AFAP not at the table in SAR Pilot Award ??
 

An advertisment appeared on the AFAP web site recently looking for pilots to fly CL604 for Cobham on the new 12 year AMSAR contract. Pay & conditions were not settled when the advertisement was posted but have since been finalised in the Cobham SAR Services Aircrew Enterprise Agreement, 2015.

The Aircrew Enterprise Agreement is to cover the; Captain, Co-Pilot, Aircraft Mission Coordinator, Drop Master & Visual Observer.

The parties bound by the Agreement are the employer, the employees and the TWU, subject to an application. There is no mention of the Australian Federation of Air Pilots representing it's members in this tax payer funded contract.

GEORGE


New Age / New Speak Alert # 2
"By curtailing frivolous and "fighting" words, the Party seeks to narrow the range of thought altogether, such that eventually thoughtcrime will be literally impossible. The same goes for disruptive or subversive behaviour."

https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/doc...G2015_5900.pdf

They are too busy trying to steal pilot membership from other Companies maybe!!

Good to see the TWU representing more pilots in EBAs. Their current National Coordinator is a smart guy.

The reason is in your location, Blair... ;)

Chadzat,

I suggest you read the document before you pat the TWU on the back.....

AFAP wouldn't have negotiated such a poor agreement! :ok: They either weren't involved or left the table!

No wonder the TWU are one of the listed Unions at the royal commission into trade union corruption! :D

FMC.

The current situation with the guys and girls flying the 717 is one very good indication of what is to come when the TWU handles the enforcement your agreement. Good luck with that one :rolleyes:

Don't think they need to "steal" members . Their numbers speak for themselves. Having said that I'd say they'd be dwarfed by the truck working union. Did twu support/promote integration? Haven't kept up to date with what happened but I'd say it would come in handy given the recent events with the F50. Are VARA on the list or just the atr?

Errr, I think you're talking about an entirely different airline there...

Fair comment, I think, FMC.

Leads me to wonder, did the AFAP even know these 'negotiations' were on? Or did Cobham muddy the waters to get a favourable 'agreement' without talking to the pilot group (who haven't been selected yet) or even negotiating with the usual Pilot's industrial representative, the AFAP?

Where does this leave SAR Pilots, when they are eventually chosen? Do they have to join the TWU now for industrial representation, and does the TWU have anything to offer the pilots, since the TWU has no aviation technical expertise? Is AFAP membership of any use now to a pilot with an eye to these positions?

It's difficult to see a future employee ballot allow AFAP representation now; since, for the SAR Pilot positions, the employee group has been diluted & swamped by other categories, now called SAR Air Crew: (Captain, Co-Pilot, Aircraft Mission Coordinator, Drop Master & Visual Observer) making a ballot to allow the AFAP in the workplace problematic at best

Isn't this a 'Green Fields' operation? Why would they need any Union to negotiate an agreement? They could simply write their own and present it to the pilots that they then employ.

Whether they needed a union or not is immaterial. The fact they excluded the only union with any serious aviation contract acumen is. You know they are intimidated by you when they ignore you.

The naivety in this industry amazes me. Do you know how many Aviation (Pilot and otherwise) agreements the TWU has been a party to and even negotiated single handedly over the past few decades Blitzkrieger? Find out and get back to us.

I can tell you that at one of the majors - the AFAP is only a party to 3 out of 15 agreements company wide and the TWU is party to 6 or 7 of those 15. Pretty experienced if you ask me.

Hey Chadzat Smart Cookie your bloke in the Twuckies Union. $133K a year for a Capt? Maybe for a blue singlet type driving a 'B' double Darwin to Melbourne. Contract must have fallen short $ so the first thing they do is attack wages. Not the thousands of staff at head shed located at the City of Churches.

Chadzat, I am sorry to have offended you.

I used the term acumen for a reason. Being prilofic is fine, but being effective carries far more import.

I've searched the FWC website and I'm not seeing a EA or similar. Could we be talking about a draft document here? In any case $133K will see low time, inexperienced Captains that will bring with them RISK to the operation. I hope AMSA will take particular attention to what Cobham are applying?

Follow the link in the first post.

