Yesterday a certain captain was rostered to be on duty for 6 hours after an overnight with no access to food until he put his foot down and delayed a flight and personally bought some food for his crew out of his own pocket. The capitol city agent screamed!!!
How can this happen after over 4 years of operations. Have you seen some of the outposts we go to? A shed full of dead flys and maybe, just maybe, a Coke machine in the corner. No wonder they're going sick!
I didn't see the media reports but if this is true its disgusting.
Would you put your family on an aircraft that you knew had pilots and flight attendants who were tired and hungry?? Its a form of torture really. :*

Ummm, it may be a silly thought - but shouldn't the CHIEF PILOT be sticking up for his pilots?
ISn't he the "go between" between management(sic) and the pilot group? Shouldn't HE be trying to calm the waters, and maybe even try to find out WHY people are leaving ?

I agree though - the AFAP should be standing up for its MEMBERS!!! else it may not have anyone to stand up for (and pay them!).

How many REX pilots ARE members of the AFAP? Surely if 50 of them are paying 1% each week, then that SHOULD entitle them to about 20hrs of representation each week(ie 50*1% = 50% of ONE persons wage = 20 hrs)[I know that there are more factors involved than just paying a wage....] but even 10 hours per week to say... "LETS LOOK AT REX and see HOW we can help them."
rather than "lets see which exotic locations are holding seminars that we can attend then write about how good we are doing for everyone EXCEPT the people we represent!"

Try getting anything more than cursory attention to your AWA.

in my case, they were happy to let me get sucker punched in a few ridiculous clausesthey thought were of no significance - after having a copy for 10 days.

That did it for me.

I think you guys do not understand what the AFAP actually is...it isn't a union it's a Federation.

If YOU are not prepared to be proactive AFAP is nobbled...the AFAP is only as good and powerfull as it's members.

When pilots in this place whinge about how useless the AFAP was in this or that negotiation remember that the 'AFAP', as an entity, was not actually involved in those negotiations...the relevant pilot's group was the entity assisted by the resources of the AFAP. As an example the recent EA EBA was negotiated by the Eastern Airlines pilots group which is made up of a bunch of Eastern's pilots, voted onto that group by the rank and file who happen to be the companies AFAP reps....not by some faceless industrial negotiators from 'the AFAP'.

They negotiate the best deal they believe they can come up with and put that to the membership who vote for it...yes or no.

'Negotiation' is not "we want a 30% payrise and more time off and better meals period". It covers a raft of issues and the reps and company sit over a table off and on for mths and thrash out what they agree on and what the DO NOT agree on....ALL of those things are then included in the proposition put to the pilots...just because an issue is included DOES NOT MEAN the pilots group think it's good, it just means the company did.

That 'deal' is then put to the pilots group...if the majority vote yes it passes and it's NO USE coming on here and whinging you have been ripped off by the AFAP. APATHY is why you get the deal you get...98% of you are NOT prepared to stick your heads above the parapet and actually DO ANYTHING to get the outcome you desire...you leave it to the 2% who stand for election as the AFAP reps.

If you think it is actually possible, in this day and age, to achieve what the AFAP could in it's heyday in the 60 and 70s you're grossly misstaken...in those days Reg Ansett owned half the domestic airline business in Australia and the Govt, via TAA, owned the other half. The two airline policy meant they were exactly matched in airframes numbers/types, airfares and schedules. All it took was the mere threat of a strike and Reg Ansett caved in to the demands...they flowed automatically to the TAA boys...the airfares were raised in unison and life went on as before....there was NO COMPETITION.

These days everyone is competing in completely deregulated open skies...and 75% of the domestic airlines are owned or controlled by QF. In other words without ALL QF group pilots being in the same pilots group you're screwed. AIPA extended that possibility to EA/Sunnies 15+ years ago but the regional guys demands were so stupid as to make the deal impossible.

That is the current reality.

Wiggum as someone who has been a Chief Pilot I can assure you the CP is not the pilots representative to management.

A CP is CASA's representative within the company. Some CPs try to be both...I did and I can assure you there is no quicker way to run foul of your 'fellow management' than to be a CP who sticks up for the pilots...sad but true...CPs like that are sacked with monotonous regularity...and CASA does nothing.

The pilots representative is the AFAP/TWU/etc rep. He/she is the person who goes to the relevant company person (CP, OH+S etc) and voices the concerns of the pilot group over issues such as mentioned on this page.

MOST pilots NEVER stick their heads up by actually going to the rep in a timely manner and outlining the situation and MOST pilots are not prepared to stick their heads above the parapet and back up the pilot who does or the representative they elected to represent them. What they do usually is cop it on the chin and assume someone else will stick their head up...as the captain in question seems to have done.

Unless you as a UNITED group send the message via your rep to the CP that you WILL NOT FLY that duty unless x,y and z happens (and x,y and z have to be reasonable expectations) and back each other up then you have no right to whinge....never happens though because too many line pilots put career progression ahead of group solidarity...much better to get a quicker command by keeping a low profile and prodding others in the back to go forward and do the dirty work...particularly if they are more senior and sitting in 'your seat'.:ugh:

OK... so where IS the AFAP in this ? do you not agree that what the management of REX has said is derogotory to the integrity of REX pilots?

