Mr Anthill, I appreciate your take on this but I would agree to disagree on this matter. Companies can offer sub standard deals to Australians cause they live in Australia. Companies can offer crap deals - see Rex and Jetstar EBAs that dont attract experienced pilots within our shores because they are very crap EBAs and then claim that their is a skills shortage. Enter the 457 visa's from South Africa. They will take relatively far less conditions if it means raising thir kids in OZ compared to Joburg. How would this be raising conditions?

Anthill,

Those that propose or suport the abolition of datal seniority are usually either:

1. Those who have already achieved a command and now want to remove the last obstacles that prevent them getting exactly what they want wrt bidding, leave, etc,
2. Those who want a command and feel that they should be entitled to jump the queue because they feel that they already meet their own definition of someone who's put in the hard yards previously, or are someone who's smart enough to get the job above others.
3. Those who've already jumped the queue and are trying to justify their actions.

I know in your post that you stated that you work for neither J* or QF etc... so these definitions probably don't apply to you. But I'll say again what I've said previously in another thread that talked about datal seniority.

Say it was YOU that wanted the command, and somebody who was younger, "better qualified"/prepared or who had been in the company for less time than you got the job. If you could put your hand on your heart, wish the person well and think to yourself "better luck next time .... i'll just have to work harder", then you have a case (and are probably a much better person than most on this BB.

Ok, I have now read the entire transcript of proceedings at FWA and it appears there is more to this than meets the eye.

The following is a direct quote from the transcript. My bolding

"Mr L Cox: If the tribunal pleases, Cox, initial L, for the Australian Federation of Air Pilots, seeking leave to intervene in the matter. We are a direct party to the award and also there are a number of pilots who are providing specific instructions in this matter."

From this it is reasonable to assume that the AFAP were acting on instructions from their members. It also appears that this ROR agreement was well known about but no one took much notice till it reared its ugly head. The DEC's are obviously AFAP members and asked the AFAP to represent them to enforce the provisions of the ROR agreement. This happened to concur with what management wanted and if you read the transcript you can see why.

When you allow management to tinker with a seniority system this is what can happen.

IMO the ROR should never have been agreed to in the first place. If you are on the bottom and you get sent to Darwin or wherever, you stay there until your number gets you out.

I am not in any way affected so feel free to enlighten me if there are other mitigating factors.

G'Day Shark,

The points that you raise supporting seniority are not an attack on my arguments. Objective debate demands that we play the issue, not the man.

I realised Seniority was a bad idea about 22 years ago when my Cheif Pilot at the time called me into his office and said "Anthill, we're getting B1900s. You, me, Bill Bloggs and Fred Nurk are going on course as the first crews". This cohort comprised seniority numbers 2,1,3 & 4 respectfully. None of us had flown turboprop or multi crew. I asked whether the 2 new guys (sen. nos. 21 & 22) would be considered as the each had 10,000+ and had flown B200, Do228, CASA 212s, The CP told me that they would get to fly the new aircraft "when they have done their time". My aversion to datal seniority is not new.

Wouldn't it be a better industry if we all would be like this? However, most people go for the short term gain and because of this miss the point that the seniority system serves to reduce our terms, conditions and career options. I am at least selfish enough to see that.

Anthill, you have correctly identified that there is a "dysfunctional market" for pilots. However, I'm not sure the seniority/no-seniority arguments encapsulate the actual problem.

The simple problem is there are many sellers (pilots), and in effect only two major buyers (airlines). This is a monopsony - the opposite of a monopoly (many buyers, few sellers). This tends to significantly distort the market power to favour the buyers.

The strength of arguments both for and against seniority/brown-nosing models show that whichever model is used, the dominant market power has a range of tools available to significantly distort the market to favour the buyers.

The only way to remedy this is to reduce the number of sellers, either band together as a single union or as a commercial entity (crewing company).

Anthill,

I don't think I've played the man at all. My three "definitions" include the likely emotions of some of the players involved - I have deliberately not made any derogatory remarks concerning those individuals who may fit these three definitions; just laid out my opinion of the likely motivations involved.

You are attemting to debate datal/non-datal seniority without considering the emotion of those involved. When it comes down to who gets promotions, believe me, there will always be a lot of emotion involved.

Although you quoted my question in your repsonse, you didn't directly answer it. If you can say "yes, I would be happy for that person to get that promotion instead of me", then you are an incredibly rare commodity in an industry where the general catchcry is "Every man for himself".

