Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific
Reload this Page >

Still flying after Ansett - Vol 3 - if allowed.

Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

Still flying after Ansett - Vol 3 - if allowed.

Old 2nd May 2003, 20:01
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Devonport Tasmania Australia
Posts: 1,837
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Still flying after Ansett - Vol 3 - if allowed.

I hope Woomera will allow this, as there have been more positives than negatives in the preceeding and immensely well populated similar rooms.

Keep the same level of decorum, and maybe it will.

I just needed to say - leftfrontside - Thank you so much for what you have said. I did step on toes but out of ineptitude in phrasing what I wanted to say. The day I get nasty and venemous, I want Woomera to put a permanent block on me and my ISP.

I do not think myself worthy of being an honourary member of either group leftfrontside, as I do not and will never have the skills of you good people. My skills are doing the impossible with fare constructions and routings these days, but that comes with the inevitable disaster in the accounting system that a lateral mind produces. God help my accounts dude - he needs all the help he can get.

With regards to having the bottle that all showed in the face of a mongrel regime, I applaud you all for taking your individual stands. Apart from those that sought to do it for anything but survival or solidarity, that decision would be the hardest any of you will hopefully have to make in your lives, on both sides. In the case of us mere groundies, there was no support system such as the AFAP. I was Sales Manager Tas for Eeenie Weenie then, under the auspices of Ansett and on the skids to inevitable oblivion - no Union covered us, so we were just passengers. Same applied to the trafficys - FCU - think of he worst possible permutation of those letters and you have them totally described. Totally useless. Just a money collecting and practising disappearing acts when Members were in trouble.

I take on board the "never forgive" LFS and do understand it deep down, as I understand those that went back defending that action. The majority did what they did for reasons that they rationalised after much gut wrenching and indecision. It cannot have been easy either way.

It is nearly a Masonic Lodge, our industry. Mates I have worked with over the last 28 years are still mates, and get togethers bring back all the old memories, the good and the bad.

A stalwart of TAA DPO, Jack Snare was buried this week. Our beloved "Commission Man" (stood for election to the ANAC) succumbed to cancer, but up to 2 months ago he was regularly in my Agency discussing what the industry was doing. It is and alway is what we are, from refueller to Senior Check Captain.

My main worry for all of you now is, as I have said your vunerability as a group. If a compromise cannot be reached, then an accord must be made to watch each other's backs. We seem to be moving back into the same "dead zone" that preceeded '89, this time from external events and not necessarily Management excess. Please please please, tolerate to the point you can present a front that is truly united and strong.

I do not think Australia or the world could cope with a meltdown such as '89.

We groundhogs who worked the Airports considered 95%of the tech crew our mates, and they considered us the same but a subtle and omnipresent sense of who was in charge was all pervading. The other 5% were probably deselected from your blocks too.

The flight deck crew was our God, as it indeed should have been. Apart from a few instances from the 5%, what was said was what was done.

The internal confusion when our mates fought each other was incredibly disorienting. No ever seeing some of those wonderful guys and girls again cut deeply.

All I want is an Airline back and mates to be mates again.

Thanks again leftfrontside.

My late Uncle Ken "Boomer" Collins would approve of what you said, and that is more than good enough for me.

Best all.

EWL
Eastwest Loco is offline  
Old 2nd May 2003, 22:43
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Wybacrik
Posts: 1,192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Cool

Well, I gotta give you full marks Loco!

You should have been one of us!

Then again, I guess you really are!!
amos2 is offline  
Old 2nd May 2003, 22:48
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Dunnunda & Godzone
Age: 73
Posts: 4,275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Nurries Loco, you are doing a very excellent "moderating" job.

Woomera shall smiteth any knave from either side who gets "up close personal with you".

Unless of course she's a gorgeous, young thing, seeking succour, solace..... etc etc, blah blah blah.
Woomera is offline  
Old 2nd May 2003, 23:19
  #4 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Devonport Tasmania Australia
Posts: 1,837
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Amos - thank you too - that is high praise indeed. It also very much appreciated. I still feel I would have failed the physical though, but will settle for the position on resident idiot savant.

I am neither one nor the other amos, and cannot select a side as all were and in many cases still are my mates, and I would like to include yourself and all other PPruNers in that if I may be so bold.

Please all address the "clear and present danger" the current situation presents as one - just for yourselves, if not for each other. Just be bleeding careful and look for the hidden agendas.

