Send me a PM with your email, name, address and phone number and I can give you the details, it's no b...it.

A colleague of mine recently told me that the AFAP strongly endorsed an EBA for Cobham
pilots claiming it was about as good a deal as those pilots will ever get. Several weeks later and after a group of independent pilot reps started scooping large numbers of pilots who had lost faith in both the AFAP and the TWU, a deal was struck that is now magnitudes better. If the AFAP want to represent the masses in Australia, they’ll need to stop displaying their ineptitude as a union first, TWU as well.

Don D,
My memory goes back much longer, and the complete disdain of non-airline members in the state branches by the dominant domestics. And I speak as an office holder in those days, including OSB Treasurer.

In fact, what I well remember to this day, as the occasional AFAP OSB rep. on NSW RAPAC,( which had only just been invented) supporting GA and groups like Gliding Federation against incessant demands other AFAP branches, by domestic "airline pilots" that other operations be restricted when they wanted to use "the air". Always without any detailed justification, just assertions about "unsafe".

"Full Position Reporting" by gliders was always the lulu.

Something else that hasn't changed to this day, demanding responses to "perceptions of risk", when admitting there was no demonstrated risk.

No, I don't think AFAP has changed much, even thought names change, the culture remains.

Tootle pip!!

You guys obviously don’t understand the structure of the feds then.

If Qantas pilots were a part of the federation they’d have their own independent council under the federation banner. It has the resources of the entire union collective. However is independent in its approach.

So if a weak deal is endorsed by the union - it’s the pilots in the union that work for the company.

If you want a strong union and a good deal. It needs to come from the employees of the company via their representatives.

Funnily enough AIPA could just about continue exactly as they do now as a council under the federation with a few tweaks.

The same can’t be said for the federation operating under AIPA.

Not just the "air", but airports as well. Had to take a GA type to the QF hangar at Mascot for disassembly and preparation for loading onto a QF Combi. The screams from a TAA DC-9 that had to delay pushback while we taxied behind him was a thing to behold. Still, I guess we delayed his race with the opposition for bragging rights as to who got airborne first.

Revisionists take note. AIPA didn’t exist pre 1981. To those boasting about how good the Qantas agreement is, understand that your agreement finds its foundations from the AFAP agreements pre 1981. AIPA built on the strong foundations that can be found in the agreements pre-split. The young Qantas pilots deriding the AFAP may want to acknowledge that much of the contract they currently work under has its roots in the very union they are decrying. Understand your history; AIPA was created from a splinter faction of a much larger and stronger pilots union.

Rather than reform the union, the AFAP officeholders of the time let unresolved issues fester, it split, and union representation for Australian pilots has never been the same. There is fault on both sides, and ever since, there has been this artifice between representative bodies. People need to grow up and get over themselves, a new generation of pilots deserve far better than the status quo.

To those that deride the rule change to allow all pilots to be members of one union, what is your answer for the new generation?

Respect to the new guard, at least you are trying. From an overseas member and old war horse.

LeadSled, yes the "dominant" domestics ran the joint and they tolerated GA, they were never going to be threatened by them, you blokes simply got fed up with others setting the agenda and having your funds being used for anything other than your interests and it is as simple as that. Yes I was there albeit as one of those GA losers and that is why I remember it clearly. The thing that sticks in my craw is that you OB chaps were in the best position of all but were the least willing to do anything for operations outside Q and that is still the case right here right now, I'm alright Jack f%$k you. So as for RAPAC back in 1980 it wouldn't have made a rats ar#e difference to you blokes whether or not gliders gave full position reports so why mention it. Then you say AFAP hasn't changed since those days?? So the question is now who runs the joint, the dominant domestics or who exactly? Do you know the membership numbers and composition? Do you know the structure these days and how voting etc works or do you just guess or assume like so many others on this forum? One good thing the split did was to bolster the coffers of the Fund.
Megan if you want to communicate with me then send me a PM.
So while I am at it, how many of you AIPA lot have been directly approached to change to AFAP. I don't count drunken chit chat in bars on slips, I want to see the invitation with your name on it and on letterhead.

If the supposed intention is unity, then why pursue the aggressive rule change path?

Why not come out with a publicly stated ambition of merging the unions, rather than attempting something more like a takeover or attempt to extinguish?

I'd have a much easier time believing this is all about unity if there was some publicly stated desire, maybe with a timeline of 1-2 years, for both unions to have dedicated groups meeting and working together to resolve issues and barriers to merging - rather than fighting. I don't see that and that makes me very suspicious of the supposedly altruistic intent on the AFAP's part.