I have no problems with datal seniority, other than leave allocation. In Qantas, we were all told that we were "recruited to be Captains, not S/Os or F/Os". Therefore, everyone is deserving of a chance. Those who feel that they would struggle during an upgrade, do not have to apply for promotions, while others who come up for promotion are required to undergo simulator sessions to determine whether they are suitable (or ready) for an upgrade. So the system already has some checks and balances.

The problem that I see with any other form of promotional system is that I cannot think of one other variant that is not open to corruption and abuse by either the individuals or the system. I'm afraid I also can't see the link between seniority and T&Cs.

No. If Seniority was abolished Australia wide tomorrow in all airlines any Australian FO would have to leave the country as we would be inundated by every Australian Passport holder, Permanent Resident holder, Members of the commonwealth who hold jet commands overseas. All that would happen is that you would have to go overseas to get the experience to be able to come back to Australia. Australian aviation is hard enough the way it is without this extra hurdle thrown in.

Don't forget it is not a level international playing field. In Asia, Europe and the Middle East there is no GA. You start in a Jet or possibly a regional. So whilst you battle your way through all the BS over here guys at your same level in Asia/India/Europe are sitting in a jet. Plenty of Australian pilots in the past have been unable to get a Jet job in Australia have gone overseas to Europe/ME/Asia and picked up jet jobs and quick commands. Do we really want to force Australian pilots to go overseas just for the privilege of being able to get a command in Australia?

The other point of consideration is that with direct entry commands Airlines could potentially drill down wages to ridiculous levels by advertising high minimums for jet commands and then sponsor people from third world countries who have the experience and are willing to work for peanuts just to be able to qualify for permanent residency.

I believe REX tried to pull such a stunt a few years ago but couldn't pull it off because the salary wasn't high enough to qualify for the work visa.

Oligopsony I think is what you're after Mr Burrito Man.:E

Taco Bill.

You make a good point Burrito- a combined pilots’ association is absolutely fundamental to creating a level playing field.

Alas, no matter how compelling the economic theory, suspect there are too many near sighted Neanderthals more interested in ego and power for it to happen simply because it’s good for pilots. In the absence of unifying self interest, no doubt union in-fighting and representative short sightedness will continue unabated.

Your idea of a pilot owned ‘labour providing co-operative’ may be able to provide the necessary self interest, but even if the ACCC didn’t rule it anticompetitive, can’t really see AFAP, AIPA, VIPA or the TWU for that matter, providing the funding necessary to give birth to the idea.

An alternative first step would be shareholder support for the establishment of a South West Airlines style operation in Australia that could lead the way, but given that VB hasn’t gone that way and Qantas has set up Jetstar to divide and conquer; regretfully can’t see this embryonic step happening anytime soon.

Then again, necessity is the mother of invention. :hmm:

Sorry....did I miss something??? There's a combined GA/regional union?
Where.....sounds FAR too good to be true!?:eek:

For those who are pro-merit, anti-seniority for promotions, explain to me exactly how you measure performance?

Ranking pilots by their performance in simulators, line checks etc is far from foolproof and extremely subjective. Pilots are often assessed by their peers, their mates and in some cases their adversaries.

Can anyone give an example of an airline where performance is accurately used as a means for promotion? I'm just curious how it works, assuming you have two or more candidates with similar backgrounds and experience levels applying for the same position.

Jetstar for one, where senority is a "major considersation". Not the sole consideration. The argument is not to abandon seniority altogether here.

Just about every other carrier in the world, bar a couple of dying legacy carriers works in similar fashion through different variations. I know TL, as I've worked for some.

The point being discussed runs deeper than just promotion though: it relates to change of aircraft type, change of base, redundancy lists, etc.

A myriad of complex scenarios.

The business model at Jetstar is too complex for strict datal seniority.
-The operation is growing too quickly
-Has introduced many aircraft types rapidly
-Has too many bases, which it tends to close/open/vary all too flipantly
-Is a complex mix of operation
-Has a wide range of experience levels
-IS A LOW COST CARRIER

Want strict datal seniority and what it can afford, then there's always QF.

