post points to in non commercial, is set up specifically for a subject that you don't want here, and is not promoted anywhere other than here.
So why did the thread get moved?
I am not in competition to PPRuNe, I was simply trying to solve a long and ongoing problem that I know from observation has haunted the moderators here for years, so do you actually want to solve it?
If so how about you restore the thread, make it sticky, and if people really want to "unload" they will know where to do it.
Keen to hear your reaction
Join Date: Jan 1997
Location: UK
Posts: 7,737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Despite Woomera's repeated attemts to clarify the situation for those determined not to understand this thread still continues along predictable lines.
History - personal and factual yes - abuse never.
Recent case law in Australia, for those of you following the press, exposes me and Danny even further than ever before. Our names and addresses are a matter of public record for us to be able to run this site for you.
Every time one of you presses the submit button our houses and livelhoods ride on the contents you transmit. The level of abuse and invective regarding '89 puts us in the position of knowing that someone will take us to the courts. However, they can't argue with facts so they are entirely welcome.
We happen to think that the Woomera team is the single most effective and tolerant one anywhere on the site. Since giving you the multiple forums we in the UK have allowed them to run their own ship entirely unhindered but Danny and I are putting the Australian forums on notice.
Ignore the policies created by your own, local moderators and Danny and I will take it personally. Australian case law and precedent now endangers our personal liberty and freedom more than any other country in the world.
Any of you willing to lose your home just so one foreigner can slag off another??
Regards from the Towers
Rob Lloyd
History - personal and factual yes - abuse never.
Recent case law in Australia, for those of you following the press, exposes me and Danny even further than ever before. Our names and addresses are a matter of public record for us to be able to run this site for you.
Every time one of you presses the submit button our houses and livelhoods ride on the contents you transmit. The level of abuse and invective regarding '89 puts us in the position of knowing that someone will take us to the courts. However, they can't argue with facts so they are entirely welcome.
We happen to think that the Woomera team is the single most effective and tolerant one anywhere on the site. Since giving you the multiple forums we in the UK have allowed them to run their own ship entirely unhindered but Danny and I are putting the Australian forums on notice.
Ignore the policies created by your own, local moderators and Danny and I will take it personally. Australian case law and precedent now endangers our personal liberty and freedom more than any other country in the world.
Any of you willing to lose your home just so one foreigner can slag off another??
Regards from the Towers
Rob Lloyd
Last edited by PPRuNe Towers; 19th Dec 2002 at 15:58.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Devonport Tasmania Australia
Posts: 1,837
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very to the point an erudite Rob.
The guts of what Rob and Woomera are saying is - leave it alone - it causes friction - it is over - cease and desist.
Not one of us has or had conrol over '89 so for God's sake - let it rest as the past.
Sure many in the airlines were hurt, some went back, some stayed, some came back - but they were all personal decisions with personal driving factors.
Look at the big picture. Mate was set against mate by Government and big business and unfortunately they won. Even goundies like me were massively affected and our lives changed for ever. Aim hate and rhetoric at the bodgie and fat man and leave each other alone. Those that went back would have suffered massive internal conflict as well.
It is over - over - over - and please do not let a 13 year old dispute hurt our friends and mentors here at PPrune.
I would like those PPruners who frequent this place to think very hard, and say that they will at least tolerate each other and try hard to bury the past in respect for Rob, Woomera, Danny and everyone else in the aviation community.
I am but a lowly groundhog, but love this industry far too much to stand by and watch the heroes of a generation fight with one another over something that was nobodys fault (at least a our level). You are airmen - proud and strong - for God's sake show your strength of character.
Get over it guys, now - otherwise Hawke and Abeles are still winning.
THAT is something that makes me feel sick to the stomach.
They must NOT be allowed to win. At least I outlived one of the b@stards and will not miss the other when he departs.
My vote is in - YES to tolerance.
Next???????
EWL
The guts of what Rob and Woomera are saying is - leave it alone - it causes friction - it is over - cease and desist.
Not one of us has or had conrol over '89 so for God's sake - let it rest as the past.
Sure many in the airlines were hurt, some went back, some stayed, some came back - but they were all personal decisions with personal driving factors.
Look at the big picture. Mate was set against mate by Government and big business and unfortunately they won. Even goundies like me were massively affected and our lives changed for ever. Aim hate and rhetoric at the bodgie and fat man and leave each other alone. Those that went back would have suffered massive internal conflict as well.
It is over - over - over - and please do not let a 13 year old dispute hurt our friends and mentors here at PPrune.
I would like those PPruners who frequent this place to think very hard, and say that they will at least tolerate each other and try hard to bury the past in respect for Rob, Woomera, Danny and everyone else in the aviation community.
