I have heard the same thing.

Unintended consequences, by definition, are notoriously difficult to predict. I doubt that anyone in AIPA anticipated Alan Joyce grounding the airline in 2011. In my experience, the anonymous advocates of industrial action rarely consider the full extent of the possible ramifications. PIA is available for a reason. It grants Labour the ability (for a defined period) to balance the power that a corporation inherently holds in the relationship between capital and labour. i.e it gives labour the right to take actions, or withdraw its services, in an organised manner without the fear of being sacked. But equally, industrial legislation allows Companies to respond to that action (or the threat of action) as it sees fit, within the law. Bain is a US based global organisation that restructures companies for a living. I imagine that they would have much experience in dealing with labour disputes, and probably have a playbook on it. That said, I don't know how much experience they have with Australian labour laws, so they may be at a slight disadvantage.

At it's most extreme, industrial action can result in loss of life and livelihood, as happened in the 1989 pilots dispute. At its best, it sends unequivocal messages to management that their offer is well outside the bounds of acceptibility, and reframes the context of the negotiation.

The greatest threat to sustained industrial action is members (or non members) crossing "the picket line". That's why in hardline unions, such as the CFMEU, such action would most likely invite a visit from union heavies to demonstrate how the risk of personal injury is likely increase in such circumstance.

Because pilot unions are highly unlikely to behave in a similar fashion, industrial action needs to be undertaken in a fashion that minimises the likelihood of pilots breaking ranks. Once one person crosses the line, others will follow and the threat diminishes and management is emboldened. The way this is usually done is by escalated action, starting with seemingly innocuous actions, such as wearing different ties. Whilst this has no material effect on the Company, it sends a clear message that the workforce is united, therefore if escalation is required, it can be assumed it will have the support of the group. As we saw with QF, wearing different coloured ties, along with actions of other unions, provoked Joyce into an extreme action that ulitimately won the war.

My personal view is that In an airline, the threat of industrial action is the most powerful weapon you have. Once PIA has been approved, and depending on the type of action proposed, forward bookings can be immediately affected, and at the end of the day, the only language that Bain will understand is impact on the bottom line, and hence IPO value. That's why PIA is most effectively used around Xmas, Easter, School Holidays etc. Airlines rely heavily on the cashflow created by forward bookings, and unless the company has deep pockets (as QF had at the time of the fleet groundings), the CFO will start to get pretty nervous about funding the companies cash requirements. I'm no Private Equity expert, but my guess is that Bain & Co probably have access to substantial cash reserves, but whether they would be prepared (or allowed) to access them is anyones guess, and part of the risk calculation.

So, solidarity is vitally important and Virgin pilots are already at a disadvantage due to having the workforce divided across two unions. As i understand the Australian legislation, only members of the union that has applied for PIA are covered by the approval, therefore if only one union applies, the Company will already have a weakness to exploit. A further complicator comes in that only union members are covered, so even if both unions are approved for PIA, non-union pilots cannot be involved (unless they also apply on their own behalf). So from that small bit of information, it is easy to see how the company can divide the pilot group into three, and attack what they see as the weakest group, or perhaps reward the non militant ones.

There are many many other factors involved and it really is impossible to predict the outcome, regardless of how much war-gaming you do. Who would have thought Bob Hawke would have enlisted the RAAF to fight a union. That appeared truly unbelievable at the time, yet in hindsight all the warning signs were there to see. Hawke was detirmined to see his much vaunted wages accord continue (which would have been smashed if the pilots succeeded), and critically, the AFAP were non ACTU affilliated. So while the pilots thought they were fighting Peter Abeles, they had actually picked a fight with the government. Even the biggest of unions is unlikely to win that one. So it is also important to understand the political implications of what you are doing. There is much value in having political connections when considering PIA, and even moreso when when a Labor government is in power, so being ACTU affilliated in the present environment should be an advantage.

PIA is not something that should be wielded around willy nilly, because it can carry great risk, but equally it is the only real weapon you have, so you need to be prepared to use it, or accept what is on offer.

My advice at this point would be to tell your union reps to put their egos away and find some common ground with the other union so that you present to the company as a united front. Within the context of an Australian pilots union, the union should be your servant, not your master, and without a united front I doubt that much more progress can be made. Remember that unions are just the sum of their members and should provide advice and guidance, but not lead the membership down a path they dont want to go.

Far too many greasy pole climbers at Virgin for PIA to ever be a success. They would be salavating at even the thought of the opportunity PIA would bring to feather thier own nest.