To further add to the mix, Cathay Pacific Australian-based pilots will be 'on-shored' as of 01 July this year. They will probably form their own Australian offshoot of their Hong Kong Association but it will probably also need to be 'attached' to an existing Australian union. CX crew I have spoken to would not touch AFAP or AIPA with a barge pole that had a French letter on the end. My personal experiences during 'that year' (the start of the Great Australian Pilot Race to the Bottom):

AFAP: lost my last job for me, and still not relevant to airline pilots

AIPA: during 'that year', didn't say 'boo' when 'war' was declared on the domestic pilots, flew domestic passengers and Ansett management around Australia, and welcomed the 'heroes' into the fold when TN was wound up. And now not representative of all QF Group pilots.

What price the TWU?

Some of this is a bit before my time so it may not be spot on. It's been gleaned from discussions with my colleagues who were there when it happened as well as some research into the dispute for various uni assignments.

That's inaccurate. AIPA said quite a bit to AFAP at the time. They told them not to be bloody idiots in the manner in which they were pursuing what they wanted. They also told AFAP what the outcome would be and explained why they wouldn't be following the AFAP down that path.

I don't think they did. My reading of the dispute (uni assignment) indicated that the domestic legs of international flights were NOT used to fly domestic passengers except for those who were flying (say) LAX-SYD-MEL. IE they were 'through' passengers. I also recall that the reason for this was AIPA standing firm on the basis of Aussie law at the time. It was a few years later that the law was amended to allow pax to fly domestically between international terminals.

Given QF didn't fly domestic passengers then I'm not sure how this would have occurred unless those pax went o/s first. I recall many people flying SYD-AKL-MEL if they had to get to MEL and so perhaps this is what you mean?!? Either way, I'm not sure what they're supposed to do.

This one is something that I didn't cover in my uni work and something that I haven't often discussed with colleagues so I'm not sure how it actually went down. I do know that there are still some SH crew who are not members of AIPA. I do know that there are many SH crew (from '89) who have provided valuable service to AIPA. Whatever occurred, iff this is enough to preclude some Aussie based CX drivers from joining AIPA (who count among their membership about 1500-1600 mainline pilots and another few hundred J* and QLink pilots who weren't even employed by the QF group prior to 93) then they're cutting off their nose to spite their face.

Anyway, whether AIPAs rules would allow it I'm not certain. I know that they're keen to be a part of a more coherent national association.

I'd say they're closer to being the representation of choice now due to the efforts over the past 3-4 years than at any time in their history. My reading on the subject would indicate that they are far more representative of the various 'haul's than the AFAP ever were of long haul prior to the split.

Captain Dart, I totally agree with Keg's response and I'll also add that during the dispute there were 4 non scheduled domestic flights operated by QF pilots because of compassionate reasons - those flights had prior approval by the AFAP executive at that time. If you don't think that AIPA offered any support during that dispute, why don't you go have a chat to the senior executives - I'm sure when they tell you the truth, you'll have a different view.

Now hopefully we can get back to the thread.

I was told by an ex AIPA president that AIPA ran everything by the AFAP.

Jesus, can't you guys move on.
God help us if there are still morons out there making their choices based on the events of 20 years ago.

Get over it!

I don't believe that the guys and girls involved in 89 will ever totally get over 89, although they seem to have mellowed. Hows EK at the moment Vorsicht?Have you completed your upgrade?:ok:

Anthill I agree with your take on seniority. I don't underestimate the difficulty of unscambling the egg or that there may be some losses in the short term but in the long term the restriction of our ability to move means that we give away one of our biggest levers, the ability to move our labour.

Its similar to home loans with banks. We don't chop and change our mortgages because of the cost of moving is too high, therefore the banks don't need to work too hard to hold our bisness.

Yep, just about done. EK sad, looking for job back in OZ, so hope the DEC option stays open a little longer.

History repeats...
 

Vorsicht, while I agree that we shouldn't dwell on the past, we must NOT forget it and the events that surrounded it. It is a part of history and history will repeat itself if we do nothing different and don't learn from what happened.

Someone once said that the definition of stupidity is doing the same thing over again expecting different results.

It is only a matter of time before this situtation arises again and how it is handled will be dictated by the experiences of the current pilot group.

While there are numerous groups attempting to represent pilots, none do it really well (in my limited experience and from the bitching that goes on in these forums). Until there is an umbrella organisation that unites the various organisations on the major issues that effect all pilots and provides one voice to government/industry then nothing of any significance will ever really happen.

It would mean that if there are conflicts between say GA and Airline pilots - these issues could be sorted out in the umbrella organisation (and not in the public forum) and decided for the good of the industry as a whole and not for a section of the pilot group.