Well the Tuner is back asking the same questions. So you ring AFAP on Saturday afternoon and report back that there was no answer?? Well I rang AIPA on Saturday afternoon and hey presto, guess what?? Well now you have had two business days to make that quick call and get the answers but it would appear that you have not done so, ergo you have elected to remain uninformed. If you wish to stay in the dark then so be it but kindly keep your condescending attitude off here.
Tony the Tiler and Green Goblin well said.:D

What a ridiculous argument and I don't see how anything I've said is remotely condescending.

Why should I have to phone an organisation that I'm not a member of and I have no desire to join to have legitimate questions answered that should be able to be answered by all those pushing this idea here on pprune? AFAP people started the discussion here, so why can't my questions be answered here?

Why would the AFAP disclose its reasons for pursuing a rule change and not pursuing unity to a non member over the phone (who could be anyone, a journalist etc) when it coold otherwise just do you publicly? Or you could do it for them, since you apparently have the answers already?

PS still waiting to hear any reasons why, as a mainline pilot, I would possibly want to join the AFAP. Surprised it's been 45 odd posts and not one reason yet.

Hey Tuner you clearly don't know what condescending means so look it up.
I know in detail what it is about because I took the time to find out, you can't be bothered because you don't want to know what it is about. They will explain it to you and you might be surprised, however if you have no desire to obtain facts then that is ok too but just desist, go and annoy your COM person.:ugh:

Let's agree to disagree on that point then.

Any answers on why I'm better of with the AFAP as a mainline pilot?

Because you may want to give back something to the Aviation grassroots – you know – general aviation.

Because you may want to lend support to someone other than Qantas group pilots.

Because you may be able to learn a thing or two from other pilot groups within the federation that have or are experiencing similar problems to you.

Because you may want to be a part of something that is bigger than your own insular self.

Because you may want to support the entire industry.

Because you may want the industry to speak with one voice.

Because one pilot union in Australia is better than two.

Because one pilot union will be unstoppable.


If you can’t see the value in one pilots union, then collective bargaining, looking out for your fellow aviators, supporting your brothers and sisters across the entire industry, learning from others within the industry, and unionism probably isn’t for you.

You guys really need to drop the language of “unity”. What you are proposing is the complete opposite.

If you want ‘one union for all Australian pilots’ and ‘all pilots to be members of one union’ then you are talking about the complete eradication of AIPA and VIPA.

Since no move has been made to reach out to AIPA to come back in under the AFAP umbrella then it is not a merger or unification you are seeking, you are proposing their destruction.

So stop the bulls#it and call it for what it is.

This is not an attempt at unity, it is a declaration of war.

That might not be the dumbest thing I’ve ever read, but it’s in my top ten. :rolleyes:

If AIPA is so fantastic and doing such a great job, then why would anyone leave and go to the AFAP?

Seems to be the AIPA supporters argument.

Assuming the argument to be true, why then are you wasting AIPA members funds fighting the rule change? Given that AIPA is such a wonderful organisation and all members are just super happy, what’s to fear??

A level of IR success can be seen in Oz airlines stemming from their approach to divide and conquer pilot working groups. A move to just one union might however make matters worse if nothing else changes.

There are currently 3 parties: airlines, pilot groups and unions. Whilst there is a need for pilots to unify their group to address an airline’s willingness to take advantage of any pilot that does not know their worth; airlines would currently find it very convenient to deal with a pilot union rep rather than almost any other alternative.

This is especially so when pilot union reps hold pilot positions in the same airline (seeking an improved role and salary within that airline) whilst simultaneously representing the IR interests of the pilot group of that airline. These roles and responsibilities cannot be shared without conflict of interest and opportunity for corruption.

How many Chief Pilots (a coveted company position) have moved into that role after working as a union rep on group pilot contract negotiations? How many other union reps have immediately received company appreciation and / or promotion after facilitating sub standard pilot working agreements? Whilst few are actually corrupt, perhaps all are part of a very weak negotiating framework (on the pilot side).

Pilot group contract negotiating representatives should be appropriately qualified lawyers hired directly by the pilots they represent and not employed by the airline they need to sit across the table from in negotiation.

When an entity essentially sets out to destroy your organisation and take all your members you can;
a) resist them, or
b) assume they will fail and hence do nothing.

I know what choice a competent union would make.

Totally agree Free Thinker!

When I mentioned that exact thing to my union, I was told that "only pilots can truly appreciate the clauses being discussed during the meetings". That sounds like code for "we don't want to expend the resources required to do that".

Aren't unions supposed to be the barrier that separates employees from the punitive claws of the employer anyway?

Why would I WANT to communicate with you? I merely offered to provide the real information to prove your allegation incorrect, but I'm not going to do that unless I know to whom the information going, for reasons you should be perceptive enough to guess.