I am but a lowly groundhog, but love this industry far too much to stand by and watch the heroes of a generation fight with one another over something that was nobodys fault (at least a our level). You are airmen - proud and strong - for God's sake show your strength of character.
Get over it guys, now - otherwise Hawke and Abeles are still winning.
THAT is something that makes me feel sick to the stomach.
They must NOT be allowed to win. At least I outlived one of the b@stards and will not miss the other when he departs.
My vote is in - YES to tolerance.
Next???????
EWL
Perhaps an alternative to 89 then....
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
EWL, 1989 the year is over - in that respect you are quite correct.
Unfortunately however, those that did the dirty on the the then encumbants, are AGAIN trying to practise their same rotten, underhanded tactics NOW.
read this post for further details:
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...threadid=75476
And people wonder WHY the word "scab" is used!
It was used in the correct context in 1989, and applied to a very small percentage (by 2001) of pilots working in Australia`s 2 domestic airlines - Ansett, and QANTAS domestic (QANDOM) [previously Australian, previously TAA].
In spite of much bleating about the "scab" tag given them, and the oft used "I did it for my family" line, they are at it AGAIN - no doubt with the "I`m doing it for my family.", or perhaps"We will do it for less than those greedy pilots there now".
So you see East-West , those SAME people who actively destroyed the careers and personal lives of others 13 years ago, are HELL BENT on proving YOU (and I could add The Night Owl as well) WRONG.
History attempting to repeat itself.
Fortunately we have PPRuNe today, which allows everyone REAL TIME input and extraction of ongoing events.
Unfortunately however, those that did the dirty on the the then encumbants, are AGAIN trying to practise their same rotten, underhanded tactics NOW.
read this post for further details:
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...threadid=75476
And people wonder WHY the word "scab" is used!
It was used in the correct context in 1989, and applied to a very small percentage (by 2001) of pilots working in Australia`s 2 domestic airlines - Ansett, and QANTAS domestic (QANDOM) [previously Australian, previously TAA].
In spite of much bleating about the "scab" tag given them, and the oft used "I did it for my family" line, they are at it AGAIN - no doubt with the "I`m doing it for my family.", or perhaps"We will do it for less than those greedy pilots there now".
So you see East-West , those SAME people who actively destroyed the careers and personal lives of others 13 years ago, are HELL BENT on proving YOU (and I could add The Night Owl as well) WRONG.
History attempting to repeat itself.
Fortunately we have PPRuNe today, which allows everyone REAL TIME input and extraction of ongoing events.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sydney
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Woomera,
My initial reaction to your post was to be very concerned about censorship but reading the decision by the High Court on Joseph Gutnick's action against Dow Jones I recognise, just as Danny and Rob do, that any suggestion that the internet is free of constraints is entirely untrue.
I will miss however the rants and arrant nonsence that correspondents on '89 have posted, Slasher's on this topic being a prime example.
The media knows all about the Slashers of the world, they usually come out about Christmas time, it's not called the silly season for nothing. They do provide great entertainment and that I will miss.
And if I may be permitted to distill the history we are dealing with to basics it goes like this - A union (select one - AFAP, MUA, BLF, British miners, British printers) entered into a dispute with employers/government (select as many as required - airlines/Patricks/Bob Hawke/John Howard/Margaret Thatcher) over work, pay and conditions. The union lost.
No amount of words or actions on the part of any individual or group can possibly change that outcome.
My initial reaction to your post was to be very concerned about censorship but reading the decision by the High Court on Joseph Gutnick's action against Dow Jones I recognise, just as Danny and Rob do, that any suggestion that the internet is free of constraints is entirely untrue.
I will miss however the rants and arrant nonsence that correspondents on '89 have posted, Slasher's on this topic being a prime example.
The media knows all about the Slashers of the world, they usually come out about Christmas time, it's not called the silly season for nothing. They do provide great entertainment and that I will miss.
And if I may be permitted to distill the history we are dealing with to basics it goes like this - A union (select one - AFAP, MUA, BLF, British miners, British printers) entered into a dispute with employers/government (select as many as required - airlines/Patricks/Bob Hawke/John Howard/Margaret Thatcher) over work, pay and conditions. The union lost.
No amount of words or actions on the part of any individual or group can possibly change that outcome.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: europe
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To tsnake (thats come out of the hole)
Since we have to stick to history as such :i dont beleive its fair to compare the BLF and others mentioned with the AFAP.
Historical events were not the same and/or the actions (violent demonstrations or acts on others) that were events of the other union disputes.
As far as unions always losing goes, the unions of Lufthansa, Air France ,British airways ,Delta etc etc. would beg to differ.
If they didnt have unions theyd all be flying on Impulse,Air Bruni
Maylasian,Britania, etc, etc conditions.