I was 15 years old during the pilot strike and remember it as a time when the government did whatever they had to to keep the image that they were in control. Nothings changed.

The public (travelling passengers and aquaintances) still believe pilots are paid extremely well (like doctors/lawyers) and we don't work much because of our restrictive (in their opinion) flight and duty time limitations. Not once (that I'm aware of) has an organisation representing pilots has ever come out and told the reality of wages or explained how flight and duty limits work (or how they don't). When that happens then perhaps our plight may fall on more sympathetic public ears and government/industry can't peddle out the usual overpaid/underworked line.

I agree with Anthill's take on seniority. I am not aware of any industry in the world where you can be a senior manager in one company, but if you choose/forced to move, say to be closer to a sick relative, then your only choice is to start at the bottom again.

Off soapbox...

Vorsicht, the only DEC positions likely near future these parts are Tiger or Jetstar NZ. You will need a second job at the brothel if you agree to bend over in Aukland. Choose carefully, good luck.

I can think of one mitigating factor...my old mate PK! They have only just got the smell of ****e and cloud of self servingness out of the AD rex office and I was wondering where it had floated off too!...Darwin I believe. Some people in Rex couldn't wait like the others to get their command back so pulled the necessay strings to 'jump the que'. I'm sure my old mate isn't really going to commute to DN for the rest of his life, and with a nose as brown as his it looks like he won't have to! Some people never change!

Ansett management were flown by QF pilots, I saw several of them on board a 747 with my own eyes when paxing QF MEL-SYD for a QANTAS interview after resigning from AN in 'that year', and they saw me. (QF job was offered and politely declined to join CX). Also spoke to domestic passengers sharing taxi who were travelling QF. And never heard anything from AIPA to the effect that our actions were not advisable.

Anyhoo, back to the thread. QF, J* and VB pilots are at present fragmented between two unions with the prospect of Australia based CX pilots forming and/or affiliating with a third. Cathay Pacific and Dragonair pilots in Hong Kong have their own 'umbrella' organisation, HKALPA. It is time for a similar setup in Australia as an alternative to the 'dinosaur' pilot unions we have now. Otherwise it's the TWU for me and many colleagues.

There was. It was called the AFAP. It covered all pilots in Australia. It had the exclusive right until 1981. It was a forum for bickering pilots. TN V AN, TN and AN V QF, airline V GA, one state branch V another state branch, old captains V the rest who wanted their jobs .
AUSALPA or any other version is no panacea for the perceived ills of todays Australian aviation world.
In the modern era of AIPA covering QF and JQ pilots and in the unlike event of the much touted GOAL being acheived, if all the expansion is in JQ for example, who gets preference for the Captains' jobs; QF F/os or JQ F/Os? Who gets first hack at A330 positions? Does a new hire JQ direct entry Captain recruited last year get preference over a QF F/O whose been in 15 years? Don't tell me datal seniority will rule and don't tell me a system based on merit will be anything other than a quagmire of bitter competing pilots.:eek::eek::eek::eek:

So, as a line pilot, you get a complete rundown of every passengers name and occupation before you fly every sector do you? You then religiously go through it to determine the industrial status of each one those passengers?

If a dispute by another union was was in progress you would then unilaterally apply an illegal secondary boycott to those passengers you magically identified and expose yourself to massive damages, as well would you?

No, of course you wouldn't. Neither did any QF pilot.

But don't let ignoring the base realities of our job stop you from making silly statements about people in an organisation you patently know nothing about.

Ok, slight thread drift..

At companies where Meritorious promotion occurs prospective candidates have been typically identified by the C&T establishment well in advance. It would be 'ethical' to have a promotions committee to oversee the process so as to keep the process transparent and fair. A promotions committee would/should comprise the CP, head of C&T, some check captains, training captains and line captains also a representative of the pilots union (preferably a captain so as to prevent any 'deals' being made).

It is difficult for a management to be 100% ethical, all of the time. High ethics should, of course, be an overiding priority. This should be understood. The application of datal seniority does have as a redeming feature a reduction of personal bias. However, the selection of a candidate for any position is an intrinsically subjective and discriminatory process.

Despite the seeming objectivity of datal seniority, I am aware of instances in absolutely strict seniority companies where Managment has manipulatued the process to acheive an outcome which subverted the so-called 'protection' of datal seniority. Defamation laws prevent me from giving specific details.