Woomera - it is good to know that common sense and moderation is still no replacement for outrageous levels of testosterone. Go you good thang!

ps: Woomera - always ask for a current medical clearance and have your entire body vulcanised just to be sure.

best all

EWL
Eastwest Loco is offline  
Old 3rd May 2003, 00:50
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: From a suitcase
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Interesting how you repeat you still have ‘good mates’ on both sides, EWL. A quick question, if I may… you’re in a real family crisis – and I mean a real family crisis – where let’s say the life of one of your kids is at stake. For whatever reason, maybe a serious illness yourself, you can’t do the necessary yourself – you have to rely upon one of your mates, and it’s a huge ‘ask’, for let’s say it’s not a simple matter of a quick drive to the hospital for the person you choose, but a really hard slog, where the person you choose will have to show extreme intestinal fortitude, even courage, in keeping EWL Jnr alive, where everyone else will be screaming at him to let the child die, maybe for their own safety

It’s pretty obvious that most parents in such a horrible situation would think very carefully (if they were in the ‘lucky’ position of having more than one option in such a terrible dilemma) as to who they’d entrust with their child’s life. You’d consider many things, but surely one of your first considerations would be the track records of the people available your mates. (I won’t prolong the agony here, for everyone here must know exactly where I’m going with this.)

So which mate are you going to ask, EWL? The one from Camp ‘A’(fap), or the one from Camp (sca)‘B’?
Spad is offline  
Old 3rd May 2003, 03:51
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: in a suitcase
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
EWL thanks - compardraie appreciate your understanding.
leftfrontside is offline  
Old 3rd May 2003, 09:15
  #7 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Devonport Tasmania Australia
Posts: 1,837
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Spad

That is an interesting situation you paint, and I am sure a call to one on either side would produce the same satisfactory results.

Now, right back at you - in the same situation yourself, if the only person available within range was a "former mate" now on the other side, do you not think he would do everything he could to ensure a safe outcome? I believe he would, as I am sure you would if the help was asked of you by a former mate.

Some things go beyond personal differences, no matter how deep and bitter and such a situation I believe to be one.

Looking beyond the dispute, we are all still humans Spad and I don't think this is realy a relevant "what if" as I do not know anyone in any walk of life that would not do their damdest if called upon in such a way.

Good food for thought though.

Best regards

EWL
Eastwest Loco is offline  
Old 3rd May 2003, 10:28
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Phnom Penh, Cambodia
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
EWL,

What a diplomat you are, and I sincerely mean it. You have made it quite clear to all that you take no sides, but yet they come back at you with the most stupid scenarios looking for support, and making the ridiculous assumption that they have that support. I read nothing of the sort in your posts, just middle ground, and only a total moron could read it otherwise.

For you Spad, I would do all I could to assist you in the situation you outline, i.e., sick child etc., and I would extend that to you as well even though you`d be calling me a F$%#&%g $cab whilst I was doing it - if you were conscious.

You guys` minds must be full of $hit. Once again this is akin to likening yourselves to holocaust survivors or WWII diggers both of which are dumb analogies.

Good on you EWL. You`re a decent bloke, and I commend you on your position. So say all of us.

Last edited by phnompenhkid; 3rd May 2003 at 14:09.
phnompenhkid is offline  
Old 3rd May 2003, 10:34
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Age: 83
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
You beat me to it, EWL, but I'd like to ask Spad - If you ever found yourself in the overly-dramatic position you painted, are you claiming that you would, in spite of the obvious antipathy toward perceived "scabs", consider asking one to help? Could it be that a "scab" would be unacceptable in terms of dire assistance and, if so, then what does that say about your system of priorities? Alternatively, would you offer to help a "scab" in the same position, or would your "principles" choke you to the point of being unable to offer assistance?

Kind regards,

TheNightOwl.
TheNightOwl is offline  
Old 3rd May 2003, 10:59
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: in a suitcase
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
PPK I think we all know whose mind is the only one full of $hit on this forum, it's obvious with your limited vocabulary that you are unable to conduct a civilised debate without the sort of diatribe below.


You guys' minds must be full of $hit

leftfrontside is offline  
Old 3rd May 2003, 14:14
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Phnom Penh, Cambodia
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Are you kidding lfs? On the odd occasion I sprout something like this, and it is the worst I ever have, then you come back with this rubbish.