Green fields
 

I stand to be corrected on any of this.....

rmcdonal
I suppose it depends how 'green fields' is defined. I don't think it's relevant, considering Cobhams is actively involved in a great deal of Australian aviation and has an on going relationship with the AFAP through its various workplace agreements. I followed the links from the AFAP web site, to Cobhams and on to the Be Found application page. The application for the SAR Pilot positions was titled SAPL (Surveillance Australia Party Limited) - which makes it difficult for me to see that there is not a relationship between Cobham SAR Services and Pilots through Cobhams and the AFAP. (BTW I didn't apply.)

If there is no relationship then Cobhams could
Normally this would be fine. When the pilots realised they were getting a ****e deal, they could join the AFAP. With sufficient members in the Pilot workforce, the AFAP gets a toe-in and a seat at the next EBA. Not so in this case because the new agreement lumps Pilots together with the three crew down the back.
Pilots represent only two out of five Aircrew, just 40% of the workforce, so in a ballot they are unlikely to get the numbers required to force AFAP representation.

Looks like there will be a bunch of Piss Poorly Paid Pilots, totally under the thumb of Cobhams, with no prospect of IR support and industry expertise that the AFAP provides.

They'd all better join the TWU then. They all work in/on transport, don't they? :ok: :}

Why would the non pilot crew not support their pilot colleagues who suggest a better deal is possible FOR ALL by utilising the AFAP?

What do you think is a reasonable salary for pilots on that size aircraft flying maybe 250 hours a year?

I might be mistaken but I thought any individual can nominate anyone else as their bargaining agent to represent them at negotiations.

It doesn't need a percentage or number as far as I am aware.

Typical Cobham.

This is what they will probably tell pilots:

"It is a VOLUNTARY EBA. You don't HAVE to sign it.
Just if you don't then we can't employ you.
It is YOUR decision which you have free choice to make"

How the f*ck is that a choice? How is that VOLUNTARY?:yuk:

The initial EA will be greenfields. For a non-greenfields agreement, s176 of the Fair Work Act gives an employee this right. So employees can nominate their own bargaining agent for subsequent agreements.

pithblot Just because Cobham advertise on the AFAP webpage, and have other agreements with the AFAP does not entitle the AFAP a seat at a Greenfields negotiation, and by Greenfields I mean a brand new EBA with no one currently employed under it. The AFAP can only go into bat for their pilots, at this stage there are no pilots, so it makes it a bit difficult to represent them.

When an EBA comes up for renegotiation, all affected parties are asked who they would like to represent them. All the AFAP needs is one pilot to ask to be represented by the AFAP and they can become party to the agreement.
What, however, will be interesting to see is how this works out with the non-pilot side of the negotiation. The AFAP are not allowed to represent non-pilots, so this EBA would always need a TWU or equivalent Union to be involved. It places everyone in a difficult position whereby the terms of employment for one group can be altered by another group who are not affected by them (e.g. an observer gets to vote on how much a Captain makes).

If the terms are not to your liking then don't take the job. Simple. It's just like any other job in the country. If the terms really are unsuitable then they will not get the people they need and will have to increase the offer (witness SAPL 2007 for how this works!) I kind of suspect that they will not get the interest they need with what they are offering, but lets see.

If you are unhappy with the terms but take the job anyway, then you are part of the problem, and have no right to complain.

New jets, decent crew bases, plenty of time to pursue other interests......most turboprop drivers and half the light corporate jet jockeys in the country will be falling over themselves for these jobs. I suspect prurient interest here on Pprune from pilots who know they have a snowball's chance in hell, hence the sour grapes comments.

If I was 20 years younger I would be putting up my hand for one of these gigs. It would be great to be paid while working on the yacht.....or for those so inclined, to restore motorbikes, renovate old houses, farm chooks, whatever. $133k for maybe 300 hours a year and standby at home with 8 years guaranteed income - pick me, pick me! For anyone over 40 recently out of the RAAF and/or who is not already in an airline job, what's not to like about that unless you really have no life but flying? Or a mortgage that, knowing you are a pilot, your bank should have never advanced to you in the first place.

While the training will probably be quite demanding, the job itself won't be particularly hard yakka. There will be the usual bull**** factor that is built in to most para military operations, but Cobham know how to select pilots with the right tolerance for that. On second thoughts, I would have never been a suitable candidate.

