That I don't doubt. The threat made would have been merely to kowtow we members, unfortunately for the AFAP the pilot who was our negotiator was a not long returned combat experienced aviator, as were a number of us, threats and stand over tactics were never going to work. The fiasco of the events less than a decade later was no surprise to us given our experience.

When I was first told about AFAP’s application to cover Qantas pilots I was told it was pushed by a group of AFAP members still bitter over historical feelings of injustice relating to AIPA.

I wasn’t inclined to believe this idea.

I read this thread trying to get to the true reason but no one on the AFAP side seemed prepared to explain the motive. One had to call AFAP to be told the big secret.

Fanciful notions of ‘unity’ and ‘mergers’ were floated as good natured reasons for the move.
On speaking directly to AFAP I was given a more believable, if disappointing, reason for the application.

However, the more posts I read from Don Diego about how the OSB deserted AFAP back in the day, to AIPA stealing Q-Link members in 2004, helping Virgin pilots create VIPA, turning their back on Impulse pilots, etc. etc. And how excited Don seems at the notion of payback for all of these perceived ills. The more I wonder if that initial reason I was given is in fact far more accurate than any put forward here.

There have been far more words typed about what terrible things AIPA has done to AFAP than anything to do with what benefits AFAP will bring to Qantas pilots. Very telling.

Benefits Beer Baron? Like what? What has the AFAP done lately that benefits pilots, specifically?

BB, are you suggesting you reap what you sow?

Interesting perspective

No, I’m suggesting that AFAP’s motives are more based on petty rivalry than advancing the interests of their members or the industry.

Your comment only reinforces that assumption.

Virginexcess, when AIPA changed their rules to cover Q regional pilots the pilots that they embarked on this for were not even their members, they had some dodgy "give us $50 now and the rest later" so there is a huge difference between then and now i.e. AFAP acting to retain it's existing members.
The bargaining power aspect is interesting, one would like to think that AIPA thought of this prior to the rule change and that if in fact there was any negative effect then they would not have proceeded. Then a few years later you could ditto VA, so either they don't consider having multiple unions covering the same group of employees in one business is counterproductive or they just don't care?? The latest stunt from their offshoot (VIPA) and the rule change there suggests to me the latter. The numbers are interesting and AFAP has considerably more members, and as I wrote earlier this is about giving those who wish to stay with AFAP the right to do so.
I am with you on the volunteer thing, it has had it's day. The notion of an umbrella type organisation is not without merit.
Beer Baron, that is just history, no hint of payback from me, too busy doing constructive things.

Why applaud a trade union for making any type of maneuver? The only result will be one in the best interest of either AFAP or their opposition union(s). The sooner the industry is rid of unions and union minded pilots then the better the industry will be for all.

"Your name’s not O’Leary, by any chance?"

No I'm not currently management.

In a way you have answered your own question here. You have referenced the increasing remuneration levels in the same sentence in which you have also referenced the increasing global pilot shortage. Market forces are currently allowing flight crew some bargaining power albeit limited by an equally increasing competitive, in many cases, market. This is also occurring in sectors of the aviation industry where unions do not participate and/or for flight crew who do not belong to a union. A number of these sectors do not operate in parallel to schedules as those of the airlines or similar sectors where unions allegedly determine the status quo.

If that is not the case in the Middle East or HK there are obviously flight crew showing a propensity to continue their availability within a workplace where financial reward is flowing at less than its potential. They are not negotiating effectively. This is the same phenomenon as those scenarios where newly licensed pilots render their services available for a reward in 'flying hours' as opposed to financial reward.

I don't agree at all with your last comment "Unions may not be perfect but they do way more good than harm". Many thousands of workers involved in what used to be Australia's car manufacturing industry would now be beginning to question that view. The smart ones would be at least. They too experienced "professions terms and conditions (and bonuses) are all going up strongly" until they were negotiated out of an industry by their 'illustrious' union representatives.

I firmly believe that unions inflict a great deal more harm than good upon both their members and the industries in which they participate.

I don't believe I am misinformed at all and I am certainly not drunk. The industry would be far better off without the destructive influence of unions. The individual's remuneration and conditions could be negotiated far more relevantly and effectively by that individual without a union representative 'spitting poison' throughout the operations in question.

My intentions are my own. I firmly doubt that you have a clear picture of what they are at all.

Clearly you have assumed that I am not American.

If you mean by 'the industry', airlines you would be correct. No Union/Individual contract would see poorly remunerated, loosely defined contracts handed out on a 'take it or leave it' basis. They would take advantage of the massive cashed-up Australian Expat workforce who would take the contracts just to get home. Then they would target foreigners and those with work visas, then they will hit up the government for some imported labour.
All ranks and jobs would be viewed in isolation and to get promoted you would probably have to move airlines (and city) to gain experience at a lower pay level. Then you would have to compete with expats to get a jet command somewhere. Basically it will just become Australia GA on a grand scale with bigger aircraft and imported labour. You would also see little Cabals develop and move around the industry together, as someone gets a management gig they bring along all their mates from XYZ airline or the RAAF.