I draw your attention to RULE 1 - General, paragraph 3(a) of the AFAP RULES :
The principal objects for which the Federation is established are:
a) to protect and further the interests of the profession of Air Pilots (hereinafter called the profession), and to safeguard and improve the interests and rights of Members of the Federation.

they ain't doing a lot of protecting!

Except in Western Australia where the government, through the DPI, control non-jet routes in a legally dubious tendering arrangement. This creates a cosy duopoly between Skywest and Skippers and keeps fares higher than they should be.

http://www.dpi.wa.gov.au/aviation/565.asp

Yes
 

And in the N.T. there is a list of "preferred operators" I wonder what the ACCC thinks of that.

Interesting that Wikipedia lists it as a Union.

Chimba
 

:) Without getting into semantics of Union Vs Federation, Chimbu the Chuckler is right.
The perennial problem with pilots is that they think once sitting in the seat, as in an airline, that's all they need to do.
Well, it ain't - not if you want to make your much worked for career lucrative enough to continue it into the future.
If all you jocks want to get ahead and stop the rot of management sending you all to the poorhouse, ya gotta get involved, and you do it through the Feds. Don't ring up Laurie what's 'is name and expect him to do you bidding unless you are prepared to do your bit.
Otherwise, join the TWU - and in the long term, just see how far they get you. :ok:

AFAP missing in action
 

The AFAP was conspicuous by their absence at the SAFESKIES 2007 conference in CB last week, whilst the Gods from AIPA were very well represented and organised, talking to anyone who was willing to listen, about their vision for the future. No sign of anybody from Sth Melbourne:O

Yep!
 

:ugh: Fweb - my point exactly! :cool:

Out of interest does anyone know how much AFAP member money is being spent on court action trying to prevent AIPA from being legally able to represent QF Link and other QF group pilots?

Whether you like AIPA or not, if money is being spent fighting other unions then that to me would be a waste.

Bazza
 

350K is the number I heard.:sad:

Put it in Perspective
 

Why aren't the AFAP putting things in perspective for the public... We had a fuel surcharge, how about a pilot surcharge.

Why aren't the afap rebutting every comment made that the regionals can't pay more...

REX 1.4 million plus pax per year... Up the ticket price $8.... approx $40000 pay rise per pilot... User pays, you want the service you pay....even go to the government for the pay subsidy....not training subsity that just funds build a Rex flying school to charge pilots more money.

I left the AFAP...I joined the TWU and it got M^{^(R to the table in double time. We didn't get the best deal but we got a deal. The are an action union....

Aussie pilots need to take a take some advice from Chopper.

I must be missing something. Perhaps somebody could enlighten me.

I didn't see the televised news reports or press conference snippets, but I don't see how the "calling in sick" statement is in any way a slur on any pilot. Given how short REX are on pilots, of course a pilot "calling in sick" is likely to result in flight cancellations.

So, this was a perfectly true, reasonable and unbiased statement, given the context of "pilot shortages resulting in flight cancellations".

I would suggest it is difficult for the AFAP to defend anybody against a true statement.

Making it even more difficult is the fact that the exodus of pilots from REX is the result of pilots just doing what they traditionally always have done - that is, abandoning their current employer as soon as a better offer comes along.

As for the "poaching" word: REX have chosen to make the pilot shortage issue political, and in politics, it is the perceptions that are important - the reality often has to take a back seat.

Being political, REX were quite justified in using that word. In fact, they were just as entitled to use the word "stolen". Which words are used or what "reality" is presented is irrelevent - what matters is whether the right perception is created.

If they were successful, REX will have created, in the mind of the public, the perception that the major airlines (and the government) are to blame for the route closures and flight cancellations - not the pilots.

So, I believe the REX management have actually done the pilots a favour by pointing the finger of blame elsewhere. They could have made a big deal of the traditional "loyalty" that pilots tend to show their employers but didn't.

Unions are nothing but a sick joke........we can look at a recent case where 49 pilots were given their marching orders......followed by the largest capitulation to the company in living memory.

lets look at the HKAOA.............the only pilot representative group that I know of that has successfully "negotiated" a demise in living standards, pay,conditions, flight time limitations and retirement age. Well done chaps!!

Absolute waste of time............:ugh:

Sounds like a pragmatic union to me. Expect to see more of that.

You honestly can't believe your own tripe aircraft?, god help you if you do.:yuk:

Definition of STOLEN:-"to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force".

I have never seen a stolen piece of "property" apply to the "thief" to be stolen. :ugh:

Don't attempt to blend politics with reality, you said it yourself, they are completely independent.

You on the other hand represent perfect case of perceptions and reality aligned, you are exactly what people perceive you to be.

carbon said:
This statement demonstrates that you did not understand the point I was making.

In politics, accurate and faithful explanations are not the objective. Creating the desired perception is, so it doesn't matter which words are used or whether the description contains any truth.

REX wanted to give the public somebody to blame (other than themselves or the pilots). They chose the major airlines and the government. If they were successful in creating this perception then their choice of words was justified.