So it`s OK to call someone a F$%#&%g $cab, applaud such $cabs committing suicide, liken yourselves to holocaust survivors, etc., but not to suggest that somebody`s head is full of $hit. You`ve got me. You are quite obviously at the lower end of the IQ scale, if not the lowest.

I must have too much spare time sitting in the office today. Must stop this or I could end up being as fanatical and stupid as you guys.
phnompenhkid is offline  
Old 3rd May 2003, 15:24
  #12 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Devonport Tasmania Australia
Posts: 1,837
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hose it down guys, please.

I am starting to think it is easier to take sides than stay just where I am. No intentions of doing so, but please play nice.

It is patently obvious that the rift will stay. So be it. I tried, not that I had the slightest right to wade in in the first place. Thank you all for your tolerance on that point.

Fifth attempt - are you guys and girls in a position to enact a united front if management decides to wield the axe? Please have a little look at that for me and assess your risk factors and support mechanisms.

Can we at least get you to discuss this without degenerating into a slagfest?

Woomera, please hand me a number 7 nulla nulla mate. Some serious thacking needs to be enacted.

I also wait with interest to see Spad's reply.

Best all

EWL
Eastwest Loco is offline  
Old 3rd May 2003, 16:05
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Sydney
Posts: 413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
United front. I don't think so these days EWL.

Unity and pilots don't go together in Australia anymore. If management want to give us a good rogering then the best we can hope for is they use at least a modest amount of vaseline.

Qantas dont even bother consulting AIPA before they institute unilateral changes to seniority so you can see how much respect they have for the union and their own pilots.

With the world situation the way it is though pilots with jobs are sitting ducks for a "restructuring". It's happening in SIA as we speak. Not good for the young fellas coming up at the moment.
bonvol is offline  
Old 3rd May 2003, 16:10
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
‘B’ Team, (liked that one, Spad), I appreciate that it’s good debating technique, but I believe you’re (deliberately?) missing Spad’s point.

EWL, he’s asking you if had a choice of two people to carry out a task that was vitally, even terminally important to you and your loved ones, which would you choose?

(1) The one who’s displayed that he’ll go with the flow or act in his own self-interest (eg, “for the sake of his family”) when things get really tough, or

(2) one who’s shown he’ll hang in there, (maybe “on a stupid matter of principle”?), even when everyone around him is telling him that all is lost?



-------------

I know it really upsets many (most, it would seem, in the ‘B’ Team) when military parallels are drawn to the 89 business, but, without in any way attempting to put ‘the stay out’ 89ers in anywhere near the same ballpark as our soldiers who fought and died in real wars, I believe I can still ask a question using a military campaign to give an example very similar to the one Spad has put.

Everyone acknowledges that with the notable exception of the withdrawal, the Gallipoli campaign was in almost every way a total and utter cockup, from initial planning right through to the most mundane points of execution. And I’m sure that no one was more appreciative of this than the soldiers on the peninsula, right from Day One when the Australians and New Zealanders saw that they were even put ashore at the wrong *** spot to face near impossible terrain as well as Turkish guns.

If ever anyone had the right to say “This is bloody ridiculous. The leadership’s got it all wrong. We’re out of here.”, it was those men. But they didn’t. They stuck it out despite successive mistakes made by their leadership and even if they didn’t win, they prevailed. The much larger battles in France weren’t much different until the Australian General John Monash took over the ANZAC Corps – a succession of huge blood-lettings planned and directed by Generals who had little idea of what they were asking their men to face.

There were a few, even if we rarely hear of them, who did ‘get out of there’ by one means or another, either by crawling across to the enemy to surrender or by some less direct means, like desertion. (Although none that I know of took up arms against their former comrades.) [I’m drifting off the point, but after the Armistice in 1918, it’s documented that some Australian units went in search of the deserters from their units who were hiding in bunkers in the old front lines and carried out summary justice on some of those they caught.]

My question is the same as Spad’s. If later in life, you had to trust your life or your family’s lives to one of two men and one of those two men had placed himself in category ‘1’ as above in the past, which one would you choose?

I can’t say I’m sorry if this offends some, (because I’m not), but I think most people would give the same answer to my question that they’d give to Spad’s, and those who are offended by Spad’s question are in fact affronted because, however proud they say they might be of their actions in 89, they’re very uncomfortable with the answer they know damn near every person in such a situation would give.

