A320 Pilots's Cull TESNA

[Kaptin M]

FSU, my edit had NOTHING to do with the word gutless being used directly wrt Kaptin_X - it was a removal of part of a sentence (incorrectly) pertaining to _X's work background.

Insofar as consistency on my part goes, I have maintained throughout that the 1989 bunch of scabs were OVERPAID, to the ultimate detriment of Ansett. Kaptin_X has attempted to portray you as underpaid, according to his "World Standards" theory - the "black and white" of which we all await!

I'd like one dollar for each time over the past couple of years, (that) someone has objected to the mention of 1989's events along the lines of,"It happened x number of years ago and bears no relevance to today."
The merciless "culling" of 5% of the current AN pilots in order to facilitate employment of the scabs of '89, surely must to be UNDENIABLE proof that it was indeed relevant.
These people attempted to destroy not only the careers of pilots involved with them some 12 years ago, but also the current crop!
You, FSU and Kaptin_X are representative of this reprehensible group!

I have no reason to "to volunteer to reduce your self proclaimed BIG salary - I am a contract pilot with a foreign company - a mercinary who provides a (quality) service for $$$$'s. The same company for whom I work employs "local" pilots who are here for a career, and who will replace me when they have the numbers....at which time I shall be told to move on. I'm under no illusions as to my "dispensability", and obviously hence the reason for some of my colleagues leaving here (and elsewhere) to work WITH Virgin Blue - they see a career path!
So yes, FSU it IS different!

To see ANOTHER group of Australian domestic pilots shafted, because of the greed of some of our former peers DISGUSTS me -
ABSOLUTELY.

BTW, Kaptin_X, YOU are my therapy!

[Kaptin_X]

Woomera,

I make the assessment of Kaptin M because I AM a psychologist!!

It is, however, your ball, and if you choose to take it away, then I respect that decision, but you don't seem to apply the same vigour to Kaptin M's malicious posts.

Be it known that I 'skulk' away from no one nor nothing. I do, however, become exasperated by stupidity, and I see much of that in KM's posts - illogical, ill conceived, malicious drivel.

Proof of KM's (actually Kaptin R) inability to listen is that I have told him at least twice that I haven't worked at AN for some years. I now fly a 777 and have a practice as a consulting psychologist in Sydney. He continues to bleat that I want a job back in the new AN. This is bizarre or worse!!

I don't think I'll bother to post on this forum again (Dunnunda & Godzone) because of the downmarket intellectual input from KM, and I suppose that's what he wants, to drive off anybody who opposes his perverted views. I imagine he sees himself as the winner - another perverted view of the reality.

I do believe, Woomera, that he should be edited as severely as others, and told to pull his head in. He has the ability to twist anything such that it can be seen to stem from the 89 pilot's dispute in Oz. I think he'd blame anything from ingrown toenails to a brain haemorrage on that root cause.

I think perhaps I should have a psychiatrist friend email him privately with an on line diagnosis, and recommendations for possible treatment.

Edited after the following post. KYBO, you are so right, they and we are thoroughly sick of this tragic bleating.

Over and out.

[ 29 December 2001: Message edited by: Kaptin_X ]

[ 29 December 2001: Message edited by: Kaptin_X ]

[ 29 December 2001: Message edited by: Kaptin_X ]</p>

[KYBO]

Kaptain M

I was an applicant for TAA & AN well b4 89. The 1st i heard from both companies was during the dispute

I declined because i supported u guys & also because it was not my sh*tfight. U get the picture that i didnt want to be take a job at the expense of u guys. In other words u lot had my full support & still do

Having said that let it go. Many friends of mine will never foreget but they have got on with life. U may say u have but u havent. I for one am so terribly tired of your continual ramblings re 89. Its finished get over it. & b4 u say that i have no idea re the personal costs many of u have gone thru well let me tell u I have & more as those who know me will attest to. Today i am enjoying life. WHY DONT U. There are many a fine man & gal amongst the 89ers but i really wonder if u deserved to be there in the 1st place

Tomorrow is a new day. Why dont u wake up smell the fresh air & LOOK FORWARD

Sorry woomera but it has to be said. Many mates of mine from 89 say the same about Kaptain M.

[Flat Side Up]

GosH, Kap M can you at least understand the simple fact that the "merciless culling of 5%" over the whole range of aircraft types was to leave a pool from which selections would be made to fill 340 positions with about 600 available pilots. In other words about 260 pilots who were suitable will miss out not because of any deficiency on their part.

Despite the untruth you insist on perpetrating it did not mean all or a majority of the junior pilots missed out. Those who missed out came from all levels including some APA reps as well as some management and your "heroes."