As some other posters have pointed out, the topic is a very emotional one. Despite ones person preference towards either system, it is valueable to at least discuss the various options - if only to re-inforce our own preference!

OK, enuff said about 'that year', I was just telling what I saw in response to a previous posting, Capt Kremin. And if my union gave me appropriate guidance I would do what was required.

Now, having stated my own position, with the prospect of several hundred Cathay Pacific pilots 'onshoring' to Australia this year, would anyone from either the AFAP or AIPA care to offer a 'sales pitch' as to should other Australian-based CX crew align themselves with either organisation, if at all?

My understanding is that relatively informal discussions have occurred and are ongoing.

Strangely enough the discussions are being conducted through more appropriate channels than Pprune. :rolleyes:

Partial response from the AFAP. If true shows AIPA as pretty amateur.

"AIPA made this application without notifying the Federation who is the only direct union party to the agreement.

AIPA are seeking to protect QF rights into Jetstar under the MOU which is contrary to strict seniority and will disadvantage many current and future Jetstar pilots. The application has been made under the wrong sections of the Fair Work Act.

The application is seen as a blatant attempt to raise the profile of AIPA as an organisation which has nothing to do with seniority.

The Commissioner refused the application because he had no power under the legislation or the Agreement to make any orders as sought by AIPA. The Federation ’ s intervention did not influence this outcome. If AIPA ’ s arguments had merit, the Commissioner would have granted its application.

Finally, and hypocritically, AIPA has previously made an offer to the Company to support the ROR policy (offer made in a letter 11 th September 2009) provided that future changes are approved by JPA.

The ROR policy was opposed by the Federation in correspondence to the Company in June 2009.
Notwithstanding our opposition at this time, the Company has the discretion to determine its own policy in accordance with the wording of clause 21.8 and 21.11.

The question is whether in determining its own policy, the observance of clause 21.8 would be expected to meet the company ’ s needs in the circumstances."

Bonvol,

I'd argue it makes the AFAP look pretty amateurish. They interverned in the wrong case! Instead of seeking leave to invervene in the hearing about seniority, they decided to back jetstar about relocating crews 3 weeks before a hearing about the legality of it. In order to show their displeasure at AIPA they were willing to put their pilots in the terrible position of being awarded basings and training with no certainty.

I agree with one sentiment, however - them sticking their oar in had no ultimate affect on the decision. That was the commissioners belief that it was on Jetstar's head that they'd have to sort out their own mess if AIPA wins the next case, and that the economics of crewing their aeroplanes was more important than crew stability.

The AFAP will have to argue that they should be allowed to intervene in the case in FEB, as it is an entirely DIFFERENT case in front of a different commissioner.

Well, one things for sure. It will be interesting to see if AIPA can convince FWA to unscramble the egg.

A Comfy Chair,

Same case Same Commissioner

It looks fairly self evident to me that the AFAP has used the fact that they are respondents to the EBA in a malicious attempt to undermine the majority view of J* pilots for the sole purpose of political point scoring between themselves and AIPA.

Regardless of who is right and who is wrong here, it would appear that AIPA were acting on the wishes of a majority of J* pilots and the AFAP weren't. Which put another way, the AFAP do not act in the best interests or wishes of the majority of their members.

There would be a caveat to the above comment. And that is that it is possible that so many J* pilots have joined AIPA, that the few pilots in Darwin may well represent a majority of AFAP members. In that case, I would have to concede that the AFAP have acted correctly.

V

Captain Dart, I don't know about the situation under the FWA, but I am pretty sure that if you are Australian based in an airline performing the majority of its flying internationally out of Australia, then AIPA has automatic coverage.
It is one of the reasons that there is no actual airline called Jetstar International. If there was then coverage would have gone straight away to AIPA.
Now whether this applies in your case, who knows.

Thanks Capt. Kremin, we will see...but I am still interested in the opinions of rank-and-file members of both unions on this matter.

As in which association you should make enquiries with? In reality you need to do your homework and do both.

Which do I personally think is able to serve you more effectively? AIPA. It's bigger, got deeper pockets, is used to representing crew engaged in longhaul international ops, has a better idea of the 'big picture' (as evidenced by recent AFAP actions), etc.

Note: I'm a 15 year AIPA member and have never been formally involved at any level with AFAP. I've never served on the AIPA COM (although that may change in the next year or 2). My knowledge on the AFAP is based upon reports on PPRUNE, contributions by Lawrie Cox both here and in the wider media, and discussions with colleagues who have been members of the AFAP.