Maybe if the dispute was not brought on, Ansett may not have eventually collapsed?? maybe that can be a forum topic.
Since we have to stick to history as such :i dont beleive its fair to compare the BLF and others mentioned with the AFAP.
Historical events were not the same and/or the actions (violent demonstrations or acts on others) that were events of the other union disputes.
As far as unions always losing goes, the unions of Lufthansa, Air France ,British airways ,Delta etc etc. would beg to differ.
If they didnt have unions theyd all be flying on Impulse,Air Bruni
Maylasian,Britania, etc, etc conditions.
Maybe if the dispute was not brought on, Ansett may not have eventually collapsed?? maybe that can be a forum topic.
Whispering "T" Jet
East West Loco You have raised a very valid point and some food for thought.
Hawke and Abeles despised the collective Pilot group. They set about to divide the Pilots for their own political and corporate gain back in '89.
To see this division still in place after 13 years must be very satisfying for Bob Hawke and Abeles is probably being showered with the Devil's accolades down there in Hell.
Get over it guys, now - otherwise Hawke and Abeles are still winning.
To see this division still in place after 13 years must be very satisfying for Bob Hawke and Abeles is probably being showered with the Devil's accolades down there in Hell.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sydney
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beerstop,
My intent was to attempt to draw a parallel between the actions of various unions and govts/business and to define the 89 dispute as not unique or particularly significant in the scheme of things without commenting on the tactics used by some, none of which I condone.
My only caveat about BA is that while BALPA may have "won", Rod Eddington is still cutting jobs like mad.
Your point as to whether or not the dispute was the cause or even instrumental in the ultimate collapse of Ansett is a very interesting one but it would probably bring the lunatic fringe out into the open again and Woomera wouldn't like that, or me for that matter. Anyway here goes.
For what its worth I think the dispute was only a small, but very visible part of the problem.
Two events stand out in my mind as pivotal in the demise of the company, the first being Reg Ansett's refusal to give his son Bob a job in the airline in 1965 thus telling the world he had no succession plan (I hold no brief for Bob and I suspect he would have junked Ansett just as he did Budget Rent-a-Car) and secondly, Reg's disastrous involvement in Associated Securities in the mid-70's when he did possibly as much as $500m cold when the property market collapsed.
Trevor Sykes (the Financial Review's Pierpoint), in his book Two Centuries of Panic, makes a case, well before the collapse, that the airline was in terminal decline after 1979.
But then I would also have to consider the fleet decisions of the early 1980s including 767s with f/e's, Compass I and II, the GST, the passenger downturn of the mid-70s which delayed the introduction of widebodied a/c until the 1980s, the refusal of News Limited to fund fleet replacements in the 1990s, going to a three-class domestic cabin following TAA's business class, the ill-fated foray into international routes and the extraordinary decision to pour $20m into Sydney Olympic Games sponsorship and then letting QF hijack the whole thing!
There's probably a book in this lot but no one's interested in picking over the AN carcass any more.
My intent was to attempt to draw a parallel between the actions of various unions and govts/business and to define the 89 dispute as not unique or particularly significant in the scheme of things without commenting on the tactics used by some, none of which I condone.
My only caveat about BA is that while BALPA may have "won", Rod Eddington is still cutting jobs like mad.
Your point as to whether or not the dispute was the cause or even instrumental in the ultimate collapse of Ansett is a very interesting one but it would probably bring the lunatic fringe out into the open again and Woomera wouldn't like that, or me for that matter. Anyway here goes.
For what its worth I think the dispute was only a small, but very visible part of the problem.
Two events stand out in my mind as pivotal in the demise of the company, the first being Reg Ansett's refusal to give his son Bob a job in the airline in 1965 thus telling the world he had no succession plan (I hold no brief for Bob and I suspect he would have junked Ansett just as he did Budget Rent-a-Car) and secondly, Reg's disastrous involvement in Associated Securities in the mid-70's when he did possibly as much as $500m cold when the property market collapsed.
Trevor Sykes (the Financial Review's Pierpoint), in his book Two Centuries of Panic, makes a case, well before the collapse, that the airline was in terminal decline after 1979.
But then I would also have to consider the fleet decisions of the early 1980s including 767s with f/e's, Compass I and II, the GST, the passenger downturn of the mid-70s which delayed the introduction of widebodied a/c until the 1980s, the refusal of News Limited to fund fleet replacements in the 1990s, going to a three-class domestic cabin following TAA's business class, the ill-fated foray into international routes and the extraordinary decision to pour $20m into Sydney Olympic Games sponsorship and then letting QF hijack the whole thing!
There's probably a book in this lot but no one's interested in picking over the AN carcass any more.