You can go on denying the truth in your usual manner but the only one being deluded is yourself. As an ancient philosopher once remarked "there is nothing objectionable about the physical act of masturbation except for the imagery and self delusion that goes with it."

Got to go ...duty calls.

[ 29 December 2001: Message edited by: Flat Side Up ]</p>

[B772]

It really is sad to see the collapse of AN and the bickering continue over a number of issues.

Some posters even fail to see that there are insufficient jobs at AN MK111 available for all the pilots to be re-employed.

It appears that of the remaining A320 pilots some will not be retained due to a number of reasons. In this day and age without a seniority system this is the prerogative of the employer.

Some pilots from other types in the AN fleet will be offered A320 positions to make up the required number of crew for AN MK111.

The decision by QF to follow Virgin Blue with high density seating plus AN MK111 operating the A320 only at this stage means less aircraft and pilots are required by all carriers compared to the past.

Even the 89's who returned to Impulse and Virgin Blue have had an impact on local crew requirements.

When you take higher crew utilisation into consideration it means even less crews are required and therefore fewer opportunities.

If there is an abundance of seats available with the present capacity what will happen to Virgin Blue early in 2002 when AN MK111 double in size and QF introduce 15 x B738's.

[Thumbs up]

To all those AN guys that missed out,I hope you get another look in very soon.It has been a tough time for all of us.

For me(a bus driver),it gives me some time to look for something else.Unless things change big time,there will be lots more.
It still looks like the same wolf,just in different clothing.

[Wizofoz]

Kaptin M certainly follows a curious logic train. He baslessly decides in his own mind that a certain set of facts exist, and then states them as gospel in post after post.

From what I can glean those A320 Captains "Culled" from Ansett Mk111 have mainly been guys who joined or re-joined the company prior to March 1989, in other words the very "Heroes" he claims have been self serving.

The simple fact is the Kaptin is wrong, wrong,wrong. But I hope no-one believes he will let the truth get in the way of a good story.

I actually intend to develop the art of self-delution to the same extent It must be nice to have your own private reality, maliable to whatever point of view you subscribe too.....

[Woomera]

Kaptin X, Kaptin M and their various seconds.

I've had enough of this.
It would be easy just to lock or delete this thread as the behaviour by some leaves something to be desired, but then the discussion would be lost for all.

First lets deal with some facts.

1989 happened; I think we can all agree on that.

The history thereof is well known to the actual participants.

The participants both local and those who came from overseas took a course of action, for whatever reason, which has led them all to where they are at this point in time.

Nothing can change that, nor mitigate the consequences of this or that course of action for any one of them.

The consequences for all including the general public were far reaching, in some cases devastating, but nonetheless inextricably intertwined in the history and aviation fabric of our nation. To suggest otherwise is nonsense.

There have been many casualties within the families of our profession, I would suspect on both sides of the divide equally. In any event, I think we are all much too professional to really want to compare body bags counts as a measure of who won.

The denouement, if indeed any is possible and to whatever result, is now being played out with the demise of Ansett and its mooted phoenix routine. For the record, Woomera does not nor will not have any comment to offer on that and is doing a crash course on the wisdom and workings of King Solomon's mind to that effect.

It is clear that there are varying degrees of comfort or discomfort in the manner in which this is taking place.

That is not going to change until there is a clear resolution in the hands of the creditors one way or another, the consequences of which will evolve in the fullness of time. It probably will not change in any event, as there are always two sides to an argument with all the shades of grey in between.

One way or the other, the world will continue to rotate on its axis in its endless orbit around the sun
Apart from the odd quibble does anybody have any argument with any of the above???

OK!

So lets get personal about Kaptin M's and X's '89, if I may be so bold.

In general terms.
Moderators will not be dictated to by members as to which is or is not a correct version of this issue or that piece of history.
Simply because, we do not have an opinion on any issues save that the threads or posts comply with the recently reiterated guidelines, each post therefore being as valid as the other.

We will not be party to nor are sufficiently clever to be abe to influence or encourage the writing or rewriting of history. Therefore moderation is simply applied to blatant eye gouging, personal and personality assasination and general misbehaviour, again as contained in the said guidelines.

We do not respond to threats of leaving these halls unless this or that is done or applied, beyond wishing you well and welcoming you back if you so desire, subject to the rules. That choice as ever is yours

We do not knowingly respond to intimidation by either side of a controversial issue in an effort to run whatever agenda, pro or anti.

In regard to Kaptin M et al, as long as they abide by the rules, they have as much right as any other member to be here and will be allowed to remain.

In regard to Kaptin X et al, as long as they abide by the rules, they have as much right as any other member to be here and will be allowed to remain.