Jetstar Pilots be warned... Qantas pilots bearing gifts!

Caveat: The following is a generalisation; but according to this thread, majority rules right..

A little history regarding AIPA...
I had a bit to do with AIPA some years back, namely the QF pilot integration "dispute". Whereby, it was very easy to prove QF was deliberately pillaging its Ansett owned regional airlines for pilots, however barely recruiting a soul from its own regionals. Makes business sense I guess, but not overly fair for those within the QF regional ranks wishing to further their career.

AIPA's president of the time came to speak to us en masse (by invitation), and made it blatantly clear that his membership had absolutely zero interest in becoming involved in the ensuing legal action, other than to support the company in locking regional pilots out.
I found him, and by default the majority of those he represented to be arrogant, self serving and myopic. AIPA then went further in creating LIFELONG enemies by having a senior 747 Captain take the stand in the subsequent legal action, saying under oath, that regional pilots would not be suitable for a Qantas long haul operation, as they "lacked instrument flying experience". As well as similar comments of idiocy.
Yes, it's true, read the transcript.
Another important note: AFAP supported the regional pilots throughout this legal battle, when ultimately it would have been to their membership numbers detriment had the case had won. Every regional pilot would then have fallen under AIPA's banner on employment.
That's pragmatic representation...no?

AIPA were warned that they may have awoken a sleeping giant amongst the regional pilot group with their attitude. It was nothing short of hatred at the time. Naturally, QF management could see this division as a potential windfall, and the seed was sewn for seeking the option of encroaching on the domestic jet market, offering a slightly lesser package to regional pilots. Who naturally would have jumped at the chance.
Ultimately through circumstance, it fell into the lap of Impulse. And full credit to those within Impulse who had the foresight to negotiate the deal. Many owe those people the jobs they now hold within Jetstar.

So ultimately, I feel AIPA is partly resonsible for the creation of Jetstar. And funnily enough, despite all AIPA's venom against Jetstar on it's inception, now want us as "friends" and have us join their spiteful union.

You can't tell me that there isn't an ulterior motive; like the re-establishment of QF ghost numbering on the JQ seniority list. Especially that now it would seem that JQ is the only facet of the business with any real expansion? Or maybe to try and create parity in pay and conditions will ultimately take the heat off QF mainline, potentially at JQ's expense however?
Any which way you look at it, its to serve their own purpose, as it has always been. And if push were to come to shove, JQ pilots are the lesser portion of their membership, and will be out voted on just about everything.

So for those younger generation of JQ pilot who have fallen for the slick spoon salesmen tactics of AIPA and its cohorts within JQ, be warned the Trojan horse.

JQ was formed, exists and will continue to grow because industrially it isn't QF. For greedy pilot's to try and make it such will only see the whole shebang put to bed. And maybe that would suit AIPA right down to their socks.

And for the record, I wonder how many AIPA members are even aware that AIPA is spending a small fortune on this current FWA case regarding Jetstar's (quite legal in my opinion) Right of Return implementation relating to the pilot displacement/base realignment FSO at Jetstar? Certainly those friends of mine at QF weren't aware.

It's all smoke and mirrors: AIPA's case is designed at achieving:
1. To prove to JQ pilot's that they're the schoolyard bully - and that they're the tail wagging the dog where they come from. May get a nasty shock at JQ however...
2. Create mass disruption to JQ expansion plans (tie the whole thing up in a legal quagmire), stifling training plans, costing the company millions.

No one doubts Jetstar senior management made a mess of the base realignment - but lets be pragmatic about its unwinding, as they seem to be.
The irony is, there will be so much expansion if we work WITH the company, everyone will end up ultimately where they want to be, in the chair they want to be in, within the next 12-24 months anyway.

Let's leave AIPA and their agenda out of it.

Kremin - AIPA does not represent V Aus crew. As the years go by I think AIPA are going to find themselves swimming in ever decreasing circles, much of it their own making. Don't get me wrong, I am no fan of any airline management or what has happened to Flight crew T & Cs, but AIPA are the QF mainline union, and only ever will be the QF mainline union.

I recall a time when the accusation was that AIPA was the QF long haul union and only ever will be the QF long haul union. Just as AIPA has progressed to encompass and effectively represent it's SH operation, so too is it able to effectively represent J* crew, V Aus crew, CX crew in Australia, etc.