By scrapping Union contracts you would just create a massive glut in the short term and no incentive for anyone to be a pilot in the long term. Not to mention all the nepotism, commercial pressure etc that would go along with a non seniority based system.

Individual Contracts...pfffftttt.
Lucerne, please define "relevant" and "effective" that you mentioned in your post.
Please also define "spitting poison".
If you are not currently in Management ie you used to be, or will be, you should be able to clearly define all three of these in the context of negotiating with Unions.

By 'relevant' I mean a negotiation that is relevant to the individual negotiating the terms as opposed to those terms negotiated by a union thug on behalf of many. By 'effective' I mean the successful negotiation of a meaningful outcome for both parties. That is the only recipe for a sustainable agreement.

By 'spitting poison' I refer to the habit of union officials which sees them 'demand' position 'X' with regard to terms at all costs regardless of the relevance of that position to either party. This creates the divide between company and employee within which significant animosity is frequently cultivated by union representatives in order to guarantee the 'sustainability' of their own position.

I have filled numerous corporate senior management positions over the course of my career in aviation. At no time have I ever had the displeasure of dealing with a union and nor would I ever intend to.

By using the word 'industry' I mean all of the aviation sectors inclusively. The same would apply outside of aviation. Other industries would do well to significantly limit the reach of their associated union groups as well.

As for the other alleged outcomes that you have suggested, networking is an effective way in which to avoid exclusion as a result of just about all of them.

When was the last time anyone who could even remotely have been called a "union thug" was involved in a Pilot EA negotiation?

When was the last time you could genuinely suggest a Pilot union official in Australia had behaved in this manner?

Lucerne..
Definition of thug: a violent person, especially a criminal.
EBA negotiations between AIPA and QF management are lead by pilots...
I would give to you the latest "negotiation" between AIPA and QF Management, where a "comfort letter" was given..for one reason or another, but that's for another thread..by AIPA. The Union body gained nothing. Hardly spitting poison, definitely not criminal behaviour.
Your take, like most in Management, is defined by union behaviour of the 80/90's.
"Meaningful for both parties" Really? By Individual Contract?

Yes. Really.

You have the right to hold your 'world view' with regard to unions in aviation Beer Baron. However, I don't share it. I simply hold an alternate view. I also have quite an informed idea regarding 'what I am talking about'.

Your attempt to insult by using the word 'ridiculousness' and siting my 'imagination' are also examples of 'spitting poison'. I therefore rest my case. Cheers.

Quite simply the last time such representation was made.

Far from it BB. I would rather deal with a workforce, and co-workers for that matter, who have the inclination to row their own boat rather than hide behind union thuggery.

Well you obviously don't work for QF then, anyone who is not a yes man (person) (or perx) (etc) (etc) gets shown the door.
Please enlighten in your wisdom then as to what a Pilot would GAIN if offered an IC?...and how this would vary between individual pilots....last time I checked, I do the same job as everyone else of same rank and same fleet (with extremely minor variations in days worked.
Didn't go so well at Rio did it?

I'll call that statement for what it is..complete and utter crap.

Seconded.

And for what it's worth, I call out Lucerne as a (management) troll.:*

Not nearly PtP. Poor attempt.

I'll call that for what it is..crap.
I'll ask the question again, how would a pilot be better on an IC rather than under an EBA?

They were both quite genuine, non-aggressive questions asked as I believe the Pilot's Associations have conducted their last few - indeed most that I recall - negotiations in a civilised manner*. You obviously disagree and I'd be interested in your specific examples.

Are you referring to the 'Red tie & PA campaign' AIPA conducted? Hardly thuggery. It had little or no impact on the commercial or operational efficiency of Qantas unlike a decision made by another group (or person) at about the same time. I'd be interested in exactly which campaign you consider was overly aggressive, or from which association came a 'union official' "spitting poison". The last Qantas Longhaul EA negotiations were apparently conducted in a very cordial manner. Disagreements yes, but solutions found without any poison, bile or thuggery.

I regularly meet with a Senior official of AIPA and a Senior manager of Qantas on company business. What impresses me most about the two of them is the way they can disagree on an aspect of the business that we discuss, but in an amicable way, reach an agreed solution through formal and informal communication. More than most employees in an airline, Pilots have a long term (often 30+ year) view of the ongoing viability of the business - in most cases significantly longer term than most managers. That should be treated as a positive, not a threat!

*Unlike other groups, particularly in the building industry, of which I have recent experience.