In regard to Kaptin Ms many posts on the issues, that is his right as are the responses to them, again as long as they abide by the rules.

I can assure you Kaptin M is not afforded any more or less special attention than any other member. You can also be assured we keep a close eye on him and any others including Kaptin X who post in regard to ’89 issues.

Now for Kaptin X.
[quote] I make the assessment of Kaptin M because I AM a psychologist!!
It is, however, your ball, and if you choose to take it away, then I respect that decision, but you don't seem to apply the same vigour to Kaptin M's malicious posts.<hr></blockquote>
I remain unimpressed and IMHO it fails on several points.
1. Unsolicited assessments of an individual, easily identifiable by many, published on a publicly accessible forum by a "psychologist" would appear to be most unprofessional behaviour and might well have difficult professional consequences.
I am reluctant to repost what I presume is your "professional assessment as a psychologist" deleted from your last post re Kaptin M, save to say that it was deleted because it may have been actionable. I would much prefer, if you were sufficiently concerned in your "professional capacity" that you email it directly to him. I still have a copy if you do not.

2. A small thing but if you respect my decision why is it necessary to point that out, it's an old debating trick, you know, code for "I really don't agree", that's fine you are entitled to that.

3. You then go on to suggest that in some way I favour Kaptin M. Fair enough, that is always a possibility if you are prepared to accept that I probably err as much on the 'other side' as well. But you stopped me with the word 'malicious' which I find hard to separate with your "because I AM a psychologist", routine. Most of the psychologists I know are less shall we say, aggressive, in their language and a reread of the posts on the thread did not show any malicious intent beyond a concern, misplaced maybe who knows, for the junior pilots employment prospects based on his own experience paradigm in that context.
Neither are [quote]stupidity, and I see much of that in KM's posts - illogical, ill conceived, malicious drivel.<hr></blockquote> the words I would expect of a trained psychologist attempting to resolve a troubled "patients" problems.

You have to agree that
[quote]
I think perhaps I should have a psychiatrist friend email him privately with an on line diagnosis, and recommendations for possible treatment.<hr></blockquote>
is, if not just gratuitously insulting it is highly unprofessional.
If you are indeed a psychologist then surely you have a duty to put aside any personal angst in dealing with someone you perceive to be in trouble, maybe you have, but the message is getting scrambled, either way it's up to you.
You would also understand that it takes two or more persons being actively aggressive to generate conflict and maintain its momentum. Might I suggest some reflection on that as a concept?

OK now its Kaptin M's turn.

I understand the strength of your feelings and frustration and that the lessons of the past are sometimes forgotten, swept aside or even used against individuals or groups.

I am prepared to accept that for many of you overseas it must be even more frustrating to observe the goings on in your country of birth or nationality, from afar and not be able to be completely in the loop on the evolution and resolution by others on issues in which you were pivotal and about which you feel strongly.

May I ask you to accept that whilst you may be right, or wrong, about this or that, if others want to make what you may perceive to be, or know are mistakes, then let them. You can by expressing your view do all that you can for them; whether they choose to heed the advice or observation or not, the subsequent actions and consequences belong to them.

PPRuNe Towers and I have allowed considerable latitude in the robust and vigorous canvassing of '89 issues because we recognise unequivocally that it is a seminal event in the history of Australian aviation and industrial relations generally and that that history must be respected. It would be a great pity if it were marginalised in the minds of many by a well intentioned but intemperate few.

I ask you to heed the words of your peers; it may give you a wider more attentive audience.

TO ALL

As from right now though, there will be ZERO tolerance for anything other than very civilised discussion on the '89 issues from then or how they affect others now.

Anyone who cannot for their own personal and private reasons find that they are able to conduct themselves thus, can make the choice to remain silent or not.

I am very sincere when I say that we would rather have you around than not.

But we would exhort you to moderate your responses, offering the hand of friendship where this is possible and experience to the less enlightened where this is necessary.

It will not have gone unnoticed that PPRuNe Towers and I have been tightening things up a fair bit around here.

We are determined to do so to maintain the professional integrity and respect that PPRuNe enjoys Internationally.

We will not hesitate to act when it goes off the rails.

We will try as hard as we can to be even-handed within the guidelines.

But to do all of this we need your help.J

I implore you to take this in the spirit in which it is offered, reflect and resolve, put egos away (at least turn the wick down a bit) and lets try to start the NEW YEAR 2002 on as positive a note as we can generate.
God knows we all need it

Now may I wish you ALL a Happy, Prosperous and Angst Free New Year.

[ 29 December 2001: Message edited by: Woomera ]</p>

[Zoon5]

Amen!

