Ansett pilots take legal action over lost wages
 

ABC News Online

Posted: Mon, 12 May 2003 14:40 AEST

Ansett pilots take legal action over lost wages
A group of former Ansett pilots has lodged an application in the Federal Court to recover $700,000 in wages.

The 36 pilots claim they were not paid for training undertaken while Solomon Lew and Lindsay Fox were trying to resurrect the company.

The Ansett Pilots Association has served the application on Ansett's administrators, Mark Mentha and Mark Korda.

Association president Henry Otto says the pilots are disillusioned and disappointed.

"They feel as though that they've been mistreated by not only by the administrators but also Mr Fox ... because of the commitments that Mr Fox had given the pilots about the start up of the new airline," Mr Otto said.

This wasn't for endorsement training was it??
I thought there were plenty of A320 drivers available or was there something funny going on? Was Henry A320 endorsed?

No, there were not enough rated A320 pilots to cover the predicted start up numbers, so some endorsement training was necessary.

HOWEVER some good, competant A320 pilots were NOT offered employment by TESNA on the basis of check results (Which was OUTRAGIOUS! The PATS system was introduced on the CLEAR understanding that it was a training tool to identify particular areas where training could be directed. The fact that it was then used to determine wether someone got a job or not was unforgivable.) or, in a few cases, because of "Other" factors. I actually am forced to agree with a few of those, but there also seemed to be a thread of payback for anyone who'd p***** off managment.

There was also a CLEAR "Jobs for the boys" when it came to which NON rated guys were picked. It was going to be a company were around 40% of the captains would have been checkies.

Wizofoz

I fully appreciate the frustration and injustice you describe in your post . Maybe this will give you some insight as to why many of the pre 89 pilot's of Ansett feel such contempt towards their former colleague's.

Wizofiz,

You said:

"There was also a CLEAR "Jobs for the boys" when it came to which NON rated guys were picked. It was going to be a company were around 40% of the captains would have been checkies."

I categorically challenge you to fully substantiate this statement. :D

Well, well, well how do you "bleeding hearts" feel now finally after almost 14 yrs the true colours of these f%$^K..g low lives has surfaced for all to see.

"Otto"who was a scumbag anywayB]"we don't give a sh%$t about the airline we just want our money"[/B]

If any of them were serious about resurrecting the airline AN that is and their livelyhoods money would have been on the back burner.

NB: Take note EWL these are the A...H....s you wanted those that left in '89 to embrace!

So, we'll call this one hijacked and get on with the slanging match shall we?

Duly noted LFS.

However..........nah - wont go there as some of the tactics in the AN collapse definitely had long dead fish hidden in them.

Best

EWL

With so many pilots rated and competent on the A320, just why were so many geriatics (YOU know who you are) observed COMMENCING A320 endorsement training at that time?? Even the ex-AN F/Os at the time were disgusted at the attitudes of their former colleagues.
WHY WERE WE NOT SURPRISED?

For once ..... PLEEEEZE ..... can we keep the '89 crap and bitchiness out of this thread.

I am really interested in the progress of any Court or legal challenge to the AN Liquidators and don't want to wade through irrelevent crap to follow the subject.

I would think all ex AN staff would also be interested in the outcome of any legal action.

Thanks.

Thought so, the greed is breathtaking.
Funny tho' a little bird told me that "Otto" had been expounding the vitues of "Solly" at a well known Bayside Club prior to the collapse. Said he was a great bloke.

This is interesting.
It exhibits the historically characteristic behaviour of those whose interest is purely self-centred, greed orientated.
If you screw (former) colleagues once by scabbing when the chips are down, it is even easier to do it twice, especially to those scab mates for whom you have an even greater disregard.
This is really quite laughable, and as for hijacking the thread - baloney.
It is a classic.

If Henry Otto and the rest of the 36 want to sue someone, why not Solly and Lindsay instead of the Administrators. Who was it who created the training requirement for the "new" airline, and why should the rest of we creditors lose $700K from our payouts?

Greedy bastards!!

Kind regards,

TheNightOwl. :mad:

some facts
 

Lets get a few facts in this thread first shall we. I personally have no self interest on this one because I was not on course at the time.

Firstly, each and every pilot was NOT made redundant at the stage of training( approx. Nov01-Mar02), and as such this is a claim for WAGES and not for redundancy entitlements. Every other AN employee at work at the time got paid but the pilots in question WERE NOT. Accomodation and allowances were also NOT provided where required by contract.

Not every pilot would be considered a s*ab, but if certain posters a reading then we are all s*ab sympathisers apparently. However, you wont find me on the list.

This money would be paid prior to all other creditors , therefore I will have less from the ever diminishing pie, but I think thats fair. People must be paid for work they do.

Agreed Walter,

As I said there WAS a requirement for more A320 pilots regardless, and those on course deserved to be paid. Half were FOs for whom no-one should bear any malice.

Exactley how the sad sacks here perceive accepting a job with the new entity as being "Screwing you mates" is beyond me. I know there was no great flood of senior guys in '89 saying "No, I won't take that Singapore/Cathay/Malasian job as that would be screwing the junior guys", they were out of work and took what was offered.

My problem was with the way some qualified A320 guys with good records were not offered jobs because someone had a personal beef with them, and the fact that others were left out because of PATS scores. Virtually every management pilot was offered a place, regardless of requirements (I meam, how many fleet managers does a one type airline need?), and I personally know only one line captain who was offered a place.

Anyway, can those interested ignore the invaders and concentrate on the posts that are on subject? Any chance of some help here Woomera?

My interest has nothing to do with who was selected/trained/rejected etc.

My interest is in why the Liquidator did not pay current employee wages and what possible defence he/they can have in Court.

"If Henry Otto and the rest of the 36 want to sue someone, why not Solly and Lindsay instead of the Administrators."

Because the employer, AOC holder etc., was Ansett (In Liquidation). When the Liquidators decided to support the mad cap TESNA bid, they effectively accepted liability for all Ansett costs. That they didn't have a cost recovery agreement with TESNA has no bearing on their liability to pay current employee wages.

There are some interesting legal principals involved, to which Ansett (In Liquidation) seems to think it is exempt.

I have never been an Ansett employee although I was an unsecured creditor but have long since written off the debt. My interest is purely professional.

Can we please stick to the thread and keep it updated. Would be interested in Gaunty's opinion?

The day a worker in Australia doesn't receive a pay packet for services rendered will be the day we embrace communism and concede the phrase "fair go mate" means ****e!

Having said that, from what I have seen of the two Marks, Fox & Lew - it really doesn't surprise me they are witholding the money owed to these guys.

Give it to 'em in Court lads! :ok:

Interesting post, TNOwl.
Maybe you are beginning to see the dark side of the scabs.

Well f#%k me "Whiskery" I always had some admiration for you man, but as I see you now have a severe case of Stockholm Syndrome after working for that mob who have become a SC%$b outfit I am removing you from my Xmas Card list.

:yuk: :yuk: :yuk: :yuk:

At the risk of being accused of hijacking the thread, I have to say that anyone who honestly believes that there wasn’t an Old Boys’ network hard at work getting jobs for boys of a certain stripe in the TESNA A320 non-operation has a very selective memory.

Likewise, anyone who honestly believes that the behaviour of some of those very same people in 1989 had no bearing on how anyone with half a brain should have expected them to behave in 2001 sees the world through very rose-tinted glasses.

Blind Freddie could see that!