Surely this must be a beatup?!?, there would be less than 5 guys ex AN guys in QF that would have had ANY involvment in 89, except for the few sim instructers. Most were all fairly junior F/Os with AN. Don't let the truth get in the way I guess :D

So GB , you would have been prepared to let the AFAP decide when you could come back to work in '89 would you??
Bad judgement I would say!!,
I'd prefer to let the guys who saw the writing on the wall, and the foreigners lined up outside the recruiting section, and the balls to say this is f...d im out of here have a go.


It's fine to sit back on yr high horse casting judgement on who 'you consider a sc..b' blah blah blah blah, when you don't have to make the D yrself

Every airline pilot, and every pilot who joined the fray in 1989 and onwards, had a role to play in the dispute, including the AIPA.
Led from the AFAP by the weak-minded OS Branch leadership of the day, the AIPA has been merely a rollover training ground for management hungry pilots ever since, with little industrial interest for the benefit of its membership.
It simply failed to see the ramifications of '89 and the potential it had for the degradation over the long term for its members.
Now with a bunch of scabs incorporated into the membership, its coffers swell but with little output.
During 1989 the AFAP was privileged to receive individual donations from a handful of decent members of the AIPA, but they were indeed in the minority.
And as for who are " '89er's ", they are the pilots who did NOT scab, so get the context right boys.
Good night.

hey guys, it's all been said before! the scabs were the foreign low breeds that migrated out here at the invitation of Bob Hawke, Peter Abeles and Rupert Murdoch. picked up at the airport in limos, transported to the best hotel in town, wined & dined, then offered the most lucrative contracts (together with aussie citizenship) at the expense of decent aussie pilots just trying to be loyal to a misguided and naive union.
let it go lads - the war finished on the 10th october 1989. after that, the AN & TN returnees were just returning to THEIR own jobs.
The AFAP got it wrong and couldn't admit IT !!!!

My original post was not a wind up.


The TFO in question might be a 'good bloke' but he knows fu$k all about QF longhaul ops - one wonders how he is able to teach S/O's about line ops when he has done so little himself

Stand by for a senior management appointment of an ex AN A320 capt (now a PUIT).

This will neccesitate him being promoted some 800 numbers out of seniority and I understand is likely to be pushed through by the company on the basis he 'is the best man for the job'.

As for the 'offer' to the company - this is a matter of fact, known to AIPA.

Ask your COM member for a off the record quote.

I don't know if the individuals involved in this present move are 89 'heros' or not, but their present behaviour is the issue I have a problem with.

FS

Sub-Sonic et al . Your high handed drivel re AIPA and '89 belies the fact that it was NEVER AIPA's fight.

What did you expect AIPA to do? Arrange illegal secondary boycotts and get their members sued as well? Hurl themselves on the AFAP funeral pyre with mass resignations?

What? No-one has ever answered that question with a logical response.

Don't get angry at people who in no way could assist you without ending up with the same sad consequences the AFAP rank and file experienced.

Fartsock,

Which part of QF's long haul ops is he having trouble with.

Do QF do it that differently from the suggestions made by Airbus.

Is longhaul that difficult.

So, Fartsock...

Your high level conspiracy is in fact one management type being direct entered.

Not NEARLY enough revenge for you guys inflicting us with TJ!!!

Took your suggestion FS - rang AIPA - spoke to 2 Com members. They haven't heard of anything.
Are you sure ?

catp M Heavey jet guy & amos2
 

GROW UP you guys and get over it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Let me know which airlines you fly with so that I won't travel on them.
I don't want my life in the hands of poeple with your intelect!!!!!!!!!

Blo Moi
My understanding of the meaning of the word SC@B is anyone working whilst the union concerned is in dispute with the employer. Once the union terminates industrial action then those that subsequently gain employment are not SC@Bs. I consider the foreign SC@Bs the lowest form of SC@Bs especially as all the overseas ALPAs advised them of the industrial dispute.

Sub-Sonic MB
You appear to be unaware of the facts - Qantas pilots were never involved in the dispute (despite the best efforts of the then PM) however, the domestic pilots had the full support of their international peers. To my knowledge, there were four flights flown by QF on domestic routes during the dispute and these were because of humanitarian and hardship grounds. These flights were sanctioned by the AFAP otherwise they would not have been flown.
AIPA's leaders at that time were not weak minded - in fact I'd call them shrewd for not falling into the trap of taking on the full might of a hostile government, especially when we didn't have a dispute with our own company management.
Maybe you're still bitter that the Overseas Branch walked out on the AFAP. Maybe if the then AFAP leaders (mainly AN) had listened to and acted on a lot of the problems that the Overseas branch were having then the split may not have occured.