Cobham already have form running this type of operation here and overseas, so they know exactly where they need to set the bar to get the people they want. No higher, no lower.

the usual bull**** factor that is built in to most para military operations :ok:

Mach E Avelli
 

True, (not new jets however, new to Cobham maybe) assuming they allow stanby/reserve away from the airport at all, and if so you are a maximum of 30 minutes away.

If enough people chose to have the AFAP represent them then I suspect that will happen, otherwise it will be like other divisions within Cobham were the majority do not want to be represented by them. Its a democracy and number speak for themselves, (although some don't seem to appreciate that) we dont need any union/organization shoved down our throats.

What has the TWU done for aviation in Australia? Had any input on Part 61 regulations, Part 121, Part 135? CAO 48.1? Is it trying to improve any legislation that affects pilots?

That’s the problem with people choosing an organisation that doesn’t contribute professionally to the industry. It abrogates any responsibility and leaves it up to pilot unions to have input on regulations that affect pilots.

Unfortunately, it weakens Aussie pilots as a group. The more you divide your resources, influence etc between competing unions, the weaker you are.

Don’t complain when you get screwed because your pilot unions are not influential enough, or don’t represent all the pilots in your country. It’s stupid to choose to be represented by a union that is ignorant to the environment (regulatory or otherwise) it operates in.

Stupid is as stupid does.

Problem with unions such as TWU is that they are in politics not aviation and pilots are just a pawn in their game. Once Unions start representing alot of stake holders at big corporations back room deals get done and usually pilots get screwed as we are weak. We need to be in pilot unions that will represent pilots and stay out of shady backroom deals and federal politics.

With regards to the TWU representing Pilots; My Brother-in-Law is a truckie and has been for nearly all his working life. I once mentioned to him that some Pilots had jumped to the TWU and his reaction was one of incredulity.

He made a comment (suitably censored of course:D) asking why had they done that, as the TWU wouldn't do much but take their subscription fees!:=

Seem the AFAP are not to happy with the deal.
Australian Federation of Air Pilots - Media Release 17/02/2012

Smart? So smart in fact that the TWU-pilots in Cobham SAR flying jets and dropping rafts will be paid less than the AFAP-pilots flying Dash-8s and dropping rafts?

Yeah, real smart.

I remember a meeting in Darwin in 2006 where the NJS Pilot Committee told us "you've all got to join the TWU WA."

The chairperson told us about his new mate at the TWU WA, Rick Burton. He was a smart guy too. A bit too smart maybe. Here he is in the witness box at the Royal Commission into trade union governance and corruption, explaining how he wrote a letter to himself to authorise himself a pay rise.

I like the bit where if he had any questions, he invited himself to contact himself and discuss them with himself! Smart guy!

http://michaelsmithnews.typepad.com/...08cf970c-800wi

http://www.tradeunionroyalcommission...urtonMFI-5.pdf

Secrets then, secret deals now it seems.

Stealing members? Stolen from, more like. You'd be lucky to find more than 40 paid-up TWU member out of 400+ Cobham drivers IMHO. At $1/day thats nowhere near repaying that $150,000 old mate spent on importing and converting that F350 to RHD. Disgraceful.

Sure you don't have to like a union or join a union. I've stayed AFAP and I can see where every $$ of my AFAP subs are spent. It has 3000 pilot members not 30 or 300, so it has money to spend on looking out for pilots. Its run by pilots, the Finance committee are all men and women you can meet, and they present all members with a clean and detailed set of audited accounts every year.

And you haven't seen an AFAP officer in one of these when on 'union business'!:P
http://www.afr.com/content/dam/image...4500775062.jpg

Not to mention some interesting stories about alleged meddling in the affairs of other unions:

Transport Workers Union 'illegally' bank-rolled aviation union election candidates

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

http://www.tradeunionroyalcommission...vMFI1Tab22.pdf

How many would do an instant runner if they weren't forced into being in the AFAP for the MBF? Talk about @#$%^&* policies...

Just when you thought nobody would turn up to defend the indefensible....:8

One thing to bear in mind, Bloggsy, is that nobody at the AFAP or MBF is holding a gun to the Bloggs head. You can resign from either or both, any time you like. It is all quite gentlemanly too. When I decided to discontinue being 'double ticketed' at NJS and resigned my TWU membership, the TWU was most ungracious about it. I would be surprised if you received anything less than a courteous acknowledgement from the AFAP or the MBF, should you choose to resign your membership of either or both.