Over to you, Ross… Tell us again how proud you are of yourself.
Wiley is offline  
Old 3rd May 2003, 18:32
  #15 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Devonport Tasmania Australia
Posts: 1,837
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Wiley, I fully understand the implications of Spad's question and embelishing the alleged character of either side will not change the answer, nor will it make a person on either side less lilely to assist the percieved "enemy" in a time of major trauma for them.

You dressed it up nicely, Wiley is indeed a good pseudonym, but the answer stands. I would not hesitate to call either becuse I fail to percieve that either group was wrong in following their personal convictions.

Hello??

Are you really there??

You are reminding me of several clients I have. They think that asking the same question a different way over and over will eventually get them the answer they want. Sadly - for them at least - it will not.

Likewise with your query. My statement stands.

bonvol - damned shame, as you are all very vunerable, which is a fallout situation of '89 and perhaps what management wanted.

It may be time to address that little problem before it bites.


Best regards

EWL
Eastwest Loco is offline  
Old 3rd May 2003, 20:27
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: in a suitcase
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Man ppk YOU are something else where do you drag up that sh......t from I could think of a lot of words to describe someone like you but I guess "microbe" just about says it all.

I'm with SPAD the whole of the World Aviation Scene knows that the "B Team" was AN after '89, their record stands as testament. A now defunct Airline and 16000 on the street. So if you hire something from that wreckage you get the "B" mob.

leftfrontside is offline  
Old 4th May 2003, 07:03
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Boldly going where no split infinitive has gone before..
Posts: 4,715
Likes: 0
Received 29 Likes on 10 Posts
“Errr… I think we’re going the wrong way to get to the Children’s Hospital, Spad.”
Said Eastwest Loco, pensively.

“Maybe so, but this is the way we ALL AGREED we would go, so we’re STICKING WITH OUR DECISTION!” Said Spad, proudly fondling his “Brian for Pope” badge.

“Yes, but surely the POINT was to get my sick kid to hostpital.” said EWL, trying to be reasonable.

“Maybe at first, but since that cop sent us on this detour, it is our DUTY to maintain our course, REGARDLESS of the consequences!!” Spad espoused.

“Mate, that sign said “Cliff ahead”, maybe we should think about stopping?”

“Never!!” said Spad, “We WILL NEVER STRAY FROM OUR COURSE, and if it hurts other people that’s just TOUGH TITTIESS (got that one from Kap M, good eh?)”

“Mate, you are headed for disaster, everyone has told you so, you are taking my family with you, LETME OUT!!!” Said EWL, leaving the vehicle.

“WHAT!!” said Spad “You TRAITOR!! You’re nothing but a SC….” His voice trailed off as the car disappeared over the precipice.

EWL picked up his sick child and trudged off towards the hospital.
Wizofoz is offline  
Old 4th May 2003, 09:02
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: australia
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I am amazed at the short memory of wiley. When it comes to similarities of a military campaign and 89. In 89 when the juniors were on bread and water for the union fight, the fat cats had already broke ranks and had applied for jobs with Cathay , SQ , Malaysian. Whist over there , they were telling us to hang in there and win the battle.When the fight was to be won , who were to be the first back? If the union had ordered us all to stay and fight as a group things might have been different. The deserters were the ones who left the battle early. These are the ones that need to tracked down and what ever.!!!
vhxxxx is offline  
Old 4th May 2003, 10:09
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
vhxxxx,

It's called selective memory.

Young F/O's at the time were always going to lose out, but this was never explained to the junior troops at the time.

You can also add Gulf Air, Emirates as destinations for those "infamous elder statesmen" from the class of '89.
M Nitpak is offline  
Old 4th May 2003, 11:20
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: honkers
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thumbs down

the AFAP asked the membership to stick together- they NEVER DID. ask Cathay Pacific, Singapore Airlines, Malaysian, Gulf Air, Emerites and the list goes on.............

the AFAP said the writs would be a scare tactic used by the companies and would be dealt with accordingly - they NEVER WERE. the writs scared the AFAP into persuading the membership to resign their positions in the companies. this allowed EVERY FOREIGN MISFIT pilot into the country (assisted by Bob Hawke) to take the jobs of decent aussie pilots.

when 700 pilots had already left for overseas jobs, the AFAP were still insisting everyone STICK TOGETHER. the companies were filling positions with overseas rabble and the AFAP really thought the pilots left standing would continue to let this debacle proceed further.

NOT IN YOUR life !
Truth Seekers Int'nl is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Copyright © 2023 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.