The_Cutest_of_Borg
I concur with your comments.

GB

Debating this issue is a waste of bandwidth – each camp is so firmly ensconced in its respective corner that no amount of debate will ever winkle them out to see the other’s point of view. And just to prove that point, I’ll go on here to show how deeply buried in my corner I am.


*****

This thread does serve one purpose, however – it reminds those who’d like what they did in 1989-90 to be forgotten that, despite their wishes (or earnest hopes) to the contrary, their shameful actions will never be forgotten, and by more people than they might imagine.

As for Qantas not being a scab airline. No one’s pointing that finger at the overseas branch of the airline, but on the day the (insert whatever word suits your individual opinions of the gentlemen (and ladies) in question) pilots from ex-Australian Airlines – now the QF domestic wing – Qantas sadly became an airline with quite a few scabs in its ranks.

Personally, I prefer the name coined for them right here on Pprune after some of these ‘gentlemen’ objected to being called what they were, and are, and will continue to be to the day the last of them dies. For those not familiar with the new, politically correct title for these people, it is ‘heroes’. Perhaps someone could do a search for the hilarious poem that someone wrote in an earlier thread about these ‘worthies’ that gave them the name. I was almost in tears reading it.

Since the padlock prevents me from posting on the recent China Airlines thread, if anyone from CAL gets to read this, try using the ‘hero’ name on the ones you’ve got with you now. You might be amused at the reaction.

Sounds like somebody is getting their lawns mowed.

Could not agree with you more Robair. I think it is really scary to think that individuals with such hatred after so many years are allowed in any form of free life let alone flying an aircraft. No matter who was right on wrong at the time.
I can only hope that some firm action is taken soon by either the employers or CAASA before it results in an unecessary disaster involving innocent people

Yes Raider 1, we wouldn't want anything like an evacuation carried out on an aerobridge with less than text book results now would we!!!!
Better tell CAASA or is it CASA?

Bonvol wrote this:

"One thing that amazes me is that scabs are welcomed into AIPA. They should be banned from membership for industrial treason.

That they seek to benefit themselves at others expense is no surprise. Same MO different company"


my reply is..........AND LOVING IT BUDDY!!!



:O :p :D :ok:

boocs you are an idiot

Fartsock - I think you may be confusing seniority with qualifications, experience and ability.

Irrespective of the ex Ansett drivers QF seniority, their logbooks still reflect their REAL experience. The fact that their positions as back seat drivers does not reflect this is a matter of seniority, not qualifications, experience or ability.

If QF are availing themselves of this experience in positions outside the seniority system, and these guys are the best men for the job then what are you complaining about?

Are you seriously suggesting that a less qualified and experienced person should get the job simply because he is more senior? If so why?

Perhaps QF should promote new cadets to TFO's because they 'outrank' others. Are you seriously advocating this.

I believe that QF pilots take themselves a bit too seriously in terms of the relevance of rank. It would seem to me that if Chuck Yaeger joined Qantas tomorrow he would still be looked down on by all and sundry because he was 'junior'.

Wake up call, when your airline goes broke or turfs you out, what meaning does seniority have?

Incidentally, you may also like to consider that QF has benefitted from the experience of pilots from many other backgrounds apart from Ansett, such as the RAAF, Cathay and other airlines, many of whom are in Qantas for the job and the lifestyle, not to be treated in a demeaing manner by 'fartsocks' with inferiority complexes who cling to seniority as their only means of assertion.

Powerbeat. I gather you may be one of the "heroes" involved??

One can only surmise as to what you beat with so much power.

Thanks for making my case.

Longjohn,

Good post - let me clarify.

I do not have a problem with the company leverging previous experience.

The fact that I had flown the B767 elsewhere before joining the company in the -80's was a factor in my selection. I had 2000hrs as an F/O, but accepted that part of the deal was to start at the bottom again. Such is life ect..

The 'best man for the job' principle has been applied for as long as I have been in the company, it is seen (at times) F/O's as tech and fleet managers. I don't have a problem with that.

What I do have a problem, is guys excepting employment and then, once in the company, going behind the back of the pilot body and offering to do the same job as their colleagues for less money so as to be promoted out of seniority.

The seniority system is far from perfect, but (for the moment at least) it is an equitable way of ensuring individuals get a fair go and are not subject to the nepotism and corporate politics that dog most other operators I have worked for.

In the case of the ex A320 capt who is going to be appointed to a management position, my objection is to his promotion to F/O approx 800 numbers out of seniority as part of this deal. He could do the job as an S/O if required, but the company and the pilot concerned are persuing this course of action deliberately and with malice.