Lets shoot down this bullish!t argument that the unions and their associated mutual funds are somehow commercial organisations operating on a fee-for-service bases. They are NOT and never have been. Folks like Bloggs may be entitled to their own opinions but they are not entitled to their own facts.

When you join a union you are not going into a showroom to buy a car or walking into a bank to get a loan.

You cannot walk into a Porsche showroom and demand that they sell you the Pirelli "P Zero" special order tyres without the attached 911 Carrera, simply because you want the tyres and not the car.

You can not walk up to the gate at Flemington for the Cup next Tuesday and demand that you be offered a ticket to the Members Area for the great race, if you are not a Member.

And good luck trying to get a mortgage from an australian bank without having to pay mortgage insurance that protects the bank, if your deposit is minimal!

It is a fact of life that organisations are free to structure themselves as required, within the regulations, to best suit the task.

In the case of the AFAP and the MBF, they are. They are associated organisations, and you can be a member of one, or of both.

Coming back to Bloggsys one liner -- what is your point?

There are (I stand corrected) 4,100+ pilots in the AFAP
There are 2,600+ pilots in the MBF.
Pilots are free to join the AFAP.
Pilots are free to join the MBF provided they are AFAP members.
The organisations complement each other and it is a sensible arrangement, because often, Loss of Licence difficulties come hand in hand with Industrial and Welfare difficulties. Thats not a @#$%^&* policy as Bloggsy put it -- it is a very sensible policy.

Folks like Bloggs may make a lot of noise about having to pay be AFAP members to have AAPMBF loss of licence coverage. It is interesting though to note that such folk often use the 'unnecessary' AFAP industrial services they said they'd prefer not to pay for!

The fact is, the two organisations are associated and complement each other's activities. The policy makes sense, has done for years, and continues to make sense.

Nobody is holding a gun to anyone's head, and nobody is 'running a mile' - the numbers above (4,100 AFAP, 2,600 MBF) show that 65% members do have MBF, and 35% do not. Mr Bloggs might be entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

What Mr Bloggs might be able to enlighten us though is, his position on how an industrial rep ought to carry out their task?

Should one take the democratic approach, seeking input from the pilots they represent, ensuring they are abiding with the wishes of the majority?

Or is being an industrial rep, an opportunity to gain and exercise power, denied to the individual by other means?

Should all deals be done 'in the open', or does 'father know best?'

I raise this, because I see a pattern at Cobham.

In 2012 the Cobham group put an offer on the table to all three pilot bodies for Loss of Licence reimbursement. The paltry $300k would be replaced by pilots being able to access any commercial or otherwise fund and be reimbursed $1500-$3500 per annum on presentation of tax invoice for the premium.

That deal was supported by the majority of pilots and the majority of business units. All that remained was to put it to the 717 pilots. When the company put it on the table for the 717 pilots the AFAP and TWU reps agreed to put out a poll in the next few days and get their results. The AFAP reps found out that the TWU reps subsequently ran their own poll without involving the AFAP. No, it said. The proposal was sunk, by a minority.

As a result, Cobham pilots don't have anywhere near what Virgin, Tiger, Qantas, QLink, Rex pilots enjoy by way of LoL. Whether that is good or not is a moot point, but the inescapable part is - when it came to a crucial point calling for collaboration, the TWU did their own thing in December 2012 without telling the AFAP reps that were sitting right next to them.

Bloggs might also note, there is a Temporary Revision in the 717 Ops manual where reduced signon times were recently traded for nothing in return. Despite a pilot body that said No, the Company took a Maybe from a TWU rep as a Yes. Instead of showing some bottle and standing ground on the No, the TWU rep has.... disappeared!

Now we discover another secret deal, undercutting pilot wages, presented to the Fair Work Commission, and who is applying to be a party to that agreement because they were involved in the secret deal..... the TWU!

What the hell?

Today's article in The Australian. Subscription required. sorry!

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

Answer the question, Hula.

I think he answered you quite admirably Bloggs.

Hula, when you answer my question, you could for the benefit of J3pipercub and others explain the ethics of forcing a pilot to join a union (the most expensive union by far, to boot) to access a Loss of Licence insurance product.

While you're at it, be a good boy/girl and copy and paste the text of that article for us, or don't you have a subscription?