[Buster Hyman]

I thought all Union reps were guaranteed positions as part of the deal with the ACTU? Are the APA members?

[Kaptin M]

Thank you, Woomera. It's difficult to pass comment without appearing to be a "smartarse" - that is certainly NOT my intention. I have looked in at this thread several times today and best thought it continue without any input from me - Kaptin_X's responses and accusations didn't go unnoticed (nor uncopied), however I felt the he, by his posts, was my best weapon! Enough said.

Further, I realise that I tend to "specialise" on this forum, on the events of 1989 - however, as this IS a Professional Pilots forum, it would be the ONE place where one would expect to have discussion on that subject - not ad nauseum obviously! However, it is quite apparent to many of us involved (on both sides of the fence) that there are still a number of KEY players in Australian aviation, who are able to determine how a rolled dice will land. Perhaps this is not apparent to many of today's "junior jetters" (judging by the "it's not relevant today" quips that occasionally appear), but it is these men ('89 Dispute pilots) who are often responsible for helping or hindering the careers of the up-and-coming Aussie pilots, (including some of the not so young ones as well) and I see GREAT RELEVANCE in the current goings-on within the Ansett pilot group!

The idea of this forum should be to stimulate THINKING, DEBATE, and finally come to a CONCLUSION after as many of the issues, arguments, and theories possible/probable have been presented. Personal attacks only take up valuable posting slots, and sidetrack the main core issue.

So finally to one of 772's comments (paraphrased), "[i]Where will Virgin Blue be in 2002, after Ansett and QF increase their fleet size?[i]"
I guess that will depend on whether VB are still filling their seats! Remember there are 3 players, and simply increasing aircraft numbers does NOT guarantee an increase in passenger and freight revenue, to the detriment of the other players.

[MT Edelstone56]

Kaptain M
I have mentioned before,you have an audience.

I don`t agree with your anti AN sentiments but don`t think younger pilots aren`t interested in the ramifications of the dispute.

To my AN colleagues,I know Kapt M is anti AN,this is not Stockholm Syndrome,but I think the harsh lessons of the dispute are pertinent to junior pilots.

[Kaptin M]

bd69, please don't confuse my anti-AN "hero" scribings with anti Ansett sentiments.
Ansett was undoubtedly the best company I have had the pleasure to work for, because of the STAFF. I have continued to remain in contact with many of my previous friends - no, none of them are "returnee pilots" (I'm not using the "S" word just at the moment, because of Woomera's words of advice) - among them are loaders, several traffic officers, and a couple of F/O's..some with a dependant family, some single.
Ansett had a great product because of its PEOPLE....Abeles was in charge when the badge:
"You can't
have the best
airline in the
world without
the best
people.
Ansett"
Unfortunately Abeles didn't realise this in 1989, and by some of the comments on other threads, FLEW Syn. needs to look to their staff NOW to avoid ending up with a small fortune!

I hope that Ansett does succeed in the extreme, to the point where they are able to re-employ ALL of those who WANT to return - with the obvious exceptions!

Again, from comments by PPRuNer's on other Ansett-related threads, I believe that the real agendas of some of the management-type '89 "returnees" have been shown to be self-serving, rather than for the benefit of Ansett and the pilot employees.

NOW is the time to look hard, ask "Why" certain tactics are being played, and challenge them if you are convinced that it is not the BEST possible solution!

[Whiskery]

As usual "M" - summed up precisely and to a tee!!!


Happy New Year Mate!!

[B772]

Kaptin M, my dilemma with Virgin Blue is an employment one. I was thinking about applying but I am not confident they will survive in their own right.

I understand Virgin Blue are in urgent need of further capital and breaking even profit wise at best. Their most recent profit announcement before the arrival of the 'expensive' a/c showed an average operating profit of 68c per passenger carried.

AN MK111 will no doubt commence business with a budget to 'fly the flag'.

FLEW know that there is only sufficient business for QF and one other main player. It appears that there is no love lost between FLEW and Godfrey so instead of working together against QF they will fight each other.

Who will have the deepest pockets and the most to lose ?.

[ 29 December 2001: Message edited by: B772 ]</p>

[Virgil]

Why is there not room for 3 players? VB and AN are well positioned. VB will have limited growth because of the terminal situation but their aspirations have only grown recently because of the Ansett collapse.

What's wrong with continuing with the 10% plan and AN Mk II taking up the slack. There is room for 3. So what if QF suffers a bit. Profits matter little except to support jobs....well atleast that is the view of most who navigate the loony terrain that is PPrune!

[Flyspray]

Woomera. Re your statement "Unsolicited assessments of an individual etc". I could not agree more with you.
My initial impression is that it is an intemperate form of bluster which fails to impress.